'Your' Royal Rumble Winner....

With everyone talking about the perspective winner; and

Rumoured likely Rumble winner:

I was interested in who you think actually deserves to win it?

For me, I would have The Miz pretty close to the top of my list. He's been outstanding since he moved to Smackdown, both his ring and mic work have been brilliant and he's certainly been more entertaining than Orton, Lesnar, Strowman and Goldberg.

Who do you guys think should be winning it?

Jericho. He's been excellent since his return and its the last big thing he hasnt won.

Jericho or Zayn for me.

Jericho or the Miz

Taker, his career deserves the best possible send off. Title vs Career against Cena at WM (apparently the Cena match has been nixed tho)

Ché Guerrero wrote:Taker, his career deserves the best possible send off. Title vs Career against Cena at WM (apparently the Cena match has been nixed tho)

it has to be nixed, there'a no way in hell Vince will want what would be the main attraction match of WrestleMania to be played out on SmackDown! and they couldn't uphold the integrity of the brand split if they had SD's 2 biggest stars playing out their feud on RAW

If the Rumble is actually supposed to be the stepping stone towards the Main Event, and used to propel someone forward, then Taker shouldn't be anywhere near winning it.

What does a Taker win actually do? Does nothing for a whole year, comes back and wins the Rumble? That would be a massive kick in the teeth to the guys who have worked all year round.

IF they wanted to go down the Cena v Taker route, there are better ways than wasting a Rumble win on him.

History has proved you can set a feud up within the match itself, somhopefully we'll see that.

Beer wrote:If the Rumble is actually supposed to be the stepping stone towards the Main Event, and used to propel someone forward, then Taker shouldn't be anywhere near winning it.

How often is that the case though? I'd say the majority of winners were already main eventers by the time they won it. A lot had already world champions before they won the Rumble. 

I think Money in the Bank has been used as a stepping stone to the main event, the Rumble is a just a way of creating stories for Wrestlemania. I definitely think Undertaker winning it to set up a match with Cena had Wrestlemania is very much a valid way of creating that story. Especially as both are fan favourites and Undertaker isn't exactly going to be winning a number one contender match on Smackdown any time soon.

I think you need to go as far back as 2005 when Batista last eliminated John Cena to win to view it as a real stepping stone. You could argue that with Reigns a couple of years ago but that felt forced (which is why it was widely rejected) whereas Cena and Batista both rose up the card naturally. Whos won it since then? Mysterio, Undertaker, Cena x 2, Orton, Edge, ADR, Sheamo, Batista (again), Reigns and HHH. Barring Reigns and Mysterio (who were both forced into wins in one way or another) everyone else already had atleast 2 World titles already on recored.

Money in the Bank is definitely the new stepping stone, as it were.

Samo wrote:I think you need to go as far back as 2005 when Batista last eliminated John Cena to win to view it as a real stepping stone. You could argue that with Reigns a couple of years ago but that felt forced (which is why it was widely rejected) whereas Cena and Batista both rose up the card naturally. Whos won it since then? Mysterio, Undertaker, Cena x 2, Orton, Edge, ADR, Sheamo, Batista (again), Reigns and HHH. Barring Reigns and Mysterio (who were both forced into wins in one way or another) everyone else already had atleast 2 World titles already on recored.

Money in the Bank is definitely the new stepping stone, as it were.

Even before 2005 the Rumble was generally for main eventers who were already established to win.

2004 - Chris Benoit - this was somebody moving into the main event
2003 - Brock Lesnar - already well established, won world titles
2002 - Triple H - multi-time world champion and established main event
2001 - Stone Cold Steve Austin - massive star already
2000 - The Rock - massive star already
1999 - Mr McMahon - obviously not a young and up coming star
1998 - Stone Cold Steve Austin - already been world champion, established main eventer
1997 - SCSA - more of a step up, but certainly well on his way to be a main eventer
1996 - Shawn Michaels - already main evented Wrestlemania
1995 - Shawn Michaels - this was a step up

So that's the previous ten years before 2005 and I can only really see two that could be argued as using the Rumble as a step up.

You never really think about it but when you lay it all out it kinda slaps you in the face and you wonder how you never saw it before.

Yeah but tbh to go over 29 other wrestlers it makes sense for them to already be established

What is noticeable there though is that none of those people had also won the Royal Rumble nearly ten years previously. They were all winning the Rumble for the first time.

RR 2017 spoilers:

At least the 90s and 00s generally had their own made stars win the match, not relying on repeated names from the years gone by. That's what makes those Rumble winners feel fresher.

Crimey wrote:

Samo wrote:I think you need to go as far back as 2005 when Batista last eliminated John Cena to win to view it as a real stepping stone. You could argue that with Reigns a couple of years ago but that felt forced (which is why it was widely rejected) whereas Cena and Batista both rose up the card naturally. Whos won it since then? Mysterio, Undertaker, Cena x 2, Orton, Edge, ADR, Sheamo, Batista (again), Reigns and HHH. Barring Reigns and Mysterio (who were both forced into wins in one way or another) everyone else already had atleast 2 World titles already on recored.

Money in the Bank is definitely the new stepping stone, as it were.

Even before 2005 the Rumble was generally for main eventers who were already established to win.

2004 - Chris Benoit - this was somebody moving into the main event
2003 - Brock Lesnar - already well established, won world titles
2002 - Triple H - multi-time world champion and established main event
2001 - Stone Cold Steve Austin - massive star already
2000 - The Rock - massive star already
1999 - Mr McMahon - obviously not a young and up coming star
1998 - Stone Cold Steve Austin - already been world champion, established main eventer
1997 - SCSA - more of a step up, but certainly well on his way to be a main eventer
1996 - Shawn Michaels - already main evented Wrestlemania
1995 - Shawn Michaels - this was a step up

So that's the previous ten years before 2005 and I can only really see two that could be argued as using the Rumble as a step up.

not to be too picky but when Austin won it again in 98 he wasn't a World Champion yet, that would come later in the year and while he did have a brilliant feud with Bret Hart and the Hart Foundation and it was clear they where looking to make him their top star he was still wasn't an established main eventer, 97 was a year he rose but 98 was his real break out year as establishing himself as a main eventer