NintendoLogic Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 While watching Elimination Chamber, it occurred to me that the Royal Rumble has become just another PPV. MITB has taken its place as a way to elevate guys to the main event, and now the Chamber has taken its place as a way to establish feuds for Wrestlemania. When you take away those aspects and a Pat Patterson laying things out, all you're really left with is a big battle royal with some comedy spots. I wouldn't be surprised if it joined Survivor Series in becoming largely irrelevant. On a completely unrelated note, I've been watching a lot of Bret Hart lately. Five Moves of Doom is a myth, yo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregor Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 MITB has taken its place as a way to elevate guys to the main eventI dunno. Rumble winners traditionally have been main eventers already. It definitely elevated Shawn Michaels in 1995 and Batista in 2005. Yokozuna, Benoit, and Mysterio could be on that list, too. Most of the time, though, it's guys like Steve Austin or HHH who win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 MITB has taken its place as a way to elevate guys to the main eventI dunno. Rumble winners traditionally have been main eventers already. It definitely elevated Shawn Michaels in 1995 and Batista in 2005. Yokozuna, Benoit, and Mysterio could be on that list, too. Most of the time, though, it's guys like Steve Austin or HHH who win. And in Yokozuna's case, you can make the argument that the Rumble win was just part of his rise to the main event, in that he was going to get there anyway regardless if there was a Rumble or not. Agreed about it having already established main eventers win it far more often than not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 If you look at the history : 1988 : Jim Duggan : Rumble was just a special Battle Royal that year Then : 1989 : Big John Studd : failed attempt at revitilizing the career of Studd 1990 : Hogan 1991 : Hogan 1992 : Flair (winner gets WWF championship, the way for Flair to win it without pinning Hogan) Then, the gimmick of Winner goes to WM to face the champ : 1993 : Yoko (not yet a main eventer, but built to become one from the get-go) 1994 : Bret & Luger (one former WWF champ, and Luger who was already a main-eventer destined to get the belt at some point) 1995 : Michaels (elevated him to go to WM to face the champ; yet, after WM he got back at IC title level) 1996 : Michaels (finally elevated him to be a main eventer) 1997 : Austin (kinda already a main-event act, although never officialy main-evented a PPV, so this was the official elevation I guess) 1998 : Austin (the token predictable win to go to WM, the company was already built around him at that point) 1999 : McMahon (Russo era Rumble; swerve; vomit; killed the credibility of the match to me) 2000 : The Rock (already The Man) 2001 : Austin (already The Man) 2002 : Triple H (had to win it after Rocky & Austin damnit) Someone else can do the rest. But the Rumble really never was an event to elevate a new star. When it was the kinda the case, it was usually only the registration that the guy was on his way to win the title at WM, and not an "elevation" per say. Austin in 98, Michaels in 96 were obvious winners and the Rumble felt like a token win on the way (which is also why both were pretty boring). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted February 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 To be sure, I'm not saying that the Rumble win itself elevated someone as much as it served as confirmation that the winner was on his way to bigger and better things (or that someone who had been injured was definitively back in a couple of cases). And the main period I was thinking of was from 1993 (the first year the winner received an automatic title shot at Wrestlemania) to 2005 (the year MITB was introduced). Let's break it down: 1993-Yokozuna definitely. 1994-Bret had already won the title before, but his first reign was widely considered a flop, and he spent a good chunk of the previous year feuding with Jerry Lawler. This was part of building him back up as the ace. (Yeah, technically he tied with Luger, but we all know Bret really won.) 1995-This probably wasn't so much an attempt to elevate Shawn as it was building someone up to feed to Diesel. 1996-This was definitely part of building up Shawn as the guy. 1997-No elevation, just part of the WWF's screwy booking during the first few months of 1997. 1998-Austin was a runaway freight train by this point, but the Rumble win was the exclamation point. 1999-Ummm...yeah. Let's pretend this never happened. 2000-The first instance during this time period of the winner already being super over. 2001-Re-establishes Austin after a lengthy absence. 2002-Re-establishes HHH after a lengthy absence. 2003-Brock was already established, this was just part of his title chase. 2004-Benoit was a solid hand who had been in a few world title matches, but he wasn't anywhere near Wrestlemania main event level before this. 2005-Batista definitely. 2006 marked the first time since 1995 that the Rumble winner wasn't in the Wrestlemania main event, and it was all downhill from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregor Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 To be sure, I'm not saying that the Rumble win itself elevated someone as much as it served as confirmation that the winner was on his way to bigger and better things (or that someone who had been injured was definitively back in a couple of cases).Well, you did use the word "elevate" in your initial post, which was why I responded as I did. We might have different connotations of the word, so maybe that was my fault. 1993-Yokozuna definitely. 1994-Bret had already won the title before, but his first reign was widely considered a flop, and he spent a good chunk of the previous year feuding with Jerry Lawler. This was part of building him back up as the ace. (Yeah, technically he tied with Luger, but we all know Bret really won.) I can see Yokozuna's win working like a MITB win. I don't agree with Bret's win working like that, though. Hart had been feuding with Lawler for much of the year, but he was still treated like a top guy and had a lot of World Title matches on house shows. 1995-This probably wasn't so much an attempt to elevate Shawn as it was building someone up to feed to Diesel. 