King of the Ring 2012?

[Swiss Ultimate]

Two things...

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fPG055LRbSM?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fPG055LRbSM?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

and

Are they having one this year?

[Anybody Thrilla]

I haven't heard anything about it yet, but it seems like a good fit for Wade Barrett. Maybe even Cody Rhodes. As long as they don't incorporate the actual monarch aspect into their gimmicks.

[Nicky Fives]

If it isn't a 32-Man or 64-man tournament to make it seem more important, I don't care......8-Man isn't enough.....

[MoFo]

MITB does the same job, and is more exciting.

So probs nah.

[ooTin]

hope so

[Shaved Monkey]

I haven't heard anything about it yet, but it seems like a good fit for Wade Barrett. Maybe even Cody Rhodes. As long as they don't incorporate the actual monarch aspect into their gimmicks.

Or at least if they're going to do that don't make it look like they got their stuff from the dollar store.

[Anybody Thrilla]

At very least.

[Indifferent Clox]

I agree with 32 man tourney.

[Anybody Thrilla]

If it isn't a 32-Man or 64-man tournament to make it seem more important, I don't care......8-Man isn't enough.....

Having a 32 or 64 man tournament presents the event as if there are actually that many people who are potentially worthy of being King of the Ring. A smaller tournament adds an air of prestige to even being involved. Any more than 16 is too much, I think.

[Shaved Monkey]

At very least.

Felt so bad for Sheamus when he was wearing that king nonsense. Every time he came out wearing that get up I always cracked up. He just looked absolutely ridiculous.

[loopydate]

Having a 32 or 64 man tournament presents the event as if there are actually that many people who are potentially worthy of being King of the Ring. A smaller tournament adds an air of prestige to even being involved. Any more than 16 is too much, I think.

You could always set it up as three "qualifying matches" to advance. Plus, if you did it in the spring, you could parallel the NCAA basketball tournament's upsets and give somebody like a Trent Barreta or Yoshi Tatsu a "Cinderella story" run to the Sweet 16.

[Crimson]

Wouldn't it fit Daniel Bryan well if he won and then he'd be wearing the crown all cocky with his YES YES schtick.

[Swiss Ultimate]

MITB does the same job, and is more exciting.

So probs nah.

I couldn't disagree more. MITB feels like a "wildcard" event. King of the Ring is a slow journey that builds up to a major push.

Having a 32 or 64 man tournament presents the event as if there are actually that many people who are potentially worthy of being King of the Ring. A smaller tournament adds an air of prestige to even being involved. Any more than 16 is too much, I think.

I like the idea of a big tourney though, it gives them the opportunity to give a rub to some of the lower and mid-card with matches that actually matter.

You could always set it up as three "qualifying matches" to advance. Plus, if you did it in the spring, you could parallel the NCAA basketball tournament's upsets and give somebody like a Trent Barreta or Yoshi Tatsu a "Cinderella story" run to the Sweet 16.

The Cinderella Story here would be fantastic. Have they ever done it before? I can't remember.

[Anybody Thrilla]

Savio Vega went to the finals once. That's about as Cinderella as it's gotten, I think. Who the fuck really wants to see Trent Baretta knocking people off, though? There's a way to push somebody, and the tournament as it stands does not have the prestige to do it.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Hmmm...what about a Zack Ryder win?

[RiX1024]

Mason Ryan for King Of the Ring 2012.

[#1-norm-fan]

If they did do one, it seems like something they'd give to Wade Barrett.

Seems like a heel always wins it though.

I vote for "King Funkasaurus".

[Swiss Ultimate]

They seem to be skipping years. 2008, 2010...if they're doing it now, it might be a good idea to go with an underdog winning it all.

[Rammsteinmad]

Cena wins.

[itsmeJD]

Cena wins.

This! Only after taking each of the other 7 competitors finishes and beating them in a 7 on 1 handicap King of the Ring Final.

[Jordan]

Billy Gunn won the King of the Ring, remember that?

[itsmeJD]

Billy Gunn won the King of the Ring, remember that?


