Lil' Bitch 0 Report post Posted September 6, 2004 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=5121520387 Some sellers I swear. I'd be better off trying to obtain Mind Games instead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo Effect 0 Report post Posted September 6, 2004 People who madly collect the old Coliseum Video releases are crazy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob_barron 0 Report post Posted September 6, 2004 My friend paid $500 for Mind Games since it was the last tape he needed to complete his collection Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest HitmanHart Report post Posted September 6, 2004 Ha! For the minimum of $100, you to can obtain the worst Royal Rumble ever! Well, ok, second worst. Can't beat 1999. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Staravenger Report post Posted September 6, 2004 Ha! For the minimum of $100, you to can obtain the worst Royal Rumble ever! Well, ok, second worst. Can't beat 1999. 1997's version had a horrible under-card and a lackluster Rumble Match (so much filler), so that's probably worse overall. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Black Lushus 0 Report post Posted September 6, 2004 I rewatched the 99 rumble this past weekend and was thinking man did this suck...remember the good old days where you really felt like anyone could really win this thing? basically from about 92 to 97 it seemed like it was open game to anyone...then they turned them all into setup matches for the obvious soon-to be-champ...the 92 one for example, best RR, IMO, anyone coulda won that thing...Hogan, Sid, Savage, Flair (who did of course), Bulldog was lookin good early on, hell even Piper coulda pulled it off... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest HitmanHart Report post Posted September 6, 2004 I was speaking about just the Rumble itself. Can't get any worse than 1999. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Staravenger Report post Posted September 6, 2004 Oh, then thats a definite agreement. Three or four dead time incidents, a retarded finish, and a serious jobber inflation. The only believable winner in the whole thing was was Steve Austin, and Vince McMahon won. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted September 7, 2004 Nothing beats 1992 for sheer unpredictability. Of course I didn't start watching until 1996 so I knew going in, but retroactively, who's to say the Warlord couldn't have won the vacant title? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Australian Pride 0 Report post Posted September 7, 2004 The undercard to 1995 wasn't really that bad. Bret/Diesel was a good match with a ridiculous finish. JJ/Razor was also pretty good, and i was happy to see the title change hands. The tag title match was okay, and told a nice underdog storyline. The rest was craptacular, but at least the Rumble match itself had a memorable finish. USD99 is an absolutely ludicrous amount to pay for it. For the record, i think 92 is by far the greatest Rumble ever, but i was also a fan of the 2001 Rumble (won by Austin). I always thought 1990/1991 (the Hogan years) were the worst, and in particular hated the way Hogan beat Mr Perfect for the win. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Staravenger Report post Posted September 8, 2004 1990 was actually one of the better ones I think. 1991 though was pretty boring and had way too many people in the ring at a time to do anything. In the 1990 Rumble, you had storyline developements like Dibiase/Roberts, Savage/Rhodes, Piper/Brown, Demolition/Andre & Haku, Hogan/Warrior and others. 1991 had nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeDirt 0 Report post Posted September 8, 2004 Someone actually bid the $100 for this shit? Wow, I'd just steal a copy from my local video store that has it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 8, 2004 1990 was actually one of the better ones I think. 1991 though was pretty boring and had way too many people in the ring at a time to do anything. In the 1990 Rumble, you had storyline developements like Dibiase/Roberts, Savage/Rhodes, Piper/Brown, Demolition/Andre & Haku, Hogan/Warrior and others. 1991 had nothing. 1991 had the insanely underrated Rockers v Orient Express opener and a much better than it had any right to be Warrior/Slaughter match (hell, anything where Warrior jobs is better than it should be). I actually liked the show. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
razazteca 0 Report post Posted September 8, 2004 Isn't this on one of the UK exclusive dvds? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest krazykat72 Report post Posted September 8, 2004 I just rewatched the '95 Rumble match and despite the quickness of it (it's only 38 minutes long), the actual match is really, really good. I'd say it easily beats out '88-'91, '93, '94, '96, '99 and '02-'03 in terms of match quality (for the actual Rumble). I've been harping on the Rockers/Orient Express match for a long time especially when a far more boring and inferior Hart Foundation/ Brainbusters match beat it somehow in the tag poll. It actually got me in the mood to watch a bunch of Rockers matches and damn are they underrated, particularly compared to the overrated Hart Foundation (who were good, but nowhere near their level) -Paul Jacobi- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
