Who should win the Royal Rumble 07?

[Boon 0]

It really should be Kennedy, have Benoit, and HBK both fighting each other as the last two... but wait, here comes #30 Mr. Kennedy... then just have him sprint down to the ring, and have him dump both of them out while Shawn is trying to eliminate Benoit. Or do the double elimination finish before #30 even comes out... please, just something not so obvious.

...Have they ever done that before?

 

That could be interesting, seeing Kennedy strutting down to an empty ring as the winner by default. Of course, they'd have to throw some tag on the ending to not piss everybody off, b/c the finish to the rumble is usually one of the most important spots of the year.

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

Taker or Orton. Umaga will obliterate a few people, then probably eliminate himself or something daft. Hopefully Patterson's involved in booking it.

[razazteca 0]

Rene Dupree to win?

[Guest JaKyL25]

It really should be Kennedy, have Benoit, and HBK both fighting each other as the last two... but wait, here comes #30 Mr. Kennedy... then just have him sprint down to the ring, and have him dump both of them out while Shawn is trying to eliminate Benoit. Or do the double elimination finish before #30 even comes out... please, just something not so obvious.

...Have they ever done that before?

 

That could be interesting, seeing Kennedy strutting down to an empty ring as the winner by default. Of course, they'd have to throw some tag on the ending to not piss everybody off, b/c the finish to the rumble is usually one of the most important spots of the year.

 

It would just have to be like last year where the Rumble itself was not the final match.

[razazteca 0]

Will the fans go home happy after a Batista or Cena championship match?

[Insanity 0]

It would just have to be like last year where the Rumble itself was not the final match.

 

That was because they just had to do the stupid Undertaker thing though.

[Guest JaKyL25]

It would just have to be like last year where the Rumble itself was not the final match.

 

That was because they just had to do the stupid Undertaker thing though.

 

I think some hesitation about Rey contributed as well though.

 

Wrestlemania 22 was the first time since Judgment Day '03 that the WWE Championship got higher placement on the card than the WHC when they were both being defended at the same PPV. Granted, much of that was the WHC being the Raw title for so long, but it was the SD title at Summerslam '05 and Royal Rumble '06 and still got the higher placement for various reasons.

 

On the other hand, though, think how much easier it would have been for Rey to win a Royal Rumble in a collapsed ring!

[Hawk 34 0]

It would just have to be like last year where the Rumble itself was not the final match.

 

That was because they just had to do the stupid Undertaker thing though.

 

It isn't as if the Rumble not being the main event aside from last year was an abnormality.

 

1996: Taker/Hart closed thanks to the Diesel/Taker set up

1997: Shady rumble finish plus the hometown star made the change

1998: The casket match segment with Kane/Taker was more appros to close the show especially since Austin's win was so automatic.

 

 

They could just as easily have another year with a title match taking the main spot once again, possibly Umaga/John Cena in a gimmicked match.

 

I do agree that we need a creative finish again because it's always the HBK 1995, 1994 double finish or the usual 2 heels and the winning face and the dumber heel eliminates the other heel and the face makes a comeback and gets the eliminatin.

 

I did like the 2001 finish by having Austin go crazy with the chair on Kane especially after Kane had been in there for over 55 minutes and Austin had been in the ring for about 4 minutes total (via the HHH attack).

 

They need to stop having 4-6 people going over 30 minutes, it was cool in 1991 when everyone was in the ring for 20 minutes and especially with Martel and Valentine having totally different iron-man sells but when last year had HHH, Rey, Carlito, Mercury and Benoit going at least thirty and it didn't feel special.

 

Also, no more #1 and #2 going the distance as well.

 

The #s (27, 24, 2,1) are way to often used for the winning #s (these #'s acccount for 12 of the 18 rumbles)

 

Why, with the exception of Michaels in 1996, hasn't anyone in the teens won the rumble? Its always the one/two or 22-28 spots winning the thing. Lets have #14 or #11 win for once.

[Guest JaKyL25]

IIRC, Michaels in '96 is the only one outside of the #1-5, 21-29 range to ever win the Rumble.

 

Benoit and Michaels have both won at #1, Vince and Rey at #2, Flair at #3, and Austin at #5. Everyone else is 21-29.

 

Edit: Sorry, I missed the "Why" at the beginning of the sentence. I thought you were actually asking if it had ever been done.

[sluggo 0]

Was the McMahon win the last time a heel won the Rumble?

[Aero 0]

Was the McMahon win the last time a heel won the Rumble?

 

Yes, although, technically Batista was a tweener.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

Number 30 needs to win the Rumble. If I drew number 30, I would exchange it with number one. I think Brock Lesnar at number 28 was the highest ever to win the Rumble.

[Vern Gagne 0]

I'd like to see number 30 win the Rumble.

[The Niggardly King 0]

I think if you do go through with the #30 win, it has to be Kennedy winning in one of the ways I did it. You can do the double elimination thing, to set up Mr. Kennedy taking his dear sweet time to be declared the winner, and then have him feud with the two who eliminated each other up until No Way Out.

[Guest JaKyL25]

Number 30 needs to win the Rumble. If I drew number 30, I would exchange it with number one. I think Brock Lesnar at number 28 was the highest ever to win the Rumble.

 

I'm 99% sure Brock was #29, but I could be wrong. Your point still stands.

[TheFranchise 0]

I think he was, with Undertaker being number 30?

