Jump to content

Who should've won it?


Nexus
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

I was trying to think of "big names" who never won the Rumble and who you would've expected to have won it, at least once. 

 

The one that first sprang to mind was Jericho - perenially in the final four but never made it to the end. 

 

The only other one I can think of would be Warrior, but he was before my time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Not in the sense they were a “big name” and definitely with hindsight but Santino should have won it in 2011. For one it made absolute sense in the match that he could have and I think it would have been accepted by everyone, but mostly because Del Rio never even beat Edge at Mania anyway and Edge had to retire. 

It would have set a precident to back up that “anyone can win it” gimmick they push, and instead we got Del Rio barking on about his Destiny only to lose to someone who was on his way out for 9 years a week later.

Other than that, I’d have liked to have seen Kane win one. 2001 would have made sense but also ruined the best Wrestlemania, so give him 2003 as I don’t even remember who won that.

Edited by FelatioLips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, FelatioLips said:

Not in the sense they were a “big name” and definitely with hindsight but Santino should have won it in 2011. For one it made absolute sense in the match that he could have and I think it would have been accepted by everyone, but mostly because Del Rio never even beat Edge at Mania anyway and Edge had to retire. 

It would have set a precident to back up that “anyone can win it” gimmick they push, and instead we got Del Rio barking on about his Destiny only to lose to someone who was on his way out for 9 years a week later.

Absolutely the one I came in here to post. When I think back to missed opportunities that's always the one that sticks in my mind. It could've done wonders for making the Rumble completely unpredictable. They could've found a way to get where they wanted after it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2014 Rumble should have been Roman's, Batista's comeback had already begun to flop only a couple of weeks in because no one wanted to cheer for him and the Shield were mega over even as heels (they didn't officially turn fully face until the night after Mania). The other option should have been putting Bryan in at 30, calling an audible to pull Mysterio last minute (they could have covered that by saying Ambrose and Rollins took Rey out as one less obstacle for Reigns) as the crowd were demanding DB as the match wore on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RIDDUM_N_STYLE said:

The 2014 Rumble should have been Roman's, Batista's comeback had already begun to flop only a couple of weeks in because no one wanted to cheer for him and the Shield were mega over even as heels (they didn't officially turn fully face until the night after Mania). The other option should have been putting Bryan in at 30, calling an audible to pull Mysterio last minute (they could have covered that by saying Ambrose and Rollins took Rey out as one less obstacle for Reigns) as the crowd were demanding DB as the match wore on

I wouldn't change 2014 at all. As unintentional as it was, it led to a brilliant Wrestlemania story as Bryan battled his way into the main event. If you substitute a Bryan win for a Reigns win at that show, you erase one of the greatest Wrestlemania moments of the 21st century from history. 

On the other hand, I would have given the 2015 Rumble to Bryan. Roman/Brock was an excellent match with a great finish, but it did a lot of damage to Roman Reigns. Doing Brock/Bryan at 'Mania, and having the same moment with Rollins would probably have worked better if keeping Roman cheered is your end goal. I don't think Roman getting booed was inevitable, his downfall as a face was caused by a series of bad decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Brock won 2003.

Kane deserved to win 2001, he was utterly dominant and the only way Austin could get him out was by smashing with a chair. I remember it being shit at the time, and I watched it the other day and it still felt the same. Obviously they were never gonna put Kane in a main event at Mania, but 'he deserved it'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
23 minutes ago, stewdogg said:

Yeah Brock won 2003.

Kane deserved to win 2001, he was utterly dominant and the only way Austin could get him out was by smashing with a chair. I remember it being shit at the time, and I watched it the other day and it still felt the same. Obviously they were never gonna put Kane in a main event at Mania, but 'he deserved it'

Austin using a chair to eliminate Kane, the valiant babyface, is actually really good foreshadowing of his Mania heel turn. Definitely my favourite Rumble and Kane's finest moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
20 hours ago, Nexus said:

The one that first sprang to mind was Jericho - perenially in the final four but never made it to the end. 

On his own merit I’d disagree but in comparison to Del Rio, Sheamus, Nakamura, and both Orton and Batista being allowed to win a second, maybe he should have had that moment in the era of diluted value/two champions.

There’s some point missing going on in this thread, it’s not “re-book a Rumble for a better winner.” It’s who never won one that should have, Roman for 2014 doesn’t count.

In the early years, Warrior and Macho Man were big enough names to win the Rumble. Given there wasn’t the guaranteed title shot stip, Hogan didn’t need to win in 1990 as champion nor in 1991 to earn a shot at Bob Laughter (even though I wouldn’t change that one).

Later on, Diesel. They could have either had him cement his breakaway from Shawn in 94/95 by winning the Rumble in Tampa to challenge Bret for Mania and bin Backlund winning the belt as there’s no way you stretch that reign out til Mania XI. Or in 1996 if he’d done well as champion or if Shawn wasn’t ready, you could have had him go get the belt back.

Everyone else that should have a Rumble win to their name does, and a few that shouldn’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Perfect in1990. 

Just have Hogan and Warrior eliminate each other instead of Hogan "accidentally" eliminating Warrior or have Perfect dump them both as they scrap by the ropes. 

There was no prize for winning back then so it made no real difference in the grand scheme of things, and actually would have given Perfect more to brag about before losing to Beefcake at Wrestlemania VI. 

Thinking back Hogan winning in 89 after "accidentally" eliminating Savage (hmm I see a pattern here) would have made more sense imo. 

Edit. 

Fantasy wank aside. 

Diesel and especially Andre The Giant. 

Edited by The King Of Swing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eddie.

Granted, his title shot came about after a nifty little Rumble match on Smackers i believe. Traditionally, a Rumble win story would be the most over babyface in the company winning en route to their first crowning, marking their official arrival at the top. Eddie is/was one of the most genuinely adored babyfaces WWE had ever had. He absolutely warranted a proper Rumble win accolade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
54 minutes ago, The King Of Swing said:

Mr. Perfect in1990. 

Just have Hogan and Warrior eliminate each other instead of Hogan "accidentally" eliminating Warrior or have Perfect dump them both as they scrap by the ropes. 

There was no prize for winning back then so it made no real difference in the grand scheme of things, and actually would have given Perfect more to brag about before losing to Beefcake at Wrestlemania VI. 

Also, this would have boosted house show business for Hogan vs Perfect for the belt which was the big program prior to Mania. Good arrows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, air_raid said:

Also, this would have boosted house show business for Hogan vs Perfect for the belt which was the big program prior to Mania. Good arrows.

With the 88 and 89 Rumble Winners (Duggan and Studd) were either of them used in house show feuds at the time? More curious than anything as it sounds like it would make a lot of sense even if was to provide a strong headliner for their cat B shows. Although I don't remember Studd ever being at Mania V but those 14 match cards could lose you with some pointless crap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...