Does the guarantee of a title shot devalue the Rumble match itself

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Karaoke Of Cosmos, Nov 21, 2014.

  1. Everyone loves the Royal Rumble, one of the only times of the year when people are actually excited for the product. The match concept is fun and can launch a persons career in to the next level, however each year it seems rather predictable who will win before the event and it takes it away the enjoyment of the match as a title shot is given to the winner. 1-3 only possible candidates have a chance. No way am I saying guys like Heath Slater should win it should be someone more credible and winning should give them a push but with a title shot being awarded makes it boring in a way. What do you guys think?
  2. Would you really think more guys had a chance if the title shot wasn't on the line? Answer still has to be no.

    Things are always going to be predictable when you are a "smart" mark. Obviously we understand the Rumble is a huge kayfabe accomplishment and very few guys are going to be realistically considered for it by WWE brass. That's just the way things are.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Personally I think they should just put all the names into a hat pull a random name out to decide who the winner will be and say fuck predictability!.. but hey that has like 0% chance of ever happening.
  4. You say this, but then when the main event of Wrestlemania is Lesnar vs Darren Young you start to reconsider
    • Agree Agree x 6
  5. Sounds like MOTY quality right thurr, DY would clearly take the cake :p
  6. Probably not that others would get a chance but it should be, in now way am I saying Darren young are someone of that level should win it, it should be used as a tool to build someone up other then giving it to Cena to win again to boost his ego and so called legacy.
  7. I'm not sure how winning a match that earns you a title shot in the main event of the biggest show of the year is "devaluing" it, but OK.

    The Rumble match would be less predictable if it weren't for a guaranteed title shot, sure, but that type of thing doesn't really bother me much. A lot of things in wrestling (and storytelling in general) have predictable outcomes that I wouldn't want changed or fucked with, and the Rumble match happens to be one of them. As long as they can usually get me thinking that there's at least two (or maybe even three) possibilities on who could win, then I'm good.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Sheamus won and never was in the main event and he fought for the B prize so that is devaluing it and the match he won the title was a joke. All I am saying is this can still be used to build someone but maybe replace MITB as a true way to build a star of the future. Sheamus had already won the title before he won this match.
  9. I just don't think it opens up the field any. The same few guys would be considered to win the rumble with or without the WM title shot IMHO
  10. OK, I still don't get how that is devaluing it. You're arguing that they should just ditch the idea of earning a title shot via a Rumble victory entirely, so what difference does it make what spot on the card Sheamus won the title on? He was still challenging for a world title. Compare that to someone winning the Rumble and earning nothing in return except the bragging rights of saying they won it.

    I'm not absolutely against taking the title shot stipulation away, for the record, but I don't think it's a detriment to the concept of the match either.
  11. There's still the random unpredictable element to the RR, even with the title guarantee --- take Heath Slater. what if he's in line for a push, comes out #1, eliminates the most people, gets robbed of the victory in the end. No title match for Heath, but he would look strong after a showing like that, and then there's the follow up of his crusade for revenge against whoever cost him the title shot.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. In my opinion, the Money In The Bank Ladder match has devalued the Royal Rumble.
    It is the match that takes the unknown and makes them known.
    Had the MITB Ladder match never conceptualized we would be holding the Royal Rumble in far higher regard,

    Ultimately, the Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania must connect. The two must be symbiotic or the luster falls of the rose. The Road To Wrestlemania doesn't begin otherwise.
  13. With or without a guaranteed title shot, Royal Rumble still fn' rules, imo!
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. If anything devalued the Rumble it was Elimination Chamber, which kayfabe-wise was just as meaningful since there was 2 "winner gets to ME Wrestlemania!" matches per year.

    If Money in the Bank and Royal Rumble wins are going to be WWE's only way to elevate stars (besides Bryan), more power to them. Doesn't really affect the other, imo.

    Although I would like to see one surprise winner one year, you kinda can't do that with no brand split, but that also makes the Rumble more meaningful as they can't bullshit you out of the WM main event
  15. The Royal Rumble doesn't generally elevate stars any longer.
    The last non-main eventer to win the Royal Rumble was Alberto Del Rio in 2011.
    Before that, you have to go back to 2006 to see WWE elevate anybody by winning the Royal Rumble.

    With MITB, every year except 2009, WWE has elevated a (at least one) complete midcarder by virtue of winning the ladder match.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. That's my issue with the MITB match at this point - other than the fact that I'm burned out by MITB matches in general due to the over-saturation of them, I find it lazy and uninspiring that their way of always elevating a new superstar now is by having them win the MITB match. Worse than that is the fact that other than the failure of a select few, I hate that so many guys' first world championship victories has to be the result of cashing in on a wounded opponent. It's cool and works brilliantly sometimes (Edge in 2006 for example), but it gets old when it happens all the time.

    I know they won't do it since it's one of their bigger PPVs now, but I wouldn't mind them dropping the match entirely and only bringing it back on occasion.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Agreed on MITB. It kinda takes away that thing where guys work to build their way up the card to then get to the main event to then get to the World title. Now they're in the midcard and just win the belt. That I think devalues the belt, or at least is kinda stupid. I mean, you think about how guys like Swagger and Ziggler are former World champs and it's just odd (not that I don't think Dolph deserves a main event push, but he's normally booked as a midcard jobber, we know very well).

    And as far as the Rumble goes, well, I don't think it devalues the match. It may make it a bit more predictable, but I for one think it's a lot better than just having a wacky Battle Royal for the hell of it. It wouldn't be absurd to do it but the way it is done is better imo.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. I disagree with both of you completely.
    The MITB cash in is the only reason I even bother watching that crappy company anymore.
    I'm not going to knitpick in what is, without fail, a very hot and dramatic moment.
    Part of the glamour of the MITB cash in is the fact he didn't scratch and claw to win the da*n thing.
    The heat on the new champion, moving forward, is fresh and welcoming.

    Every MITB winner worked day in and day out to even be considered for the honor of retrieving the briefcase.
    Climbing the ladder is a metaphor and, though you downplay it, are more interesting than the lame builds WWE inorganically delivers year in and year out.
  19. What was lame about Shawn Michaels' climb to the top in 1996? His victory over Bret Hart at Wrestlemania 12 would have meant slightly less if he had already cashed in and won the title for a short period the year before. Same for Austin's rise in 1998. Or Batista and Cena's rise in 2005. Daniel Bryan may have already won the title before, but his road to victory at Wrestlemania 30 still proved WWE can book someone's journey to winning the strap right when they want to (putting aside the fact that they were sort of forced into it by the fans in Bryan's case.)

    I don't mind MITB matches, but
    always relying on them to crown someone a world champion for the first time is lazy booking to me. That's why I don't mind it when an already established star (Cena, Kane, Orton, etc.) wins the briefcase, or when an uncrowned world champion fails in their attempts at cashing in (Sandow, etc.) It shakes things up and makes them less predictable and avoids always having a superstar's inaugural world title win begin the same old way.
  20. Would prefer if WWE had one way to create a new star than 0