Should the Royal Rumble ever be used to elevate an unknown?
 

As of late, I've been thinking about how they had Santino and Del Rio as the final two at last year's Royal Rumble. Granted, we all knew that ADR was gonna win, but the idea of someone like Santino unexpectedly winning was intriguing. How would you react if someone like Drew Mcintyre or Tyson Kidd won the Royal Rumble? Will it help with the transition into the main event scene? Will the fans buy into it?

I'd enjoy it solely for the shock factor and the kayfabe idea that anybody can win the rumble, rather than just one of the two or three guys they've pushed hard in the past few weeks.

with so much money tied into mania i think no. you need some real stength out front so the rumble winner needs to be a sure bet. that said this year, with Rock/Cena headlining, i think this is the one exception where you could have a relitive unknown upset and win the rumble. but as a rule, no.

I would like to see it, but it won't happen.....

Having relative unknowns win the World Heavyweight Championship is fine but having them win the Royal Rumble is OUT OF THE FUCKING QUESTION.

Sure you're not suggesting Daniel Bryan is a relative unknown?

No. Elevating unknowns is what MitB is for.

lol This makes me want to take a sign to an event that says "WHO IS THAT GUY WITH THE BELT"

I think with two "main event" titles, you can afford to have someone who isn't quite at the "main event of WrestleMania" level win. Like last year. Del Rio was not ready to main event WrestleMania but he won the Royal Rumble, got a World title shot in a match that didn't have the pressure of being THE main event and all was well.

This year, WrestleMania is being sold on Rock-Cena. Add to that Taker's streak and another "main" title match and I don't see why the winner NEEDS to be someone huge.

Santino was an unknown last year?

Well he was a main event unknown.

You know, they could really elevate an unknown without him winning the Rumble. Just having an amazing showing and making it to the final few should be enough.

Though the IWC may be the wrong place to suggest this, as it's also the place where you can have a meteoric rise adn still be in the doghouse.

i agree with every word of this

I agree with Iginfest. But don't tell him that.

Having an "unknown" win the Rumble would take long term compelling story telling and WWE doesn't do that.

I think that's the exact opposite of what it would take...

I kinda like the idea of giving the reward of an elimination chamber spot to the runner up in the Rumble or the person that lasts the longest.

I'm going to assume he meant post Rumble to hype said person.

Winning it? No. A low carder taking out a high mid-carder to main eventer?

Yes!

It didn't really work out with Maven when he eliminated Undertaker, but the whole idea of trying to "make" someone works in an environment like the Rumble. One man wins, 29 men lose. So, say... Alex Riley makes it into the Rumble, is in the "final 4" an eliminates a guy like HHH or Taker...it might build him up for a nice mid-card match for Mania. Or a DiBiase. Not too many guys who are lower than mid card who could pull it off.

Should the Royal Rumble ever be used to elevate a joke?

NO

It seems to me like the Rumble hasn't been used to its "full potential" since 2006 when Rey Mysterio won it.

I feel like the Rumble should be used to help to elevate a wrestler on the cusp of the main event and solidify them as a star.

Not for established people like Taker/Cena/Orton/Edge to win.

Alberto Del Rio was a nice try, but did not quite work out. His turn into a star only came with the Money in the Bank.

they've used MITB to make new stars for the most part, I think the Rumble will be used for established guys

I don't think the idea is a terrible one. I mean, I remember suggesting last year that Daniel Bryan potentially win the Rumble and have his Road to WrestleMania essentially be about his build to the main event -- perhaps even with Vince McMahon trying to strip Bryan of his earned title shot, because he's not enough of a "big name."

And that's essentially how I would go with an "unknown" winning the Royal Rumble. Kofi Kingston, or someone, wins it, and whatever authority figure is running the show is sort of like "Yeah, dude, I know -- but WrestleMania is meant to be big, you know? So I'm going to put you through all these tests."

Paul Heyman booked Mikey Whipwreck to be a great ECW Champ, Santino could totally pull it off with the right booking.

Give Trent Baretta the win and test this theory

What do you really mean by unknown? A person never before seen in the WWE or not known to be a main event player?

Nobody really is unknown if they work for the WWE.

More accurate when discussing Marella.

I would like it. But as people mentioned, it would be hard with the money on the line for WM.

But I wouldnt mind seeing a newer type win it, and with everyone treating it as a fluke. Then roll that story out into EC. Have a guy like Miz says its a fluke, but let the person in question get some clean raw wins over big names, and then defend his rumble win in the EC or something and win. Then they will have a nice legit build up to WM.

I meant a person not known to be a main event player. No way in hell should they ever pick some celebrity to win it. But getting back to my point, the rumble should be a little more unpredictable. Building a darkhorse who wins the rumble is arguably easier than someone who cashes in on a down champion.

In theory it should be once in a while,the whole idea that anyone can win it would get some legitimacy. It makes even more sense when you consider that theres two world title matches at each 'Mania,and in this years case the Cena/Rock match is the main event anyway. The only real problem is how they'd book the winner afterwards,if they portray it as a fluke without building them up before 'Mania its a waste,essentially you've got the same scenario as MITB in how the winners perceived. Although if the follow Hanso/Noids approach you get someone a solid 2-3 month exposure which is more than most Rumble winners get or need.

I always thought the nobodies should get the occasional bone anyway, especially in the era where they most promoted "Anything can happen in the WWF/E."

But I maintain, you don't have to actually win to have that happen. Just giving a solid showing against a champion, in the rumble, etc is enough. The title/event is less material than a good showing. It might be more legitimising in the long run to have a hot match over a sudden win.

Assuming they can keep focused for more than three weeks.

Like Glanville said,making it to the final four and eliminating a HHH/Undertaker calibre talent should be enough to elavate a talent, but yeah it all comes down to how they follow that up.

And Kane Knight already kinda said before that....:p

Yeah but i like Glanville:kiss:

As Glanville and whiteyford have suggested, you don't need to win the Royal Rumble to be elevated from it. Didn't it use to be that at least one of the Final Four was not exactly a big name star? I remember in 2001, you had Billy Gunn in there right up until the end. Even Kane doing so well and setting records and the like was a bit of a surprise.

In 2002, Mr. Perfect came in third place, I believe, after Kurt Angle and Triple H -- lasting longer than Stone Cold Steve Austin -- who won the event in 2001. Going back in time, 2000 had X-Pac make the Final Four, coming in at #30 to eliminate Kane before getting tossed by Big Show (but technically coming in third place), with Billy Gunn almost making the Final Four again.

I think the only problem with Glanville, and who ever else's point, is that getting down to the last few is only benificial if thats built upon, actually being a Rumble winner gives them a level of credibility regardless,i can't think of anyone whose won the Rumble that hasn't went on to be a World champion eventually. The problem there is that they used to put the KOTR over like that too.

I agree entirely. Just doing well in the Royal Rumble, as has been brought up here time and time again (Billy Gunn, Maven, X-Pac, etc.) isn't enough if it's not done right.

They tried harder with Maven than anyone, too. I think they did it right, but...just not with the right person. If I remember correctly, this was 5 months or so before Taker and Jeff Hardy had that ladder match. I think Jeff Hardy in that Maven spot would have worked really well and put Jeff over really well.

Not that Hardy wasn't over, but he could have been a main eventer right there.

I think it could be used to give a Superstars/NXT guy credibility in a feud with an upper midcard guy he eventually "costs" a title shot to by eliminating him. I think it could also be used to give a midcard guy on the cusp a boost to main event status, assuming he has had some build up prior.

Having someone like Barretta or Kidd actually win the Rumble would be shocking, but after that wore off the majority of the fans would tune out.