Royal Rumbles

**The Mackem** · 08-03-2004, 08:17 PM

Right 92 Savage throws himself over the top rope at Jake the snake Roberts but can go back into the match, forward to 2000 maybe 2001 and Kane eliminates himself and is out. Logic please?

Oh and 89 was a pointless event right? When did the Royal Rumble start to mean something i.e title shot/title for the win etc?

**Disturbed316** · 08-03-2004, 08:27 PM

I think the Royal Rumble actually 'ment' something around 90/91.

And as for the Savage/Kane thing, I dont know, maybe so that the fans could see Savage abit longer

**AareDub** · 08-03-2004, 08:31 PM

The reason something like that was allowed is because it happened more than 3 weeks apart from each other. Therefore, we don't remember it.

**ColdwaVer** · 08-03-2004, 09:34 PM

I think Savage wasn't supposed to go over the top. Andre eliminated himself in 89 (I think) to get away from the snake, and was out.

**mrslackalack** · 08-03-2004, 10:27 PM

in the 97 Rumble Mil Masercas jumped off the top at someone and they said he Eliminated himself.

**DaveWadding** · 08-03-2004, 10:46 PM

91 was the 1st year the title shot rule went into effect.

**ColdwaVer** · 08-03-2004, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveWadding

91 was the 1st year the title shot rule went into effect.

Actually, no. Hogan won the Rumble and got the shot, yes, but that wasn't a stip of winning. Hogan was announced as the #1 contender on SNME following the Rumble. Reasons were given for several contenders; the Ultimate Warrior had never received a title rematch after WMVI, Randy Savage really really wanted one, and Hogan had just won the Rumble. Hogan was given the shot, and Warrior and Savage had their "career ending" match instead. The 92 Rumble saw the winner crowned WWF champion, as the title had been vacated the previous November. 93 saw the actual "winner gets a title shot at WM" rule go into effect, as with the previous year's winner winning the title, it would sort of cheapen the meaning of winning the Rumble if you got nothing specifically for it.

**The Mackem** · 08-04-2004, 09:30 AM

The thing about the 92 Rumble is that when Savage throws himself over and starts brawling with Jake, The Undertaker comes out of the ring and tries to help Jake and get Savage back in the ring. I know Jake and Undertaker were sort of friends at the time but if it were to happen now you would think that Undertaker would be going out to tell Savage what an idiot he was and trying to get him back in the ring to kick his ass. Also Monsoon and Heenan are trying to come up with explanations as to why Savage wasn't eliminated.

LK · 08-04-2004, 11:25 AM

Just watched the match yesterday. When Savage jumped over the top rope Heena said something like a rule of the rumble is that the wrestler must be thrown over the top rope butt that completly contradicts what had happened 10 minutes earlier. Bossman went to attack Flair and did a flying clothsline but missed and went over the top rope himself.

**DaveWadding** · 08-04-2004, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdwaVer

Actually, no. Hogan won the Rumble and got the shot, yes, but that wasn't a stip of winning. Hogan was announced as the #1 contender on SNME following the Rumble. Reasons were given for several contenders; the Ultimate Warrior had never received a title rematch after WMVI, Randy Savage really really wanted one, and Hogan had just won the Rumble. Hogan was given the shot, and Warrior and Savage had their "career ending" match instead. The 92 Rumble saw the winner crowned WWF champion, as the title had been vacated the previous November. 93 saw the actual "winner gets a title shot at WM" rule go into effect, as with the previous year's winner winning the title, it would sort of cheapen the meaning of winning the Rumble if you got nothing specifically for it.

I'd just started watching at the time...and I remember the whole "winner gets a WM title shot" stip being said..but I don't spefically remember it being said that it was the 1st time. Then again I was like 6 years old..so I'll be fuck if I could remember something that trivial...ah well, thanks for the correction anyways.

**The Mackem** · 08-04-2004, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by legendkiller

Just watched the match yesterday. When Savage jumped over the top rope Heena said something like a rule of the rumble is that the wrestler must be thrown over the top rope butt that completly contradicts what had happened 10 minutes earlier. Bossman went to attack Flair and did a flying clothsline but missed and went over teh top rope himself.

