TheDieselTrain
Fry's dog Seymour
Chicks Dig Hootie.
Is Stone Cold gonna have to smack a bitch?? WHAT!!!?????
Posts: 23,724
|
Post by TheDieselTrain on Nov 29, 2007 13:15:50 GMT -5
So i'm watching some old stuff from 2002 and JR is mentioning that HHH won the rumble by beating 29 other men. Now in actuality unless you actually eliminate every single person you haven't really beaten 29 other guys. I dont know why but that kinda irked me for some reason.
You don't hear people who win tag matches or 6 man tags say that they beat 2 or 3 other guys last week when they win multi-man matches now do you?
|
|
Steveweiser
Dalek
Mickie Mickie You're So Fine... Hey Mickie!
THE GRAPS
Posts: 50,249
|
Post by Steveweiser on Nov 29, 2007 13:19:11 GMT -5
Only HBK, Vince, Benoit and Rey have ever outlasted 29 other men, but they didn't eliminate all of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caglar13 on Nov 29, 2007 13:24:50 GMT -5
As much as I enjoy the Rumble's I wish they would just start out with all 30 guys in the ring. I know, then the match itself wouldn't last as long, but watching one of the World War 3 ppv's the other day I realized how much I liked the concept of just having everyone out there. It would make it more unpredictable.
|
|
|
|
Post by WinOwensWin on Nov 29, 2007 14:23:48 GMT -5
I just wish the WWE wouldn't make it so obvious who was going to win the Rumble each year. Everytime January rolls around, they always give a mega push to the one guy who will win. It was somewhat different this year with HBK/Taker, but if they would make it look like there are legitimately 10-15 who could win the rumble, it would make it more exciting.
|
|
|
|
Post by seano on Nov 29, 2007 14:46:12 GMT -5
I guess the "logic" (insert snickering laughter here) is that - for example - if you eliminate someone who himself eliminated 3 or 4 people, you in turn eliminated those same 3 or 4 people. Hence, the guy who wins the Rumble eliminated all the other 29.
It'd be more accurate to say you OUTLASTED 29 other men. Because if you're the last one, well.....everyone else didn't make it that far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woooooolhouse! on Nov 29, 2007 16:39:23 GMT -5
Just because of this complaint, they probably will have Triple H eliminate all 29 other men this year so he can legitimately make that claim. Way to go TheDieselTrain. Way to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arturo Classico on Nov 29, 2007 16:42:27 GMT -5
I'm hoping Flair wins the rumble this year. If not him than I want Edge. But really anyone but Batista, Orton HBK or HHH
|
|
Ace Diamond
Patti Mayonnaise
Believes in Adrian Veidt, as Should We All.
mmm...flavor text
Posts: 36,043
|
Post by Ace Diamond on Nov 29, 2007 16:47:45 GMT -5
I just wish the WWE wouldn't make it so obvious who was going to win the Rumble each year. Everytime January rolls around, they always give a mega push to the one guy who will win. It was somewhat different this year with HBK/Taker, but if they would make it look like there are legitimately 10-15 who could win the rumble, it would make it more exciting. I actually think that right now this year, we may have a "anyone can win" mentality, given how odd the main event scenes are right now. |
|
|
|
Post by no2humanorchid on Nov 29, 2007 17:09:24 GMT -5
As much as I enjoy the Rumble's I wish they would just start out with all 30 guys in the ring. I know, then the match itself wouldn't last as long, but watching one of the World War 3 ppv's the other day I realized how much I liked the concept of just having everyone out there. It would make it more unpredictable. Oh my God I hated those World War 3 Matches.IMO they were the BIGGEST clustersmurf of any type of Gimmick match EVER!!!WCW personified!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Arturo Classico on Nov 29, 2007 17:34:25 GMT -5
As much as I enjoy the Rumble's I wish they would just start out with all 30 guys in the ring. I know, then the match itself wouldn't last as long, but watching one of the World War 3 ppv's the other day I realized how much I liked the concept of just having everyone out there. It would make it more unpredictable. Oh my God I hated those World War 3 Matches.IMO they were the BIGGEST clustersmurf of any type of Gimmick match EVER!!!WCW personified!!! Yeah I totally agree, plus the whole thing that make the Royal Rumble to be special is that it's Battle Royale with people coming in every 60 seconds. Without that difference who would care about it? It would just be a battle royale. |
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Nov 29, 2007 17:37:57 GMT -5
Simple: It makes the win sound bigger than it really was in the context of the match.
|
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Nov 29, 2007 18:33:25 GMT -5
I seriously have no idea who's gonna win the next Royal Rumble.
|
|
erik316wttn
Samurai Cop
Wrestlecrap's #1 SUNNY mark
Posts: 2,490
|
Post by erik316wttn on Nov 29, 2007 19:12:50 GMT -5
I guess the "logic" (insert snickering laughter here) is that - for example - if you eliminate someone who himself eliminated 3 or 4 people, you in turn eliminated those same 3 or 4 people. Hence, the guy who wins the Rumble eliminated all the other 29. It'd be more accurate to say you OUTLASTED 29 other men. Because if you're the last one, well.....everyone else didn't make it that far. I don't even think that "outlasted" is entirely accurate. Say you enter at 28, are in for 10 minutes and win. Some other people were in for 20+ minutes and didn't win. You didn't really "outlast" them. But I'm analyzing this way too much. |
|
Ass Dan
King Koopa
Curious about extra lines
Have you seen me?
Posts: 12,259
|
Post by Ass Dan on Nov 29, 2007 19:17:32 GMT -5
I seriously have no idea who's gonna win the next Royal Rumble. And neither does WWE. |
|
|
|
Post by Caglar13 on Nov 29, 2007 22:59:11 GMT -5
You're right. I don't really have much to say on it as the last Rumble I watched was 2000. It just seems like throughout the entire thing there's maybe a max of 6 guys in the ring at one time. If there is more than that about half way through some big guy like Kane or BDV eliminates everyone. It's just too predictable by the time they get to the 30th entrant. Maybe I'm just a big WCW mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by machinegun on Nov 29, 2007 23:01:47 GMT -5
Someone should eliminate all 29
That would be smurfing hilarious
|
|
|
|
Post by britishbulldog on Nov 30, 2007 13:31:51 GMT -5
they need to go back to the original concept. I will allow the 30 men in but make the intervals 2min.
|
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Nov 30, 2007 13:33:46 GMT -5
they should have some mystery entrants in the '08 Royal Rumble.....the last time they did that was RR '01 with the Honky Tonk Man
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Nov 30, 2007 14:11:20 GMT -5
As much as I enjoy the Rumble's I wish they would just start out with all 30 guys in the ring. I know, then the match itself wouldn't last as long, but watching one of the World War 3 ppv's the other day I realized how much I liked the concept of just having everyone out there. It would make it more unpredictable. You get a convoluted Battle royal without surprise which is what the rumble was all about, surprise, comedy, and other things. Rumbles are about fast paced eliminations and guys hanging by the skin of their teeth. Having all 30 guys in one ring at one time leads to huge messes like those battle royals on RAW. Eheh. Actually foley at the '04 rumble was also a surprise entrant. I think the winner this year isn't clear, but Triple H is a strong possibility |
|