King Cucaracha 0 Report post Posted September 8, 2004 Isn't this on one of the UK exclusive dvds? Rumble '95 isn't, but '91 is as a double DVD with '92's Rumble. Not sure which you were referring to. However, the way these double DVD's are coming out here in the UK, '93 and '94 Rumbles should be out before the end of the year...which would mean '95 and '96 first quarter of next year. If they continue bringing them out, which they probably will, as they've now got IYH 1 and 2 and Battle Royal at the Albert Hall/UK Rampage '91 coming out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Staravenger Report post Posted September 8, 2004 1990 was actually one of the better ones I think. 1991 though was pretty boring and had way too many people in the ring at a time to do anything. In the 1990 Rumble, you had storyline developements like Dibiase/Roberts, Savage/Rhodes, Piper/Brown, Demolition/Andre & Haku, Hogan/Warrior and others. 1991 had nothing. 1991 had the insanely underrated Rockers v Orient Express opener and a much better than it had any right to be Warrior/Slaughter match (hell, anything where Warrior jobs is better than it should be). I actually liked the show. -=Mike I meant the Rumble Match. The undercard I know had a great opener and a under-rated Boss Man/Barbarian match. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Staravenger Report post Posted September 8, 2004 I just rewatched the '95 Rumble match and despite the quickness of it (it's only 38 minutes long), the actual match is really, really good. I'd say it easily beats out '88-'91, '93, '94, '96, '99 and '02-'03 in terms of match quality (for the actual Rumble). How was it any good? The match featured a shit load of Jobbers, told no story except for the HBK/Bulldog bit (and really, 38 minutes is nothing when compared to Flair or Backlunds stints), and was just hug on ropes, wait til ring is full, toss out shit load of people. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Also the rush job dosn't help a Rumble Match, otherwise it would've been the same as a normal battle royal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MillenniumMan831 0 Report post Posted September 8, 2004 I absolutely hated the symmetry of the 1995 Royal Rumble match: The match comes down to #1, 2, and 30. One of the Blu Twins is #3, then when it comes back down to HBK/Bulldog, the other Blu Twin enters. Backlund and Owen Hart get eliminated in virtually the same way. Mable is right after Mo. Lawler/McMahon have the same exchange for each Heavenly Body's entrance: Lawler: Hey, I like Dr. Tom Pritchard. Vince: Is Dr. Tom Pritchard gonna win the 1995 Royal Rumble?!? Lawler: I don't like him that much. (Repeat for Jimmy Del Ray) And worst of all, Vince gives away the outcome right off the bat by saying something to the effect of: "Unbelieveable!!! You can bet Shawn Michaels will NOT be going to WrestleMania to face the WWF Champion!!!" as HBK makes his entrance. Ughh! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Staravenger Report post Posted September 8, 2004 One of the Blu Twins is #3, then when it comes back down to HBK/Bulldog, the other Blu Twin enters. I thought they were the same person since I had no clue who they were Billy & Bart Gunn also came in back-to-back at #23 and #24 I think. Steven Dunn came in after Owen Hart, and Timothy Well came in after Bob Backlund. (or whichever Well Dunn member is which) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest krazykat72 Report post Posted September 8, 2004 I just rewatched the '95 Rumble match and despite the quickness of it (it's only 38 minutes long), the actual match is really, really good. I'd say it easily beats out '88-'91, '93, '94, '96, '99 and '02-'03 in terms of match quality (for the actual Rumble). How was it any good? The match featured a shit load of Jobbers, told no story except for the HBK/Bulldog bit (and really, 38 minutes is nothing when compared to Flair or Backlunds stints), and was just hug on ropes, wait til ring is full, toss out shit load of people. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Also the rush job dosn't help a Rumble Match, otherwise it would've been the same as a normal battle royal. The thing is, all the Rumbles have a lot of jobbers and dead time. Since the beginning, there have really been only 1-2 people *max* who had a real shot at winning. There's always the slow spots and jobbers, but this one dispatched them quicker and because of the time, the pace was faster all around. I liked the HBK/Bulldog dynamic, especially with the great false finish. I'm not saying the Flair performance wasn't better (it was) or Benoit's wasn't (it was), only that thi Rumble match gets unfairly slagged than some of the other ones (mainly the ones I listed) -Paul Jacobi- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cawthon777 0 Report post Posted September 8, 2004 The thing is, all the Rumbles have a lot of jobbers and dead time. Since the beginning, there have really been only 1-2 people *max* who had a real shot at winning. Eh, I don't know about that. The Rumbles, unlike World War 3, aren't known for their reliance on undercard talent. And I think the talent involved in the 95 edition by far was the worst collection. For several, it was one of their earliest WWF matches (Godwinn, Montoya, Blu Twins, Mantuar, etc) and when you add that to the tag team guys who of course had no chance (Gunns, New Shrinkers, Bodies, Bushwhackers, etc), that doesn't leave too many names left to be possible winners. When you compare that to 89 when just about everyone in the match was built up ... Hogan, Bossman, WWF Champion Savage, Dibiase, Andre, Jake, Bad News, etc - with Big John Studd of all people winning ... or compare that to 90 when you had Perfect, Warrior, Hogan, Rude, etc ... I think you get where I'm coming from. In the days before winning equalled a title shot, any number of wrestlers could have logically walked out the winner. Since that time, *I* think several in particular had a selection of wrestlers where almost any number of them could have won. In 93, there was Savage, Flair, and the Undertaker, and none of those names won. In 94, Luger, Bret, Savage. 96, Diesel, Shawn, Vader. Etc. Even in the more recent years ... 2002 had a great selection ... 2003 could have gone to anyone competing for Triple H's title. I remember just a few months back where 2004's winner was predicted to be Orton, Goldberg, Angle, etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest krazykat72 Report post Posted September 8, 2004 I'm talking about potential winners. Agreed '95 is pretty weak with starpower. Look back at the booking at the time of each match. It's fairly obvious where the future lies. '89-wide open '90- Hogan or Warrior '91- only Hogan '92 -wide open Savage wasn't winning in '93 or '94. He was being de-pushed and phased way down. Yoko was really the only threat and option. '94 was only Bret or Luger '95- Shawn or Bulldog '96 - Only Shawn (*everyone* knew he was getting the title) '97- Bret, Austin, or UT '98- Only Austin (see '96) '99 -only Austin (or sigh McMahon) '00-only Rock (see '96) '01-only Austin (see '96) '02-on Triple H (see '96) '03-only Brock (see '96) '04- kind of open, (mainly only Benoit or Goldberg) -Paul Jacobi- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cawthon777 0 Report post Posted September 8, 2004 Yoko made his TV debut less than 3 months before the Rumble. How many people do you know made their TV debut then a few weeks later - without really beating anyone along the way - won the Rumble? That was somewhat of a shocker. A lot of people at the time were actually betting on Savage vs. Hart at Mania with Bret going over. It's easy to look back now and say "So and so was the obvious winner" but it wasn't so obvious at the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Staravenger Report post Posted September 8, 2004 I was cold turkey of WWF from October-December and only saw him (yoko) once squashing Koko B. Ware on RAW. I picked.....(ugh) The Undertaker, and for someone whos been around FOREVER, he's yet to win one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lil' Bitch 0 Report post Posted September 8, 2004 Seems like since 1998, you could obviously tell who would win the Rumble once the ball started rolling for whatever year. 2004 was fun though since it was hard to tell who was really going to win with the starpower involved (Benoit, Cena, Angle, Jericho, Orton, RVD). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Staravenger Report post Posted September 8, 2004 Goldberg was a good choice, and Big Show was the dark horse of the match. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MillenniumMan831 0 Report post Posted September 8, 2004 I didn't have Internet access at the time, but I was so sure Owen Hart would win the Rumble in 1998 because it was just WAY TOO OBVIOUS Austin would win. Once Hart went out after only a few minutes, it got depressing really fast. Not that I didn't like Austin but my favorite match of the year was ruined because I just knew Austin didn't have a prayer of losing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shooting Star 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 I live in Dominican Republic where we only had WCW up until 1999 and RR being the first ppv i ever saw and hell i enjoyed it at the time since i was tired of all the crap WCW was putting on at the time.....but then again now that i look at it, it sucked big time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