Yeah exactly. It's not like it was Savage's first Rumble either, the idiot. Ah well the feud was so intense I don't blame Savage for forgetting the rules

**Xero** · 08-05-2004, 12:58 PM

I REALLY want to know what would have happened if Zach Gowen was in a Rumble... Would they change the rule for him? Make him wear his prosthetic? Have him win but then change the desision? (In which case they would have to throw him in the main event picture)

**The Mackem** · 08-07-2004, 10:08 AM

96 is more confusing. Vader and Yokozuna are at the ropes trying to et each other out and they end up getting eliminated by Michaels. Vader flips and comes back in the ring and "eliminates" most of those still in the ring. Everyone who was eliminated ends up coming back in.

**Rob** · 08-07-2004, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdwaVer

Actually, no. Hogan won the Rumble and got the shot, yes, but that wasn't a stip of winning. Hogan was announced as the #1 contender on SNME following the Rumble. Reasons were given for several contenders; the Ultimate Warrior had never received a title rematch after WMVI, Randy Savage really really wanted one, and Hogan had just won the Rumble. Hogan was given the shot, and Warrior and Savage had their "career ending" match instead. The 92 Rumble saw the winner crowned WWF champion, as the title had been vacated the previous November. 93 saw the actual "winner gets a title shot at WM" rule go into effect, as with the previous year's winner winning the title, it would sort of cheapen the meaning of winning the Rumble if you got nothing specifically for it.

I remember something like a coin toss between Hogan and Warrior. They said that was the reason in WWF magazine but I don't know if it actually ever happened.

**Aussie Skier** · 08-10-2004, 08:22 AM

WWE just tried to cover it up
As far as I know, Savage just jumped to the outside on instinct, so monsoon tried to cover it up.

WWE wants us to forget about this...so we should

**Chavo Classic** · 08-19-2004, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xero Limit 126

I REALLY want to know what would have happened if Zach Gowen was in a Rumble... Would they change the rule for him? Make him wear his prosthetic? Have him win but then change the desision? (In which case they would have to throw him in the main event picture)

That's genius! Pass it on over the internet and hopefully Zach will get wind of it, come back before the Rumble and win it. COMEBACK OF THE DECADE!

**asphyXy** · 08-19-2004, 03:42 PM

I want to gather a group of 50 people to attend a Royal Rumble. Then, towards the end, we will all rush toward the ring and wreak havoc. What would the WWE do? They'd have to give one of us the title shot.

**SOLE SURVIVOR** · 09-16-2004, 08:17 PM

Basically. It aided storyline. Savage eliminated himself to get at Roberts. They eliminate themselves when its to go to an angle. They don't when its just an accident.

Also 1993 was the first Royal Rumble when a guaranteed Mania title match was awareded. Yokozuna won by eliminating Savage

**The Mackem** · 09-16-2004, 08:33 PM

Yeah but Savage returned to the ring so effectively didn't "eliminate" himself.

**SOLE SURVIVOR** · 09-16-2004, 08:37 PM

Well what I mean is Piper eliminated Bad News in Rumble 90. In that Rumble the elimination stood to set up the feud for Wrestlemania VI. When in later years when others were tossed out by an eliminated star. They were allowed back in. So it basically comes down to whatever the angle allows

**loopydate** · 09-16-2004, 08:37 PM

I always thought it would be funny if somebody got thrown out onto their back and just kicked their legs up in the air to keep their feet from touching. Then, they'd put one foot on the apron or barricade or steps (depending on where they got thrown), and then pull themselves up so that they're standing on the other foot, then hop around ringside for a while before rolling back in.

**Volchok** · 09-17-2004, 04:52 PM

yeah but you would have to land on your back and it would kinda hurt...

**The Mackem** · 09-17-2004, 07:43 PM

LOL imgine trying to land from a Big Show slm on one foot, if you survive the broken leg, I doubt you'd want to continue.

08-04-2004, 11:25 AM	#9
LK It's Clobbering Time! Posts: 5,337	Just watched the match yesterday. When Savage jumped over the top rope Heena said something like a rule of the rumble is that the wrestler must be thrown over the top rope butt that completly contradicts what had happened 10 minutes earlier. Bossman went to attack Flair and did a flying clothsline but missed and went over the top rope himself. Last edited by LK; 08-04-2004 at 01:10 PM.

