Hey Scott,
Just wanted to throw an interesting Rumble stat at you for blog discussion. I'm a huge Rumble fan, and was thoroughly entertained (for one reason or another) by this year's show. And on a side note, I love Daniel Bryan and would have loved to see him be a surprise entrant and win it, but let's be honest, you had to have your head up your rear end to not see Batista winning that thing. Everyone hooting and hollering about it in the aftermath and expecting it were setting themselves up for disappointment.
Anyway, throughout many of the years in the Rumble, the winner would often hold at least one, if not both sometimes of the Rumble "honors" as I like to call them - one being the longest-lasting guy in the ring and the other having the most eliminations. However, this year's Rumble marked the 8th straight year now that the winner held neither. Do you think that's their new strategy for booking a Rumble? The thought process being you can push 3 different guys in the match by having 1 win, 1 last the longest and 1 have the most eliminations? And don't you think that kind of lessens the impact made by the winner? I mean, I would like the winner at times to go the distance like Benoit or Mysterio, or toss out a bunch of guys like Stone Cold or the Hulkster. Eight years is quite the streak. Your thoughts? Thanks!
So they're 50/50 booking the Rumbles now even is what you're saying? I'm not particularly surprised. Pushing everyone = Pushing no one.
Thank you emailer for pointing out those disappointing statistics.
ReplyDeleteIt was painfully obvious this year that they wanted to push Reigns, but not quite all the way. So he sort of won the Rumble. Which is stupid.
ReplyDeleteReigns should've won. They could've gotten out of him wrestling for the title at WrestleMania pretty easily if they wanted to, but he deserved the win and the crowd would've loved it. Instead, everyone crapped on Batista.
While punk was this years iron man, he wrestled an uninspiring rumble. He laid on the ground alot and u could tell he already checked out.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if they are ever going to have someone steamroll through the Rumble and win in again. Reigns next year?
ReplyDelete1- He wasn't ready yet
ReplyDelete2- It would have totally devalued the Rumble if they got him out of wrestling for the title.
So no, just no.
I disagree with your second assessment. It's happened before (Austin in 1997, McMahon in 1999). It's not the act of doing it that devalues the match, it's the booking around it.
ReplyDeleteI felt the same way about last year's match - Ryback really should have won it.
ReplyDeleteI mean, not that he would have been my first choice, but out of the last two remaining (Cena and Ryback), Cena was just so painfully obvious. Let Ryback face ADR or whomever else they wanted as World Champion, and then have Cena win the "Chamber" to face Rock.
I was originally with you but I've backed off this stance a little. Think I called it a "temper tantrum", but to be fair...we don't know how banged up Punk was. He MIGHT have agreed to go out there and just do what he could so a pretty weak RR (in terms of star power) would have a star in it throughout most of its duration.
ReplyDeleteI think we're now kinda reaching for things to complain about.
ReplyDeleteI've never really looked at it from a statistical point of view, but there have definitely been too many winners that didn't really do much in the match. Out of twenty-seven Rumbles, SEVENTEEN of them were won by someone entering in the last third of the match. Hell, ELEVEN of them were won by someone that entered in the last QUARTER of the match!
ReplyDeleteI don't mind the idea once in a while, but there have been far too many for my taste. Cena coming back as a surprise #30? Very effective surprise. Yokozuna winning from #27? Definitely, a guy that big and that "fresh" in the match is very effective heel booking. But then you get Edge at #29 or Batista this year at #28, and it just reeks of wanting that person to win, but knowing that they're not in good enough shape yet to actually look like they deserve it. And Brock at #29? Brock Fucking Lesnar doesn't get to spend half the match killing people to death?
Lesnar had already wrestled a match earlier in the night, so they might've wanted to keep him fresh. Also, of the late-entry winners, you have guys like Hogan or Batista who weren't really capable of long stints in the ring in the years that they won (though Batista did last from #8 until the final three in the 2008 Rumble).
ReplyDeleteAlso, just looking at the Rumble from a kayfabe perspective, logically you would have the large majority of winners coming into the match as late draws.
2: How would Ryback wrestling (then) World Champ Del Rio "get him out of wrestling for the title"? He wouldn't be the first Rumble winner to challenge the WHC... oh and it gets Swagger out of the match. Win/Win, I say.
ReplyDeleteShit... I just realized you're not responding to who I thought you were. Just ignore the above.
