The Official Royal Rumble 2016 Thread

**Evil Vito** · 01-25-2016, 08:33 AM

What made the ending of the match fall flat in my opinion is that they completely forgot the context of what was supposed to be happening. Triple H comes out, and do they sell it as the COO abusing his power to his own nefarious ends? Do they speculate about the fact that the most powerful man in the company drew the best number? Do they talk about how it's obviously a set-up? No, Michael Cole continues his bizarre gimmick for this show of being utterly obsessed with how many Royal Rumbles someone's been in. Rather than all of the storyline-centric comments that I just listed, Michael Cole's reaction to Triple H entering the Rumble is "HE'S BEEN IN NINE ROYAL RUMBLES!".

I expected they'd play up some dissension between Reigns and Ambrose on the "every man for himself!" front, and was genuinely surprised that they didn't, and by the manner of Reigns getting eliminated. That was fun. Ambrose wrestling Triple H was sloppy as hell, though, really ugly stuff.

But now, let's go back to context. Why was Triple H in the match? His end-goal wasn't to become WWE Champion, it was to stop Roman Reigns from becoming champion. Anyone else, practically, would have been preferable. Given the match's earlier history of outside interference, it's clear that Triple H could have screwed over Reigns without entering the match himself. Even if you accept that Triple H had to enter the match to attain his goal, when his target, and only real concern, is Roman Reigns, then why bother dicking around with Dolph Ziggler? And - context again - when we've just seen The Miz sit outside the ring and pick his spots, why wouldn't Triple H do the same? And then, once Reigns is out, why wouldn't he just get back in and help his best friend? You could argue fair play, but surely it's acceptable revenge for the guy who almost certainly orchestrated an assault on Reigns specifically designed to take him out of the match?

So what we end up with is, because of the announcers' inability to sell the story of the feud, and the context-blind booking, Triple H winning clean. We're supposed to think that Triple H screwed Reigns out of the match and be chomping at the bit for Reigns to get revenge, but Triple H didn't do anything wrong. He entered the match as a legal entrant, and eliminated Reigns well within the rules of the match. Not only that, but Triple H was returning from injury and eliminating the guy who put him on the shelf - that's a babyface performance. On top of that, Reigns sat out half the match only to come in later to try and win - admittedly through no fault of his own (arguably - he was capable of walking out) - and that was something we had, only minutes earlier, been encouraged to resent The Miz doing. Context.

01-25-2016, 08:33 AM	#11
Evil Vito President of Freedonia Posts: 58,329	What made the ending of the match fall flat in my opinion is that they completely forgot the context of what was supposed to be happening. Triple H comes out, and do they sell it as the COO abusing his power to his own nefarious ends? Do they speculate about the fact that the most powerful man in the company drew the best number? Do they talk about how it's obviously a set-up? No, Michael Cole continues his bizarre gimmick for this show of being utterly obsessed with how many Royal Rumbles someone's been in. Rather than all of the storyline-centric comments that I just listed, Michael Cole's reaction to Triple H entering the Rumble is "HE'S BEEN IN NINE ROYAL RUMBLES!". I expected they'd play up some dissension between Reigns and Ambrose on the "every man for himself!" front, and was genuinely surprised that they didn't, and by the manner of Reigns getting eliminated. That was fun. Ambrose wrestling Triple H was sloppy as hell, though, really ugly stuff. But now, let's go back to context. Why was Triple H in the match? His end-goal wasn't to become WWE Champion, it was to stop Roman Reigns from becoming champion. Anyone else, practically, would have been preferable. Given the match's earlier history of outside interference, it's clear that Triple H could have screwed over Reigns without entering the match himself. Even if you accept that Triple H had to enter the match to attain his goal, when his target, and only real concern, is Roman Reigns, then why bother dicking around with Dolph Ziggler? And - context again - when we've just seen The Miz sit outside the ring and pick his spots, why wouldn't Triple H do the same? And then, once Reigns is out, why wouldn't he just get back in and help his best friend? You could argue fair play, but surely it's acceptable revenge for the guy who almost certainly orchestrated an assault on Reigns specifically designed to take him out of the match? So what we end up with is, because of the announcers' inability to sell the story of the feud, and the context-blind booking, Triple H winning clean. We're supposed to think that Triple H screwed Reigns out of the match and be chomping at the bit for Reigns to get revenge, but Triple H didn't do anything wrong. He entered the match as a legal entrant, and eliminated Reigns well within the rules of the match. Not only that, but Triple H was returning from injury and eliminating the guy who put him on the shelf - that's a babyface performance. On top of that, Reigns sat out half the match only to come in later to try and win - admittedly through no fault of his own (arguably - he was capable of walking out) - and that was something we had, only minutes earlier, been encouraged to resent The Miz doing. Context.