![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#41 |
Let me talk to ya
Posts: 11,749
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Curtis Axel will never die.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 |
( ._.)
Posts: 14,250
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Because less is more.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 |
b/c 5 is better than 4
Posts: 9,721
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I'm surprised by the number of opinions contrary to mine....Props to you all for the discussion just the same.....
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 |
( ._.)
Posts: 14,250
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Did you like my use of the toilet paper commercial?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 |
I believe in Joe Hendry
Posts: 22,349
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
cause your posts are poop, Savior?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 |
Posts: 61,536
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I've got the very unpopular opinion that the Rumble should no longer be for the title shot. If you're trying to present wrestling a sports-based concept, then the idea of the biggest match of the year being so heavily influenced by "luck" is sort of baffling. There was a time when the Rumble winner getting an automatic title match at WrestleMania worked and was a great way of anointing a guy to carry things moving forward, but in an era where the product is more transparent and fans don't appreciate being manipulated and bite back against predictability, I think the Rumble would generate a lot more interest if it were "freed up" so to speak.
* The chances of an unpredictable winner goes up. Realistically, when you are talking about the WrestleMania title match, you only have a few guys that are going to be in there. Roman Reigns, Brock Lesnar or John Cena are basically your shortlist of guys. Maybe The Rock if they can get him back. The idea that Kevin Owens or Dean Ambrose could be the 2016 Royal Rumble Winner goes up if you remove the title shot stipulation. * Backlash against Batista and Roman Reigns winning at the past two Royal Rumbles is immediately lessened if so much pressure isn't put on them winning. Batista returning to the win the 2014 Royal Rumble seems like far more of a "Well, of course him winning it makes sense" if he's not bumping Daniel Bryan out of a desirable spot; and Reigns winning as a relatively huge feather in his cap is far less offensive to people when it doesn't necessarily come attached to the idea that Daniel Bryan is out as golden child. * The Rumble is enough of an attraction on its own. People get excited about the match every year, but when was the last time a guy actually winning it was considered "important"? It's arguable that no one has really gotten a "rub" from winning since Alberto Del Rio. To go back and find someone who won the Rumble as a big lead-in to a first title match and they actually got to headline Mania, prior to Roman Reigns, you have to go back to Batista in 2005. The WWE has trouble creating new stars, and something like the Rumble hasn't been bastardized too much to the point where it wouldn't help someone "randomly" winning. But it could use some fresh winners -- guys that the WWE might not be willing to get 100% behind right now in the star-centric WrestleMania season. Someone like Dolph Ziggler might get quite a lot out of an impressive Royal Rumble win, and help give other areas of the Mania card a boost. Someone like Sami Zayn showing up and actually winning the Rumble in a debut showing makes him appear to be a hot commodity, gives him HUGE credibility out the gate, and could be used to fuel a WrestleMania IC Title match against Kevin Owens for him. |
![]() |
![]() |