Unfortunately yes. I also remember Ken Shamrock won that shit too didn't he? 1998 I believe.

[#1-norm-fan]

King Mabel

[itsmeJD]

King Mabel

While Mabel was a shit wrestler, him winning King of the Ring saved the wrestling world from having to hear him, Mo, and Oscar perform their even worse "rap music". I would rather see Mabel's fat ass with a crown on his head than challenging P.N. News for who the shittiest rapper was.

[Jordan]

While Mabel was a shit wrestler, him winning King of the Ring saved the wrestling world from having to hear him, Mo, and Oscar perform their even worse "rap music". I would rather see Mabel's fat ass with a crown on his head than challenging P.N. News for who the shittiest rapper was.

That was by far the worst King of the Ring tournament. All the matches were lame, HBK got eliminated due to bullshit, and Mable won. Then he goes on to Main Event Summerslam 95 which was a good PPV except Diesel/Mable.

Billy Gunn wasn't as glaringly bad til a few months later when they aborted his push. He has a good program with the Rock and then that amazingly hot match with Triple H for the title on Raw. That was it though.

Shamrock also sucked as King, but that PPV was fantastic.

My favorite King's were Bret, Owent, Austin, and Triple H. I really liked the 97 tournament (though I haven't seen it since '97).

[itsmeJD]

That was by far the worst King of the Ring tournament. All the matches were lame, HBK got eliminated due to bullshit, and Mable won. Then he goes on to Main Event Summerslam 95 which was a good PPV except Diesel/Mable.

Billy Gunn wasn't as glaringly bad til a few months later when they aborted his push. He has a good program with the Rock and then that amazingly hot match with Triple H for the title on Raw. That was it though.

Shamrock also sucked as King, but that PPV was fantastic.

My favorite King's were Bret, Owent, Austin, and Triple H. I really liked the 97 tournament (though I haven't seen it since '97).

I think my favorite KotR was Bret's only because I remember being legit surprised when Lawler came out and whooped Bret's ass over being declared the King.

[Nicky Fives]

Having a 32 or 64 man tournament presents the event as if there are actually that many people who are potentially worthy of being King of the Ring. A smaller tournament adds an air of prestige to even being involved. Any more than 16 is too much, I think.

Agree to disagree.....having to win 5 matches to win the tournament will make it seem more important..... especially if some lesser known guys pull off some upsets early on....an easy way to push a guy like Tyson Kidd, Trent Barreta or anyone else in the lower card to midcard status by simply gaining an upset or fluke win via shenanigans on an established star.....

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Would prefer a bigger tournament too, but with the final 8 doing the rest of the tournament in one night. Lost a lot of excitement for me when it was over multiple shows.

[Corporate CockSnogger]

Did I just see people insulting Billy Gunn? Fucking barbarians.

[Schlomey]

do they have the roster depth for a 32 man tournament without making it overkill and unbelievable?

[Swiss Ultimate]

Dunno...how many jobbers do they have working these days?

[Jordan]

I think the 16 man tournament would suffice, that way if you did an underdog angle say with Trent Barretta he could get the win on Smackdown or Raw over someone like Cody or Wade Barrett and be kinda big shock, going into the PPV it would be a wild card to see if he could do it again.

[Jordan]

Really hate having draws and no contests to make the tournament fit on one PPV though.

[Jordan]

do they have the roster depth for a 32 man tournament without making it overkill and unbelievable?

Well we had 30 people in The Royal Rumble and about 10 were jokes or Legends, and with the amount of people bitching about other guys not used in the match I'd say we could easily fill 32 spots for a tournament.

[Nicky Fives]

exactly.....

[#1-norm-fan]

do they have the roster depth for a 32 man tournament without making it overkill and unbelievable?

