Does the guarantee of a title shot devalue the Rumble match itself

[Pop Tatari]

Everyone loves the Royal Rumble, one of the only times of the year when people are actually excited for the product. The match concept is fun and can launch a persons career in to the next level, however each year it seems rather predictable who will win before the event and it takes it away the enjoyment of the match as a title shot is given to the winner. 1-3 only possible candidates have a chance. No way am I saying guys like Heath Slater should win it should be someone more credible and winning should give them a push but with a title shot being awarded makes it boring in a way. What do you guys think?

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

Would you really think more guys had a chance if the title shot wasn't on the line? Answer still has to be no.

Things are always going to be predictable when you are a "smart" mark. Obviously we understand the Rumble is a huge kayfabe accomplishment and very few guys are going to be realistically considered for it by WWE brass. That's just the way things are.

 

[ShaRpY HaRdY]

Personally I think they should just put all the names into a hat pull a random name out to decide who the winner will be and say fuck predictability!.. but hey that has like 0% chance of ever happening.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

Personally I think they should just put all the names into a hat pull a random name out to decide who the winner will be and say fuck predictability!.. but hey that has like 0% chance of ever happening.

You say this, but then when the main event of Wrestlemania is Lesnar vs Darren Young you start to reconsider

 

[ShaRpY HaRdY]

You say this, but then when the main event of Wrestlemania is Lesnar vs Darren Young you start to reconsider

Sounds like MOTY quality right thurr, DY would clearly take the cake

 

[Pop Tatari]

Would you really think more guys had a chance if the title shot wasn't on the line? Answer still has to be no.

Things are always going to be predictable when you are a "smart" mark. Obviously we understand the Rumble is a huge kayfabe accomplishment and very few guys are going to be realistically considered for it by WWE brass. That's just the way things are.

Probably not that others would get a chance but it should be, in now way am I saying Darren young are someone of that level should win it, it should be used as a tool to build someone up other then giving it to Cena to win again to boost his ego and so called legacy.

 

[The GOAT]

I'm not sure how winning a match that earns you a title shot in the main event of the biggest show of the year is "devaluing" it, but OK.

The Rumble match would be less predictable if it weren't for a guaranteed title shot, sure, but that type of thing doesn't really bother me much. A lot of things in wrestling (and storytelling in general) have predictable outcomes that I wouldn't want changed or fucked with, and the Rumble match happens to be one of them. As long as they can usually get me thinking that there's at least two (or maybe even three) possibilities on who could win, then I'm good.

 

[Pop Tatari]

I'm not sure how winning a match that earns you a title shot in the main event of the biggest show of the year is "devaluing" it, but OK.

The Rumble match would be less predictable if it weren't for a guaranteed title shot, sure, but that type of thing doesn't really bother me much. A lot of things in wrestling (and storytelling in general) have predictable outcomes that I wouldn't want changed or fucked with, and the Rumble match happens to be one of them. As long as they can usually get me thinking that there's at least two (or maybe even three) possibilities on who could win, then I'm good.

Sheamus won and never was in the main event and he fought for the B prize so that is devaluing it and the match he won the title was a joke. All I am saying is this can still be used to build someone but maybe replace MITB as a true way to build a star of the future. Sheamus had already won the title before he won this match.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

Probably not that others would get a chance but it should be, in now way am I saying Darren young are someone of that level should win it, it should be used as a tool to build someone up other then giving it to Cena to win again to boost his ego and so called legacy.

I just don't think it opens up the field any. The same few guys would be considered to win the rumble with or without the WM title shot IMHO

 

[The GOAT]

Sheamus won and never was in the main event and he fought for the B prize so that is devaluing it and the match he won the title was a joke. All I am saying is this can still be used to build someone but maybe replace MITB as a true way to build a star of the future. Sheamus had already won the title before he won this match.

OK, I still don't get how that is devaluing it. You're arguing that they should just ditch the idea of earning a title shot via a Rumble victory entirely, so what difference does it make what spot on the card Sheamus won the title on? He was still challenging for a world title. Compare that to someone winning the Rumble and earning nothing in return except the bragging rights of saying they won it.

I'm not absolutely against taking the title shot stipulation away, for the record, but I don't think it's a detriment to the concept of the match either.

 

[Koko B.]

There's still the random unpredictable element to the RR, even with the title guarantee --- take Heath Slater. what if he's in line for a push, comes out #1, eliminates the most people, gets robbed of the victory in the end. No title match for Heath, but he would look strong after a showing like that, and then there's the follow up of his crusade for revenge against whoever cost him the title shot.

 

[Red Rain]

In my opinion, the Money In The Bank Ladder match has devalued the Royal Rumble.
It is the match that takes the unknown and makes them known.
Had the MITB Ladder match never conceptualized we would be holding the Royal Rumble in far higher regard,

Ultimately, the Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania must connect. The two must be symbiotic or the luster falls of the rose. The Road To Wrestlemania doesn't begin otherwise.

 

[Prince Bálor]

With or without a guaranteed title shot, Royal Rumble still fn' rules, imo!

 

[Snowman1]

If anything devalued the Rumble it was Elimination Chamber, which kayfabe-wise was just as meaningful since there was 2 "winner gets to ME Wrestlemania!" matches per year.

If Money in the Bank and Royal Rumble wins are going to be WWE's only way to elevate stars (besides Bryan), more power to them. Doesn't really affect the other, imo.

Although I would like to see one surprise winner one year, you kinda can't do that with no brand split, but that also makes the Rumble more meaningful as they can't bullshit you out of the WM main event

 

[Red Rain]

If anything devalued the Rumble it was Elimination Chamber, which kayfabe-wise was just as meaningful since there was 2 "winner gets to ME Wrestlemania!" matches per year.

If Money in the Bank and Royal Rumble wins are going to be WWE's only way to elevate stars (besides Bryan), more power to them. Doesn't really affect the other, imo.

Although I would like to see one surprise winner one year, you kinda can't do that with no brand split, but that also makes the Rumble more meaningful as they can't bullshit you out of the WM main event

The Royal Rumble doesn't generally elevate stars any longer.
The last non-main eventer to win the Royal Rumble was Alberto Del Rio in 2011.
Before that, you have to go back to 2006 to see WWE elevate anybody by winning the Royal Rumble.

With MITB, every year except 2009, WWE has elevated a (at least one) complete midcarder by virtue of winning the ladder match.