ReplyDeleteI felt like it devalued it in both 1997 and 1999, as well as 2006 when Rey lost his title shot but then got it back out of sympathy, and in 2008 when Cena won it, and challenged Orton at the No Way Out PPV. It's already damaged, I think they should just stop messing with it.
ReplyDeleteWe'll have to agree to disagree. I think the booking in 1997, 1999 AND 2006 covered their asses and managed to tell stories (maybe not great stories in terms of 2006, but it was definitely A story...).
ReplyDeleteI think the lackluster matches and the way-too-predictable finishes of the last few years hurt the match more than the booking of the weeks after.
TJ: A someone that I work with has Randy Orton's theme as her ringtone. I gave her an RKO for being stupid.
ReplyDeleteYea, that's the point and it makes sense. Numbers matter.
ReplyDeleteNo no no. I hate this booking. Anyone can win the Rumble and we'll just get them out of the title shot and completely devalue the point of the Rumble.
ReplyDeleteWhy would Ryback face Del Rio when he can face The Rock?
ReplyDeleteNo, the booking in 2006 sucked.
ReplyDeleteRey loses his title match to Orton and then Teddy Long just puts him in the match because.....?
You had 1997, 1999 and 2000 where they got screwy with the Rumble and I remember online a lot of people were getting tired of it. And rightfully so.
Fucking with the point of the Rumble just devalues the Rumble.
Logically, though, it really would be a lot less likely for someone coming in at the front half of the match to go all the way to the end to win it. If this were an actual competition, there would probably be even less people winning from the earlier numbers.
ReplyDeleteIf she doesn't change it, she gets the draping DDT next.
ReplyDeleteI repeat from above:
ReplyDelete(maybe not great stories in terms of 2006, but it was definitely A story...)
I didn't say the booking didn't suck, but they were telling a story, trying to build sympathy for Rey leading to his title win. Maybe it came off poorly, but I can see what they were doing there.
The WWF introduced the title match stip in 1993. In 1994, they got cute with it, with the Hart/Luger co-winners. They gave HBK two straight wins without going wonky, then back to screwy in 1997, 1999, 2000. Then, there's 6 years where they played in straight before the 2006 storyline Rumble.
Since then, as often as not, the Rumble winner didn't MAIN EVENT WRESTLEMANIA, they just got a title shot.
The match is a springboard for another match two months down the line. The way you ruin it is taking the suspense out of it, as they've down for a while now. Doing stupid storylines after the match doesn't devalue the match. Not wanting to watch because you know what's going to happen takes care of that.
Rey goes an hour in the RR to win, gets goaded and stupidly puts hit title shot on the line, which he loses, despite the fact that his opponent told him his recently deceased friend was in hell and then only gets his title shot back because the General Manager gave it to him.
ReplyDeleteThat story sucks and makes Rey look bad.
I agree that if you win the RR and curtain jerk Mania, that's bad. I don't mind the winner being predictable. Sometimes predictable booking is the best booking. Cena winning plays up 2013 being his year for redemption after a horrible 2012.
Shemaus winning was unpredictable at least. As was Edge
He looked uninspired and beat the hell up at the same time. Color me not surprised when news broke before Raw he went home. Watching live, I couldn't help but notice he had fallen off the face of the earth for most of the match once Sheamus came in.
ReplyDeleteI think the 'winner gets a title shot at Wrestlemania' limits their booking - since realistically there's only a tiny handful of people there who realistically have a shot. You can't use a Rumble Victory to elevate a mid-carder like Reigns who you want to push but isn't quite in position for a title shot. So instead of having something clear and straightforward "2014 Royal Rumble Winner", you have to use statistics like "most eliminations", "longest stay", "longest stay for guy who entered in first two", etc.
ReplyDelete*NOW*?
ReplyDeleteShe'll get a Daniel Bryan chant instead.
ReplyDeleteShit in her purse.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there's anything wrong with pushing multiple people in a Rumble, it makes sense since there's 30 people in the match.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is when the winner is some late entrant (25~30) who comes in, does absolutely nothing, and wins after eliminating 3 people. The winner should have some memorable spots where he looks like he's earned his win rather than a guy who lucked out by entering late.
The one thing it does is re-push the importance of the luck of the draw. That had been totally lost for quite a while, it felt like there were too many "marathon winners". But the past few years, mostly late numbers have won, so that's one bright side.
ReplyDelete