Drew McIntyre vs. The Great Khali
Alex Riley vs. Hunico
Curt Hawkins vs. Kofi Kingston
David Otunga vs. Mason Ryan
Dolph Ziggler vs. Ezekiel Jackson
Epico vs. R-Truth
Jack Swagger vs. Jey Uso
JTG vs. Justin Gabriel
Primo vs. Ted DiBiase
Tyler Reks vs. Santino
Cody Rhodes vs. Booker T
Trent Baretta vs. Jinder Mahal
Tyson Kidd vs. Jimmy Uso
Wade Barrett vs. Yoshi Tatsu
Jerry Lawler vs. The Miz
William Regal vs. Heath Slater

I think that would be a fun tournament without even using Cena, Kane, The Miz, Daniel Bryan, The Big Show, Sheamus, Orton... ya know, the real solid main eventers that really don't need to be taking losses just to get knocked out of the tournament and don't need to win either.

[Anybody Thrilla]

But...you booked The Miz there.

As far as an underdog taking the tournament down, I'm not going to argue that it might be fun to watch, but I highly doubt that winning the tournament would automatically put the winner over. The tournament simply lacks the prestige in which to do that, and really, there isn't a single event on the calender that DOES hold that prestige. Overness is a slow build, and anything otherwise will seem forced.

[#1-norm-fan]

My mistake. Apparently I subconsciously put him on a higher level than he is. I don't think he's at that point where he's too big to compete in the tournament (Cena, Punk, Orton) or too fragile to suffer a loss right now (Kane, Brodus) or deeply ingrained in a main event title picture (Punk, Bryan, Sheamus).

He'd be fine as a winner and it would be acceptable for him to lose at some point.

[Swiss Ultimate]

I think that you're right that the King of the Ring no longer has the name-prestige to put someone over, that said, the event itself is what does it. If they book it right and the opportunity to shine is there, the potential for greatness is great.

Back when I was still watching TNA they had a big tournament for the NWA World Title which Rhyno won after already competing in a Monster's Ball Match. Obviously Rhyno wasn't exactly an underdog or an unknown, but people were really into the story.

[#1-norm-fan]

And, while it's a cheap tactic, they can always use the "This tournament has been won by guys like Triple H, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Bret Hart, Kurt Angle, Edge, Brock Lesnar, Randy Savage, Harley Race..." trick to make it seem like it's wildly prestigious. The same trick they use to make the World Title seem more prestigious than it really is anymore by hyping it's history and saying lots of hugely popular names.

[Swiss Ultimate]

In theory the guy holding the belt is the best in the business.

[#1-norm-fan]

Yeah, but then there's situations where the title's been thrown on Jack Swagger and they say "This guy is holding the same title Ric Flair had so many times..."

SOUNDS good...

[Anybody Thrilla]

Well in that vein, if they want to even keep the inkling of prestige that it may have, adding Trent Barreta to that list would not be wise...unless they had huge plans for him afterwards.

No offense to Trent, btw. I enjoy his work. Just saying.

[#1-norm-fan]

Well, next time they do it if Trent goes on to be a flop, they just wouldn't mention his in the list of past winners.

[Anybody Thrilla]

Michael Cole would.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Yeah...he would. Not his fault though, just reads what they give him.

[Anybody Thrilla]

My point stands.

[XL]

Would prefer a bigger tournament too, but with the final 8 doing the rest of the tournament in one night. Lost a lot of excitement for me when it was over multiple shows.
They stopped doing that because it was a "crowd killer" seeing the same guys repeatedly throughout the night and that lackluster reaction to the event no doubt helped kill it off as a PPV. It also allows for more guys to be on the card.

They seem to be skipping years. 2008, 2010...if they're doing it now, it might be a good idea to go with an underdog winning it all.
That's what I'd go with.

The end result wouldn't have to be pushing a guy to the moon but just making them relevant/cemeting them in the midcard/marking them as "one to watch". A guy like Barreta or Johnny Curtis or Michael McGillicutty (with a new gimmick) would be my pick to win something like this.

Actually, what I just described could be an all new tournament in its own right. A kind of "Next Big Thing" Tournament that would put a little bit of steam behind a guy they wanted to push.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I'd like to see King of the Ring given another shot as a PPV.