BifEverchad Posted January 27, 2008 Report Posted January 27, 2008 I know it appears to be sheepish to go with 1992, but it truly is the best Royal Rumble match. So many faces, the essential Rumble, IMO.
majormayhem1 Posted January 27, 2008 Report Posted January 27, 2008 I know it appears to be sheepish to go with 1992, but it truly is the best Royal Rumble match. So many faces, the essential Rumble, IMO. I've always considered WrestleMania 8 the end of the golden era of wrestling. But, perhaps the end really took place at Royal Rumble '92.
Diamonddust Posted January 27, 2008 Report Posted January 27, 2008 I know it appears to be sheepish to go with 1992, but it truly is the best Royal Rumble match. So many faces, the essential Rumble, IMO. I've always considered WrestleMania 8 the end of the golden era of wrestling. But, perhaps the end really took place at Royal Rumble '92. Most would say it ended at Wrestlemania VI. The 3 Golden Ages are usually considered: -The 1950's during the advent of television -The "Hulkamania"/80's Boom Period - The night Hogan beat the Iron Sheik until Wrestlemania VI (Wrestlemania III being the peak event) -The Monday Night Wars (Memorial Day 1996 until Wrestlemania X-7)
cabbageboy Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 I'd almost consider SummerSlam 1992 to be the last hurrah of that particular era, since it was the last show with Macho/Warrior/Flair and so on in the world title scene. By Survivor Series 1992 the WWF had changed quite a bit. SummerSlam 92 was actually kind of a mix of the old and new.
jwest27 Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 The only thing I have to add to this thread is to point out how awesome Sgt. Slaughter's elimination was in the '92 Rumble. Out of nowhere he gets whipped into the corner so hard by Sid that he flies out of the ring. I replayed it on Youtube like 7-8 times.
majormayhem1 Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 SummerSlam 92 was actually kind of a mix of the old and new. I consider the "Hulkamania era" to be broken up into two parts. The first part beginning upon his entrance into the World Wrestling Federation and his victory over the Iron Shiek. The peak came at WrestleMania, 3 as you said. But, I think the next year at WrestleMania 4 a new era began. The golden era wasn't over by any means, but the core of talent had changed from the the previous 4 years. Shiek, Studd, Bundy, JYD, Piper, Snuka, Orton, etc. were either gone or leaving and were replaced by Honky, Warrior, Rude, Savage. A different cast of characters, but they made a nice transistion and continued to thrive. At WrestleMania 6, another peak was marked and then there was another shift. Andre left, the Warrior won the title, etc. The year leading up to WrestleMania 7 was probably the most dramatic of the era, up to that point. After that, the entire landscape began to change. By the time WrestleMania 8 rolled around, I sensed that the WWF, as I had always known it, was over.
King Kamala Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 Anyone want to bet how long it takes for someone to mention this year's Rumble in the best or worst thread? I bet it happens within the next day or two.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 Anyone want to bet how long it takes for someone to mention this year's Rumble in the best or worst thread? I bet it happens within the next day or two. Actually you just did mention it.
cabbageboy Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 For the record this year's Rumble has to go in the bottom tier of Rumbles. The winner was a friggin surprise entrant (Cena) drawing #30. I'm sorry but I do not want to see guys that are #30 winning the Rumble on a regular basis since it renders the vast majority of the match pointless. Notice that most of the excellent Rumbles have the winner in for quite a while so we can get into the match. Also, it seemed like there were either 1 minute intervals or maybe 90 second intervals rather than 2 minutes. Of course the consensus worst Rumbles also had 1-2 there at the end as well (1995, 99).
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 For the record this year's Rumble has to go in the bottom tier of Rumbles. The winner was a friggin surprise entrant (Cena) drawing #30. I'm sorry but I do not want to see guys that are #30 winning the Rumble on a regular basis since it renders the vast majority of the match pointless. Notice that most of the excellent Rumbles have the winner in for quite a while so we can get into the match. Also, it seemed like there were either 1 minute intervals or maybe 90 second intervals rather than 2 minutes. Of course the consensus worst Rumbles also had 1-2 there at the end as well (1995, 99). Intervals were indeed 90 seconds. I'm rewatching this now, I think it will rank somewhere in the middle. I like it better than the mid-90s Rumbles, it was long enough to make it worth my while, and the booking was as realistic as it's ever been (as far as order of elimination).
Black Lushus Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 I don't think intervals have ever been consistently stable. Someone with more time on their hands will have to do the clocking, but there have been many times where entrants come out quicker (or longer) than whatver the intervals are.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now