|
Vertical Lime posted:How can you have the Rumble without this video package I'd sure like to! It's a nice video package, but they've been updating and running the same goddamn package every year for what, ten years now? The novelty of watching that video package slowly evolve year over year has definitely worn off for me, no matter how many times they change the gender or intensity of the narrator.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
We all know that Kane holds the record for most entries in a Royal Rumble, but can anyone guess who holds the record for eliminating Kane the most times? That's the Royal Rumble record we should all be talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Jenny Angel posted:We all know that Kane holds the record for most entries in a Royal Rumble, but can anyone guess who holds the record for eliminating Kane the most times? That's the Royal Rumble record we should all be talking about. Triple H has the record, eliminating Kane three times. I believe Booker is the only runner up with two. Perry Normal fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
That's exactly right, congratulations
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
I think kane is the sleeper pick to win the entire danged thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Ostentatious posted:I think kane is the sleeper pick to win the entire danged thing - JBL, till the heat death of the universe maggle
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
I feel like it's time to dogpile on Kane for having the most rumble entries without a win.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
I hope Kane is not in the Rumble, but still randomly comes out, chokeslams everybody, and leaves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
surprise rumble returns? look no further for the biggest pop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQhnB8zZoc8 K-Fed returns with his whole Celeb Posse: Drew Carey, Jeremy Piven, Grumpy Cat, Larry The Cable Guy, Jerry Springer, and the Enforcer, Bob Barker. They clear the ring for the man and he stands tall with the title, arrogantly pointing to himself instead of the sign because that wouldn't really make sense anyway considering you already have the title. I'm not unrealistic, he can drop it to Roman at Wrestlemania, but he deserves to hold it til then
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Welp, here it is. I've ranked every Royal Rumble match from worst to best. And no, '92 isn't the #1 spot, because gently caress Hogan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Yeah, I rewatched 92 yesterday and most of it still holds up as the best, but motherfucking Hogan is a total bitch baby when Sid tosses him out clean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
I've been watching/rewatching all of these in reverse order, with 2002 as the earliest one I've gotten to. It felt... really self-indulgent? Multiple full ring clears, multiple extended entrances, and of course Taker's beatdown on Maven that seemed to last forever. I get why Maven eliminating Taker felt like such an iconic moment at the time, but seeing it with the hindsight of "this guy immediately proceeded to get his rear end slowly kicked for the next several entries and never accomplished anything of note in WWE again", it feels more uncomfortable than iconic. Outside of the great Austin-HHH action in the latter half, a lot of the booking felt like "let's do anything we can to avoid having an actual Royal Rumble take place". I've got an all-time great coming up next, though, so I'm excited as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Benne posted:Yeah, I rewatched 92 yesterday and most of it still holds up as the best, but motherfucking Hogan is a total bitch baby when Sid tosses him out clean. It's pretty hilarious at how heelish Hogan basically always acts and how the heel commentators always call him out on it when you look back at his old matches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
2002 is worth it just for Scotty 2 Hotty doing his goofy dance to the ring and immediately getting KO'd by Taker. I lose it every time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
I can understand all of your reasoning and justification and think it's a pretty solid list, but no way is 94 THAT bad and 96' is nowhere near 7th place (talent roster way too thin, terrible New Generation gimmickry, the match has no focused story after Vader's beatdown of Michaels, and everyone knows who the winner is going to be after Vader's gone).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Benne posted:2002 is worth it just for Scotty 2 Hotty doing his goofy dance to the ring and immediately getting KO'd by Taker. I lose it every time. https://gfycat.com/DemandingContentIlladopsis  Scotty really has had more funny Rumble moments than most.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Shiki Dan posted:I can understand all of your reasoning and justification and think it's a pretty solid list, but no way is 94 THAT bad and 96' is nowhere near 7th place (talent roster way too thin, terrible New Generation gimmickry, the match has no focused story after Vader's beatdown of Michaels, and everyone knows who the winner is going to be after Vader's gone). Thanks. Different strokes, I guess. I told a friend this was going up and without me saying anything about where things were ranked, his response was, "#1 should be the second one that Michaels won."
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
I appreciate the Royal Rumble.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Posted this in the wrong thread earlier, but this is the right place for it. I've noticed they never promote #2 on equal level with #1 despite it being exactly the same position, the main example being Rey who went the distance but doesn't get the "#1 all the way to the end" distinction. It seems like it could be easily fixed if the match started when #1 enters, and then gets a slight attack advantage by waiting for #2 to enter instead of #2 just being there too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
Flair's latest podcast is him doing a live commentary of his 92 Rumble match, so if you want to sync it up (they even provide the correct time stamp at the beginning) it's really good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
sticklefifer posted:Posted this in the wrong thread earlier, but this is the right place for it. This is actually exactly how it works, except #2 isn't as on as much of a delay. I know it's happened before, trying to remember when though, where #2 got in the ring and was immediately attacked and the bell was rung out of just "gently caress it, they're fighting" sake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
sticklefifer posted:Posted this in the wrong thread earlier, but this is the right place for it. There's a moment where they discuss that in 2010. Matt "Lesser Evil" Striker points out that #2 is basically the same as #1 during Evan Bourne's entrance, but Cole no-sells it and talks about how #1 is in the ring longer. Striker just kind of shrugs at that dumb logic and moves on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
I noticed that some commentator this week said something along the lines of "you know, only 4 or 5 wrestlers who have started in the rumble have ever gone on to win it!" so i wonder if that's their new re-branding to get around saying "only 2 wrestlers have won from the #1 position, including Shawn Michaels!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Has a wrestler or booker from the WWE ever done a detailed breakdown of how a Rumble is planned and executed? As someone mentioned a few posts above, there are certain Rumbles that seem meticulously detailed - like 2001 and 2002 where there are very clear storyline 'chapters' - but in general, do they actually bother specifying who eliminates who during the more inconsequential passages of the match? Does it matter that Wade Barrett gets eliminated by Bo Dallas in the 2013 Rumble or is the instruction to Wade 'just get tossed out before X minute of the match'? I understand that Pat Patterson invented the concept and I presume he had a strong hand in the layout of the first few. 1999 is very clearly remembered a 'Russo Rumble'. But do we know who put together the last four years? Because those Rumbles have all been pretty terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
They have! All the important stuff is laid out meticulously like your example of Bo Dallas eliminating Wade Barrett as those guys feuded in the following weeks but a lot of guys are just given a general idea when they are supposed to leave and a lot of the brawling between big spots is improvised. As for the last couple years, Michael Hayes has reportedly been the mastermind behind those matches oatgan fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
oatgan posted:As for the last couple years, Michael Hayes has reportedly been the mastermind behind those matches Goddamnit, does he have to ruin everything he touches?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
edotherocket posted:Has a wrestler or booker from the WWE ever done a detailed breakdown of how a Rumble is planned and executed? A former ref actually wrote a pretty cool article about it just a few days ago http://csrwrestling.com/korderas-being-a-royal-rumble-referee/
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
LeadSled posted:Goddamnit, does he have to ruin everything he touches?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
I remember hearing something about Jamie Noble being pretty heavily involved in the Rumble planning last year Hope he stays the hell away this year
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
21 Hoot Salute posted:I remember hearing something about Jamie Noble being pretty heavily involved in the Rumble planning last year Yeah Noble and Mercury I believe. No one has been fully able to follow on from Pat Patterson's layouts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:42
|
|