Raw *spolier*

[Aussie Skier]

Battle Royals:

WHy have 2 in the space of 3 months? Cant they find more creative matches to determine the number 1 contender? Maybe something like how they established the wwe tag team championship belts, thru a series of matches? Maybe they could've done something like that, ala KOR style

[Kane Knight]

Because they couldn't think of a better way to suck up a half hour.

[Mayo]

A tournament is really much more creative, but I agree that they shouldn't just stick 20 jobbers plus 6 guys that have a longshot chance at winning plus 4 guys that may actually win it in a ring together and see what happens. I would prefer a four way match, or a match where they take the 4 likely guys to win the battle royal, randomly make two tag teams from those 4 men, and the tag team that wins must face one another later that night for the #1 spot.

[Kane Knight]

I don't like 20 man matches done this way anyway. If it was Royal Rumble style, with a constant influx of people, it'd be cool. But starting with 20 people and action no-one can follow as a lead in to 6 people duking it out is lame.

[Transplant]

Maybe they should do more games of musical chairs to find No. 1 Contenders.

[Kane Knight]

Maybe they should do more games of musical chairs to find No. 1 Contenders.
I prefer pin the tail on the donkey.

[Transplant]

I prefer pin the tail on the donkey.


I thought they would have banned that match for its immaturity.

[Kane Knight]

:roll:

Or something.

[Transplant]

Might have been its brutality, I cant remember.

Could have been banned after the World Wildlife Fund won its lawsuit, and put in some strange clause in the lawsuit that the WWE couldnt harm any animals, including 2-Dimensional ones.

[Kane Knight]

The WWF's latest campaign...

SAVE THE ASSCLOWNS!