Skip to main content

Royal Rumble Prize

Hi Scott,

Quick question, followed by some of my own ruminations on the answer if I may:

Q: Should the WWE remove the prize of an automatic Wrestlemania Main Event title match for winning the Royal Rumble (and will they ever)?

For me I think the time has come to de-couple the two. By and large they got away with it up until 2004, then they had the option of multiple belts and multiple brands in order to add intrigue to the story of how the Mania upper card would be booked, but since they went back to 1 title belt in 2013 they have clearly run into problems both years and it seems to me that the automatic prize of a Wrestlemania Main Event is a really damaging and limiting the booking options.

It affects the booking of the Rumble itself as it makes it pretty obvious who will win it, usually between 1 or 2 at the most which takes away hugely from the enjoyment of the Rumble match as they have to book in line with the storylines and it removes any element of surprise or giving the Rumble win to somebody to elevate them or give them the rub.

It also cheapens the build to Mania itself  as even though there is a PPV still to go, the main event is set in stone which leaves the champion and challenger in limbo, and gives an awfully long time for them to keep the interest alive.

Also, as seen in the last 2 years, if the public don't like the choice it gives the WWE a massive headache in terms of having to salvage Wrestlemania and re-work the card to save face.

All that could be solved, meaning the road to Wrestlemania is more fun and unpredictable, by simply saying that from next year the Rumble match does not carry the same prize, and merely the prize is to be the winner of the Rumble.

Your thoughts?

​Yeah, I agree with your take here.  We're also at two years in a row now where the Rumble winner failed in the main event of Wrestlemania, which hurts the stipulation even more.  Not to mention the years where they'd fuck around with the title match via the Elimination Chamber anyway.  The Rumble is prestigious enough as it is and with PPV being dead anyway, there's really no pressing reason to determine the Wrestlemania main event that way.  ​If someone is worthy, the booking should reflect it well in advance.  


Comments

  1. "Hey guys, I've decided to help bring prestige to the US title, so put me over the undefeated heel at Wrestlemania yeah?"
    "omg John u r so selfless"
    "Also, I don't want to turn heel, not that it matters, because I'll still be in main events and get the world title back as a face anyway"
    "omg John srsly u r so great"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Exactly! Many of the best WM main event builds were in the days when the rumble was it's own event, pre 1993.

    I mean take 1987: andre should have won the rumble, but instead we got a great Story!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting. It would take a little getting used to for me, but hey, things change. I wouldn't mind seeing how they handled that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As much as I hated when there were two world titles, it did allow for more unpredictability as to who would win the Rumble. Like in 2012 when Sheamus won Rumble and challanged for the secondary world title.


    Maybe they can change it up to the winner of the Rumble gets an immediate title-shot. Like the Rumble could go on early in the show and the title match could go on last. Seems far-fetched though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Theberzerker, #1 HUSS CHOMPIONApril 1, 2015 at 6:59 AM

    I'm pretty sure whether or not he turns heel is a decision that's entirely out of his hands at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's not a bad idea, actually. It would still make the Rumble worth something.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Yep Mode" Abeyance Brown ©April 1, 2015 at 7:00 AM

    It all depends if he can still bring in the T-Shirt money.

    ReplyDelete
  8. How else would you determine a Wrestlemania main event? The days of building up a blood feud over half a year to blow off on the biggest show of the year are over.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Theberzerker, #1 HUSS CHOMPIONApril 1, 2015 at 7:02 AM

    Yeah. Though I will say, what with the surprises we've gotten at the last two Manias, I think that turn will finally happen eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Theberzerker, #1 HUSS CHOMPIONApril 1, 2015 at 7:05 AM

    I think this year is a good one to have the winner of the Rumble win the title again.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cenz has sold over a hundred different t-shirts, yet hasn't freshened up his music in over ten years.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Theberzerker, #1 HUSS CHOMPIONApril 1, 2015 at 7:07 AM

    By winning the Rumble, I mean. Flair '92 people, c'mon!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yeah it could never go back to simply being a nice feather in your cap to win the Rumble like it was pre-1992. It has to earn the winner something. But like many, the last two Rumbles have soured me on the whole "winner gets a title shot at Wrestlemania" stipulation. Not so much for the actual results of Batista and Reigns winning. But rather how they won (neither were in their respective matches that long), the fact that both Rumbles sucked overall, and the (understandable) backlash from fans after both Rumbles were pretty annoying.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Especially considering the company is so used to booking to get through the week, not the month or the year.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Andre - Hogen was also build from January on. It is also a matter og good story telling I guess? Idem Warriar - Hogan, which dis ise the rumble

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment