Royal Rumble Triple H Is Perfect Challenger for Roman Reigns

[Neptune]

"WWE's blueprint for Roman Reigns' World Heavyweight Championship run is to begin in explosive, powerful fashion by pitting him against Triple H early, telling the story of a rebel clashing with a tyrant at the 2016 Royal Rumble.

WWE has other options for WrestleMania. It's best to have Reigns amass momentum in a hurry in order to best take advantage of the electric connection between him and the crowd.

Reigns spent much of the year putting on clutch performances in the ring. Much of the crowd resisted his rise anyway.

He worked on his promo work, expanded his move set and impressively got a standout match from Big Show. Still, many fans weren't sold.

It wasn't until he let his fury overflow and pounced on Triple H at Tables, Ladders & Chairs 2015 that things changed. That vicious attack on the corporate braggart sparked the fire WWE had been trying to light for a long time.

......

Triple H vs. Reigns is the strike-while-the-iron-is-hot option, the surefire way to make Reigns' title reign memorable early on.

The power of a hero's tale is often dependent on the quality of the villain. And in this case, Triple H is a class above Sheamus, a Jaguar compared to a Renault."

Read More Here

 

[Jacob Fox]

As much as I hate to agree with anyone who would demean their writing by writing for that dreadful Bleacher Report, I have to at least agree with the premise of the article.

 

[Roadster]

No he isn't.

But first off, Roman Reigns hasn't expanded his arsenal of moves? He does the exact same things. Not saying they're bad, but the article isn't really touching on that. Plus, false-finishes is not a good match, let alone a standout match. It was still an upper-cut and samoan drop fest, as usual.

People seem to forget the reputation Triple H has. Amongst most fans, he's a greedy, under-mining politician. You don't have to be a smark to understand this. It's everywhere. Not to mention, people are more than happy with the part-time champions, they already have. People are not keen on seeing older, rustier, broken-down, part-timers - take the cake. The on exception to this was Brock Lesnar. The Rock received a lot of heat for being part-time. Despite being there almost everyweek, and even on SmackDown. The point is, people want to see newer, if not, full-time competitors challenge for the championship.

Key word is "people". Does it make sense to have this 2 year long build (if you count the spear from post-WM30 RAW, the beginning) end in a big clash at WrestleMania. Have McMahon vs. Austin but with a new Austin and a McMahon that could actually wrestle? Yes it does. But in pro-wrestling, making sense doesn't matter when the people's opinions matter- or a better way to put it - money talks. Of course in the WWE, people matter as much as the spanish announce table, but popular opinions, like Daniel Bryan, Shield vs. Wyatts and CM Punk are taken into account. To add to that, in an honest world - would a small, yet skillful, man defeat two giants? No. But in pro-wrestling, thanks to the over-whelming support, Daniel Bryan pulled it off. Now back on topic, Triple H facing Roman Reigns would be a terrible waste of a new Rumble winner, something people have desperately been clamoring for since the 2011 edition. But a great end to an epic story. But also a train-wreck to the moderate fan, who find Triple H to be an attention whore.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Now back on topic, Triple H facing Roman Reigns would be a terrible waste of a new Rumble winner, something people have desperately been clamoring for since the 2011 edition. .

The article actually proposes Triple H to face Reigns at Royal Rumble, not at Wrestlemania, so the prospect for a new Rumble winner is still there.

Unless I misunderstand, because if you knew he meant at the Rumble, how would the match affect the Rumble winner in any way?

The reason I like this idea is because I HATE the idea of Reigns vs HHH at Wrestlemania. That would be a nonsensical main event fr Wrestlemania 32, in my view.

 

[Roadster]

The article actually proposes Triple H to face Reigns at Royal Rumble, not at Wrestlemania, so the prospect for a new Rumble winner is still there.

Unless I misunderstand, because if you knew he meant at the Rumble, how would the match affect the Rumble winner in any way?

The reason I like this idea is because I HATE the idea of Reigns vs HHH at Wrestlemania. That would be a nonsensical main event fr Wrestlemania 32, in my view.

Don't read Bitch Report, so I decided to improvise.:diaz1:

 

[Jacob Fox]

Don't read Bitch Report, so I decided to improvise.:diaz1:

That's the better option... I feel like sandpapering my eyes and I only read the first paragraph.

 

[Mr. Roman Empire]

Triple H vs Reigns should/is going to happen but I said it before and I'll say it again, it shouldn't happen at Wrestlemania. Either Roman and Sheamus have a rematch at Royal Rumble for the title or Vince strips Roman for the title and Lesnar vs Sheamus for the vacant title happens and Roman wins the Royal Rumble to get another shot. And then at Fastlane Roman vs Triple H happens for either the WWE title or for Romans #1 contender spot at Wm32.

Everyone always says "but Fastlane is a throw away PPV, they could only have a match like that at Wrestlemania." but I disagree completely. Everyone thought Lesnar vs Taker part III was gonna happen at Wrestlemania but it ended up being at Hell in a Cell. If HHH is in the main event at Wrestlemania, Ill be highly disappointed.

 

[Prince Bálor]

Reigns vs Trips happening at the Rumble or Mania is a-okay with me.

But, I actually want it to happen at the Rumble, it's a safer bet, as the event's being held in Roman's home state of Florida.
If the match happened at Mania, then you'd face the possibility of Reigns getting booed again because of all of HHH's (s)marks at the show.

 

[The GOAT]

For what it's worth, there's actually a rumor going around that HHH will make Reigns defend his championship twice at Wrestlemania - once against the Royal Rumble winner (whomever that might be) and if he can get past them, then once against him as well. That means Reigns vs HHH would probably still headline, but it also means there's huge uncertainty as to who the winner of the Rumble would be.

Reigns vs HHH isn't happening at the Rumble or Fast Lane unless there's a bigger opponent than Roman for HHH come Wrestlemania, and right now there isn't. Rock would be that opponent but he probably won't be able to wrestle there. I don't see someone who has an ego the size of Texas like HHH suddenly switching gears from putting over the desired next face of the company to settling for a 'lesser' program against someone like Ambrose unless he absolutely has to.

 

[Leo C]

I think this should happen at WM. I'm a sucker for any idea that involves HHH winning the belt, but it's actually a good idea. I mean, if we're going to get a big match for Reigns at WM (and we ARE getting one), imo it has to be either HHH, Cena, or Brock. Could we get new guys, such as... KO, for example? Sure, but let's face it, Reigns vs Owens isn't as marquee as one of the three guys I mentioned earlier (does that suck? Sure, but you can't get anyone to that level in 3 months). It shouldn't be Cena because imo it's too early to do a passing of the torch, so to speak, I'd do it next year at the earliest. Brock would get cheered wildly, which would be bad considering Roman hasn't fully gained the crowd's support yet. Which leaves us with Hunter, who gets heat AND has a reason to want to kick Reigns' ass already.

 

[Neptune]

For what it's worth, there's actually a rumor going around that HHH will make Reigns defend his championship twice at Wrestlemania - once against the Royal Rumble winner (whomever that might be) and if he can get past them, then once against him as well. That means Reigns vs HHH would probably still headline, but it also means there's huge uncertainty as to who the winner of the Rumble would be.

Reigns vs HHH isn't happening at the Rumble or Fast Lane unless there's a bigger opponent than Roman for HHH come Wrestlemania, and right now there isn't. Rock would be that opponent but he probably won't be able to wrestle there. I don't see someone who has an ego the size of Texas like HHH suddenly switching gears from putting over the desired next face of the company to settling for a 'lesser' program against someone like Ambrose unless he absolutely has to.

Brock or Rock are the only two names that come to mind. They want to put Reigns over though which is why I can't see putting him against either is a good idea. I see HHH vs Brock vs Reigns happening at Wrestle Mania. HHH will keep Reigns "safe" from a loss from Brock.

 

[Aids Johnson]

For what it's worth, there's actually a rumor going around that HHH will make Reigns defend his championship twice at Wrestlemania - once against the Royal Rumble winner (whomever that might be) and if he can get past them, then once against him as well. That means Reigns vs HHH would probably still headline, but it also means there's huge uncertainty as to who the winner of the Rumble would be.

Reigns vs HHH isn't happening at the Rumble or Fast Lane unless there's a bigger opponent than Roman for HHH come Wrestlemania, and right now there isn't. Rock would be that opponent but he probably won't be able to wrestle there. I don't see someone who has an ego the size of Texas like HHH suddenly switching gears from putting over the desired next face of the company to settling for a 'lesser' program against someone like Ambrose unless he absolutely has to.

Getting Reigns shoved down our throats actually does sound appealing - if only because the RR winner has a shot.

 

[Jacob Fox]

I think this should happen at WM. I'm a sucker for any idea that involves HHH winning the belt, but it's actually a good idea. I mean, if we're going to get a big match for Reigns at WM (and we ARE getting one), imo it has to be either HHH, Cena, or Brock. Could we get new guys, such as... KO, for example? Sure, but let's face it, Reigns vs Owens isn't as marquee as one of the three guys I mentioned earlier (does that suck? Sure, but you can't get anyone to that level in 3 months). It shouldn't be Cena because imo it's too early to do a passing of the torch, so to speak, I'd do it next year at the earliest. Brock would get cheered wildly, which would be bad considering Roman hasn't fully gained the crowd's support yet. Which leaves us with Hunter, who gets heat AND has a reason to want to kick Reigns' ass already.

All good points but they work under the assumption that WWE does what makes sense, and as we've seen many times, they don't often do that. And they very rarely learn from their mistakes.

I'm not ready to give them that sort of credit yet.

And I still just don't see this happening at Wrestlemania. I dunno. I also think that because they haven't yet announced who Reigns will face an the Rumble, despite having 2 Raws occur since he won the belt, indicates HHH is likely.

 

[Leo C]

All good points but they work under the assumption that WWE does what makes sense, and as we've seen many times, they don't often do that. And they very rarely learn from their mistakes.

I'm not ready to give them that sort of credit yet.

And I still just don't see this happening at Wrestlemania. I dunno. I also think that because they haven't yet announced who Reigns will face an the Rumble, despite having 2 Raws occur since he won the belt, indicates HHH is likely.

Very likely indeed. Maybe they will hotshot Cena or try to give Roman his redemption against Brock, who knows? I don't think it would work though. I think it would be cool if Roman was forced to defend the belt in the Rumble match and HHH won it though.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Very likely indeed. Maybe they will hotshot Cena or try to give Roman his redemption against Brock, who knows? I don't think it would work though. I think it would be cool if Roman was forced to defend the belt in the Rumble match and HHH won it though.

Yeah I'd be okay with that too.