Royal Rumble Non Wrestling Website Makes Amusing Royal Rumble Predictions

[Jacob Fox]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wwe-royal-...win-title-brock-lesnar-plans-exit-wwe-1480454

I'm not one really to start threads, but I was doing a search and came across this article from the International Business Times in which they make some amusing predictions about the Royal Rumble in reference to John Cena versus Brock Lesnar.

Other than quoting Bleacher Report like it is a credible source, IBT seems to think it's a foregone conclusion that Cena will win his "elusive" 16th title at the Rumble. They go on further to speculate that Cena and Lesnar will likely have a rematch at Wrestlemania.

I know IBT shouldn't be expected to keep up on wrestling news, but one of the first things a journalist should do is make sure they know what they're talking about before they write anything.

 

[Red Rain]

Headlines are everything. Once they grab you, you're hooked it and you click the link.
It's the reason why when you pay for your groceries, all the sh*thead magazines are right there by the register.
Everybody sees the headlines and despite the hilarity, you have to make the split second decision whether to buy the magazine or not.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Headlines are everything. Once they grab you, you're hooked it and you click the link.
It's the reason why when you pay for your groceries, all the sh*thead magazines are right there by the register.
Everybody sees the headlines and despite the hilarity, you have to make the split second decision whether to buy the magazine or not.

The headline will get you to click the link the first time or buy the magazine the first time. The well written or correctly researched article gets you to come back.

 

[Red Rain]

Ironically, I'm was never stupid enough to buy the magazine in the first place.
Although, with wrestling, I've clicked many many links given the abstract and ridiculous nature of professional wrestling.
Part of the lure of pro wrestling for me is that nothing is completely set in stone and any rumor could potentially be a reality.

I'm willing to bet the number of people betting the Undertaker would lose at Wrestlemania was extremely negligible. It happened nonetheless.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Ironically, I'm was never stupid enough to buy the magazine in the first place.
Although, with wrestling, I've clicked many many links given the abstract and ridiculous nature of professional wrestling.
Part of the lure of pro wrestling for me is that nothing is completely set in stone and any rumor could potentially be a reality.

I'm willing to bet the number of people betting the Undertaker would lose at Wrestlemania was extremely negligible. It happened nonetheless.

Speaking of irony, every Undertaker Wrestlemania match from Mark Henry forward, I was always one of the few that expected Undertaker to lose. That is, of course, until he faced Brock Lesnar. There was no doubt in my mind that Undertaker would win.

 

[Leo C]

I really don't think that'll happen, but it would suck. Especially if they did ANOTHER match for WM. I highly doubt it.

 

[Lackin]

Breaking News WWE Documents Leaked Lesnar vs Cena WM 31, Just imagine that becoming True - :why:
Well we know that anything WWE says is BS for example last year with the 30 Day Title Defence Rule and the WWE Network.

 

[Leo C]

Breaking News WWE Documents Leaked Lesnar vs Cena WM 31, Just imagine that becoming True - :why:
Well we know that anything WWE says is BS for example last year with the 30 Day Title Defence Rule and the WWE Network.

WWE Documents?

 

[Lackin]

WWE Documents?

Of course what do you think Michael Cole Holds at Events.

 

[Leo C]

Of course what do you think Michael Cole Holds at Events.

Bad lines to read throughout the night, I guess.

 

[Lackin]

Bad lines to read throughout the night, I guess.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Breaking News WWE Documents Leaked Lesnar vs Cena WM 31, Just imagine that becoming True - :why:
Well we know that anything WWE says is BS for example last year with the 30 Day Title Defence Rule and the WWE Network.

Yeah it was amusing how Daniel Bryan got stripped because he wouldn't be able to defend but Lesnar doesn't have to.

But who knows? If WWE wanted to, they could spin that discrepancy into a storyline. Probably won't though.

 

[Leo C]

Yeah it was amusing how Daniel Bryan got stripped because he wouldn't be able to defend but Lesnar doesn't have to.

But who knows? If WWE wanted to, they could spin that discrepancy into a storyline. Probably won't though.

Well, that actually made sense, imo. The 30-day rule has been dead for years (officially speaking), and the only reason the Authority brought it up is because they WANTED Bryan to have to drop the belt, so it was a heel move from the Authority to strip him. So since they're OK with Brock, they're not gonna enforce it.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Well, that actually made sense, imo. The 30-day rule has been dead for years (officially speaking), and the only reason the Authority brought it up is because they WANTED Bryan to have to drop the belt, so it was a heel move from the Authority to strip him. So since they're OK with Brock, they're not gonna enforce it.

Oh, I don't disagree. If inconsistencies and preferential treatment bugged me, I couldn't be a wrestling fan

 

[Jacob Fox]

Here's another one that makes me laugh. This one makes the assumption that pulled promotional material showing Cena as champion is proof that he will win the title at the Rumble. Although Cena winning is always a possiblity, this is hardly the first time that WWE has advertised someone as world champion at an event who is not champion. Sometimes the "revealed" title change takes place sometimes it doesn't.

This is why I don't like reading articles about wrestling from non wrestling news sites. They really know so little about pro wrestling that their articles are just painfully stupid.

http://www.givemesport.com/539719-w...ok&utm_medium=Paid-Social&utm_campaign=539719