08-03-2004, 08:27 PM	#2
Disturbed316 Posts: 22,695	I think the Royal Rumble actually 'ment' something around 90/91. And as for the Savage/Kane thing, I dont know, maybe so that the fans could see Savage abit longer

08-03-2004, 08:31 PM	#3
AareDub I Hate Bottles Posts: 4,362	The reason something like that was allowed is because it happened more than 3 weeks apart from each other. Therefore, we don't remember it.

08-03-2004, 09:34 PM	#4
ColdwaVer Darth Teedious Posts: 4,634	I think Savage wasn't supposed to go over the top. Andre eliminated himself in 89 (I think) to get away from the snake, and was out.

08-03-2004, 10:27 PM	#5
mrslackalack Mr. Slack A Lack Jack! Posts: 4,390	in the 97 Rumble Mil Masercas jumped off the top at someone and they said he Eliminated himself.

08-03-2004, 10:46 PM	#6
DaveWadding LIMITLESS Posts: 32,276	91 was the 1st year the title shot rule went into effect.

08-04-2004, 09:30 AM	#8
The Mackem VG + Q&A FORUM REPRESENT Posts: 38,940	The thing about the 92 Rumble is that when Savage throws himself over and starts brawling with Jake, The Undertaker comes out of the ring and tries to help Jake and get Savage back in the ring. I know Jake and Undertaker were sort of friends at the time but if it were to happen now you would think that Undertaker would be going out to tell Savage what an idiot he was and trying to get him back in the ring to kick his ass. Also Monsoon and Heenan are trying to come up with explanations as to why Savage wasn't eliminated.

08-05-2004, 12:58 PM	#12
Xero He's Here Posts: 60,735	I REALLY want to know what would have happened if Zach Gowen was in a Rumble... Would they change the rule for him? Make him wear his prosthetic? Have him win but then change the desision? (In which case they would have to throw him in the main event picture)

08-07-2004, 10:08 AM	#13
The Mackem VG + Q&A FORUM REPRESENT Posts: 38,940	96 is more confusing. Vader and Yokozuna are at the ropes trying to et each other out and they end up getting eliminated by Michaels. Vader flips and comes back in the ring and "eliminates" most of those still in the ring. Everyone who was eliminated ends up coming back in.

08-10-2004, 08:22 AM	#15
Aussie Skier So long, Eddie! miss you. Posts: 1,910	WWE just tried to cover it up As far as I know, Savage just jumped to the outside on instinct, so monsoon tried to cover it up. WWE wants us to forget about this...so we should

08-19-2004, 03:42 PM	#17
asphyXy Chill out, dickwad. Posts: 17,219	I want to gather a group of 50 people to attend a Royal Rumble. Then, towards the end, we will all rush toward the ring and wreak havoc. What would the WWE do? They'd have to give one of us the title shot.

09-16-2004, 08:17 PM	#18
SOLE SURVIVOR Posts: 29	Basically. It aided storyline. Savage eliminated himself to get at Roberts. They eliminate themselves when its to go to an angle. They don't when its just an accident. Also 1993 was the first Royal Rumble when a guaranteed Mania title match was awareded. Yokozuna won by eliminating Savage

09-16-2004, 08:33 PM	#19
The Mackem VG + Q&A FORUM REPRESENT Posts: 38,940	Yeah but Savage returned to the ring so effectively didn't "eliminate" himself.

09-16-2004, 08:37 PM	#20
SOLE SURVIVOR Posts: 29	Well what I mean is Piper eliminated Bad News in Rumble 90. In that Rumble the elimination stood to set up the feud for Wrestlemania VI. When in later years when others were tossed out by an eliminated star. They were allowed back in. So it basically comes down to whatever the angle allows

09-16-2004, 08:37 PM	#21
loopydate FIT Challenge Slag People Posts: 13,816	I always thought it would be funny if somebody got thrown out onto their back and just kicked their legs up in the air to keep their feet from touching. Then, they'd put one foot on the apron or barricade or steps (depending on where they got thrown), and then pull themselves up so that they're standing on the other foot, then hop around ringside for a while before rolling back in.

09-17-2004, 04:52 PM	#22
Volchok L.G. Fuad Posts: 4,834	yeah but you would have to land on your back and it would kinda hurt...

09-17-2004, 07:43 PM	#23
The Mackem VG + Q&A FORUM REPRESENT Posts: 38,940	LOL imgine trying to land from a Big Show slm on one foot, if you survive the broken leg, I doubt you'd want to continue.