1996-This was definitely part of building up Shawn as the guy. Michaels was pretty much the top face when he won the Rumble in 1996. I kind of drifted away from watching wrestling around 2006, but from the list of MITB winners it doesn't look like there's anyone with a similar stature who won MITB (correct me if I'm wrong, because I very well may be). Austin in 1998 is kind of the same, except the WWF was WAY more about him in January 1998 than it was about Michaels in January 1996. 2001-Re-establishes Austin after a lengthy absence. 2002-Re-establishes HHH after a lengthy absence. Is there someone who won MITB under similar circumstances? 2004-Benoit was a solid hand who had been in a few world title matches, but he wasn't anywhere near Wrestlemania main event level before this. 2005-Batista definitely. 2006 marked the first time since 1995 that the Rumble winner wasn't in the Wrestlemania main event, and it was all downhill from there. Around here, the Rumble starts being a way of getting guys over, and it looks like a shift from what it had been from 1998 through 2003. I think that these three winners are all comparable to guys who have won MITB. I don't really see an MITB comparison for guys like Michaels in 1996, Austin in 1998, and HHH in 2002 - whose MITB win has been a definitive win/exclamation point on an obvious run to the title? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 The Rumble winner was in the opening match last year, and I wouldn't be surprised if Bryan/Sheamus opens this year. They've been gradually eroding the credibility of the Rumble, but they've also been doing the same thing to their titles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 This deserved it's own thread in my view. It's an interesting discussion about how WWE has changed methods/tactics over the years in building to Mania. I actually think I see both sides of the argument. To me the Rumble looks like it is becoming the vehicle to set the "b" main event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 This year it looks like it's setting the "c" main event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 This year - if Shaq v. Show comes off - Bryan v. Sheamus will likely be fifth from the top. Possibly sixth if they go the route of a six or eight man tag for control of GM status which I fully expect after last night Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Evans Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Bryan/Sheamus will probably open the show like Del Rio/Edge last year. I like the Rumble just because it's the one ppv that they really haven't changed much. Good thing they scaled it back to 30 this year after 40 last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rzombie1988 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 I think one should take into account the usual Undertaker match at WM when ranking matches. Taker's match is always a main event these days and will only get stronger. No matter who else is on the card, no one will be bigger than Rock in the main event though. SD has been raped since the beginning in importance and being on SciFi and on Fridays only hurts it more, not to mention most of the talent on that show not being "A" level. As for the devaluing of the Royal Rumble, the booking of it has really hurt it. I didn't even download it this year, which is the first time I have not seen the Rumble. Elimination Chamber hurt it as well. However, the last few years EC has been very good. If they only have it decide one of the WM main events, I think that would be better. The ppv before WM has always been doomed anyway. It's always kind of filler as RR and WM are the two most important events of the year. EC might be better fit before Summerslam(unless they bring back King of the Ring). I did like it when Brock got a Summerslam title shot for winning King of the Ring. It made it seem more valueable. In my fantasy booking, I always changed the schedule with RR taking place the event before WM and the KOTR winner getting the title shot at Summerslam. As for the 30 vs 40 debate, it depends on who is in it and how it is booked like anything else. I thought the 40 man Rumble sucked, but I enjoyed some of WCW's World War 3's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Actually Bryan v. Sheamus technically opened the show last year too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 I didn't mind them using 40 guys last year, but I agree it's good they've gone back to 30. It's the one WWE match I can watch with some of the awe and wonder I had as a little mark. Kofi doing handstands was a genuine mark-out moment for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 I wish they'd bring back the Ultimate Survival Match at Survivor Series and then have the winners there get automatically good Royal Rumble draws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 After thinking about the Multi-man tag, I wonder if they still have plans for a MITB match at Mania. With tonight's injuries, they may not be able to fill both matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted February 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Well, you did use the word "elevate" in your initial post, which was why I responded as I did. We might have different connotations of the word, so maybe that was my fault. I probably could have worded it better, but I suppose I got my point across eventually. I can see Yokozuna's win working like a MITB win. I don't agree with Bret's win working like that, though. Hart had been feuding with Lawler for much of the year, but he was still treated like a top guy and had a lot of World Title matches on house shows. He was a top guy, but Luger was being positioned as the tippy-top guy. The Rumble was the start of the shift back to Bret. Is there someone who won MITB under similar circumstances? Arguably RVD in 2006, but that wasn't so much for him as it was for the new ECW. I don't really see an MITB comparison for guys like Michaels in 1996, Austin in 1998, and HHH in 2002 - whose MITB win has been a definitive win/exclamation point on an obvious run to the title? This past year is interesting in that it provides a direct apples-to-apples comparison. Del Rio won both the Rumble and MITB and received a far bigger boost from the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.