 

And for the first #30 winner, I think it has to be a heel, I can't see a babyface winning the rumble with such good odds.

[cabbageboy 0]

I'm pretty sure Yokozuna was #29 as well in 1993. Or he was quite late in it, somewhere in the 27-29 range.

 

If there is one thing I can safely say they will never do, it is have the #30 man win it. It's just bullshit to do it for a variety of reasons. It'd be funny sometime at the Rumble PPV to see someone trying to trade numbers, saying he had #30 but wanted to trade to something like #1 or 2, so he'd have a better shot at winning.

[Hawk 34 0]

Yoko was 27. 27 has held the most winners (Studd, Yoko, Austin, Hart). However, #30 was runner up five times (Dibiase, Perfect, Savage, 'Taker and Orton)

[Guest JaKyL25]

It'd be funny sometime at the Rumble PPV to see someone trying to trade numbers, saying he had #30 but wanted to trade to something like #1 or 2, so he'd have a better shot at winning.

 

I know it's completely contradictory to what you're saying, but that just reminds me of DiBiase buying #30 in '89 only to be cursed with extremely early numbers in every other Rumble he ever entered. This sort of yearly karmic justice was one of my favorite unspoken wrestling nuances.

[theintensifier 0]

It defies logic for a fresh competitor to lose when he enters last with someone lasting from a early number spot. They sell that every year, the person entering #30 has the highest chance of winning. They should cash in on that. Someone mentioned it earlier, a heel should be the one to enter #30, and win. If this were the 2008 Royal Rumble, and Kennedy had a whole year to continue his rise to the top, I'd venture for him to win. However, since it is not the 2008 Rumble, I stand behind Undertaker winning the Rumble. 'Taker needs to end Batista's reign, and then drop the title to Kennedy at either SummerSlam or Survivor Series.

 

Or, have Edge win the Rumble, and face Batista, or end Cena's ridiculous reign.

[Bruce Blank 0]

FINLAY!! *CLAP*CLAP*CLAP* FINLAY!! *CLAP*CLAP*CLAP* FINLAY!! *CLAP*CLAP*CLAP* FINLAY!! *CLAP*CLAP*CLAP* FINLAY!! *CLAP*CLAP*CLAP* FINLAY!! *CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*

 

Have him scrap, bite, scratch, brawl and just bad ass his way through the rumble - come out swinging with his Shilelaley (or whatever) and just tear into people, then push him as the bad ass that he is in a series of matches where he's not limited by disqualifications and you have an instand Batista/Finlay out of control brawl that no one presents an intriguing match but also helps cover up the fact that Batista isn't exactly Benoit in the ring.

 

And after the press conference it's now or never time with Finlay - please let it be "now"

[Toxxic 0]

What the hell, I'm with Blank. Give it to the Fighting Irishman.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

I can't be the only one who thinks Batista-Taker would be boring as fuck. Finlay would turn heads and get people talking. And fuck, he's given plenty to the business. (See my thread in general wrestling).

[iliketurtles 0]

Not HHH.

[Promoter 0]

Well, HBK/UT as the last 2 in Texas writes itself!!!!

[Lt. Al Giardello 0]

You guys are actually serious about Finlay winning? Listen I like Finlay aswell, but he is not WM main event material, and wouldnt generate as much as interest as Taker winning it would.

 

Face it guys, Taker/Tista is the dream match that the fans want to see, not just the smarks. Undertaker/Batista would draw flat out, Finlay/Batista wouldn't.

[veseo 0]

I say Umaga

 

As for Taker - (haven't read spolers, so my opinion might be already wrong) I think he'll win the SD Sprint and start his feud with Batista just now. Just make one of them turn, dammit, dont wanna see face vs face @ WM ME, nevermind the fact that prolly Batista would get booed in this match even if face.

[Bruce Blank 0]

You guys are actually serious about Finlay winning? Listen I like Finlay aswell, but he is not WM main event material, and wouldnt generate as much as interest as Taker winning it would.

 

Face it guys, Taker/Tista is the dream match that the fans want to see, not just the smarks. Undertaker/Batista would draw flat out, Finlay/Batista wouldn't.

My personal preference would to NOT see Batista/Taker

 

and out of the options left, with a smart build I'd say a Finlay/Batista scrapping type of brawl would rock. Of course that'd mean the WWE writers would have to put some creativity and effort into it, so we'll probably see Taker win the Rumble or something like an ECW/SMackdown unification match with Lashley *rolls eyes*

[King Cucaracha 0]

You guys are actually serious about Finlay winning? Listen I like Finlay aswell, but he is not WM main event material, and wouldnt generate as much as interest as Taker winning it would.

 

Face it guys, Taker/Tista is the dream match that the fans want to see, not just the smarks. Undertaker/Batista would draw flat out, Finlay/Batista wouldn't.

 

He wouldn't generate as much interest, granted. But it's not one person or another that draws a WrestleMania buyrate nowadays, it's the state of the product and the name itself. The chances are the Heavyweight Title Match won't be the main event and they'll be putting their money on Hogan vs. Opponent and Cena vs. Opponent on being the big two matches.

 

I'm not sure how much of a difference Taker/Batista would make on the buyrate opposed to Finlay/Batista, on a Mania card. Not as much as a straight SD PPV I wouldn't imagine.

[Guest RayCo]

I'd like to see Michaels do it in his home town, if 'Taker wins at the Rumble, then that might mean he'll lose at 'Mania, I wouldn't like to see that happpen.