Since 1992, the Royal Rumble has held a lot of meaning to WWE wrestlers. That year, the annual 30 man battle royale determined a new WWF champion, and every year since then, the match decided the #1 contender for Wrestlemania (ideally). Thus, winning the match could do wonders for a career, and finishing second...........well, you may never get back there again.
This year, the Rumble goes to 40 competitors, but before we get there this Sunday, we're going to do a lot of looking back at old Rumbles. We'll do it for two reasons:
1) To hype up Sunday as it starts the Road to Wrestlemania!
2) It's my favorite event of the year!
To start, we were going to do the top 10 guys who never won a Rumble but should have, but that article got deleted so it's coming tomorrow. For now, we'll count down from the worst Rumble to the best (from 1992-present). Any objections? Post it at the bottom of the article.
19. 1999 - By the way internet fans talk, you would think that everything about the "Attitude Era" was phenomenal. The reality is that it was far from it. This Rumble was about as bad as you could get, as the two men it was about were in early and took the fight out of the ring, making everything going on inside of it utterly useless. It would have been anyway, as nobody in this Rumble was all that credible and were midcard at best for the most part. Two main event talents had a fantastic "I quit" match that night, so that lows the star level, and it just fell flat most of the time. If you are going to book the main story the way you did, at least make the in ring stuff that's killing time exciting. Instead we got quick eliminations and guys standing around. It was awful, and to top it off, we got a non wrestler who wouldn't headline Wrestlemania as the winner. He (Vince) would lose that right to Austin a month later, so what the hell was the point? This was a terrible Rumble, and proved that sometimes, traditional ways of doing things are best despite what Vince Russo likes to think.
18. 1995 - I hated this one too. The addition of Pamela Anderson as a prize made it sort of obvious who would win, because a lot of characters would look plain stupid walking in with Pam at Wrestlemania. Eliminate her and it's a much more even match and a lot better one. Still, it was the shortest Rumble to date and was highly unexciting. This was a bad time for the WWF anyway, and a "not yet ready for primetime" Shawn Michaels won it. Had he not, his win next year would have meant a lot more as he went on to win at 'Mania as a babyface. This was just horrible all around and was essentially a bad Rumble leading to a bad Wrestlemania. Now do you understand why Austin 3:16 and nWo were such welcome additions?
17. 1997 - Some like this one as their boy Austin got his first Rumble win. I hated that he won. You didn't need him to win as he wasn't going to Wrestlemania and I'm never a fan of giving up that right as it's not easy to earn. You knew that Austin would culminate his feud with Bret Hart at Wrestlemania, and that feud could have continued in the Rumble without either winning. Instead, you had a guy win that had no chance of main eventing. That's just stupid. It's not as bad as the previous two in the sense that the last few competitors in the Rumble are good, but there were plenty of random Japanese guys brought in who nobody knew, so that was a waste of time. Still, the ending was good as you had guys like Mankind, Rocky Maivia, Vader, Bret, and Austin in it. That's a lot of star power, but the wrong man won. Again, had he lost here due to Bret or something and won next year, that win would have meant so much more. Austin is a face a year later and a heel here, so it would have given us another of those moments. Yet another wasted Rumble here. What is it with odd numbered years?
16. 1993 - Speaking of odd years, this is another that had a mediocre Rumble. It was a major transition period in the WWF as Flair was leaving, Hogan was gone (or so we thought), Savage was in and out of wrestling, and other main players had aged or left. There were very few top heels to speak of, and Bret Hart was still trying to solidify himself as a main event player. This led to newcomer Yokozuna winning the Rumble as he was simply too fat to move. In a way, it's good booking, but then you realize that you have a 600 pound man in the main event of Wrestlemania. Not exactly ideal, though they got as much mileage out of the big man as they could. They had some aging stars in this one, but a lot of stupid gimmicky guys in it too. It just wasn't a great Rumble to watch, and Yoko was highly unexciting to see win.
15. 2006 - This may be a more personal choice, but I didn't like this Rumble at all. It was blatantly obvious that Eddie Guerr........Rey Mysterio was going to win this one. Everything about Rey at this point had to do with Eddie, which was weird because a year earlier, Eddie tried to take Rey's son away. I know that kayfabe goes away when real life happens, but did it have to be the reason to put a midget over in a Rumble? I'm short too, but I have no business winning a Royal Rumble and I know it! Rey might, but not from the spot he did it from. And not because of somebody else. Unfortunately, that's what happened, and I hated it as a result. The match itself wasn't terrible though cluttered at times, but I hated the fact that Eddie's death was used to propel Mysterio. Unfortunately, this led to Mysterio being the pain in the ass he is today and the man who refuses on almost Hogan levels, though at least Hogan was a huge man. Rey is not, and this whole Rumble is a sham as a result in my eyes.
14. 2002 - This could have been a really good one, but it wasn't. The booking was weird and despite the AWESOME comeback at MSG by Triple H, I think it would have been more epic had he come back IN the Rumble. With him back a few weeks before, it was pretty obvious that he was winning the Rumble. Thus, everything else didn't matter. Couple that with jobbers getting more time in this Rumble than legitimate threats and you have a pretty weak Rumble. I loved Triple H's return, but when a Rumble result is obvious, it's not good. That was the case here, and it really ruined the match for me.
13. 1996 - The boyhood dream has come true! Well, it was about to anyway. This was the year of HBK, the new face of the WWE who had made a living off of being a huge dickhead. Still, it would have been really exciting to see him win if he didn't win the year before and have terrible competition this year. The roster was starting to come around, but Hunter Hearst Helmsley was still a rookie, as was The Ringmaster (Stone Cold). The roster sucked, and it was obvious Shawn was winning anyway. Great moment and a well deserved win, but not a great Rumble to do it in. Had it been booked decently, it would have meant more. Well that and not having him win in explicably the year before.
12. 1998 - Again, this has a great moment which would lead to a new face winning at 'Mania, but the Rumble sucked. It had its moments with all 3 Mick Foley characters and the stable wars intertwined, but it was obvious Austin would win. Still, the showdown between Austin and Rock at the end was nice foreshadowing of the years to come and this was the dawn of the era of a MEGASTAR, so it does have that going for it. It can't be any higher though with the amount of fodder in it, but at least it launched Austin into superstardom.
11. 2003 - This is another transition year for WWE as Austin and Rock are on the way out. A new star was needed and it was made (if he wasn't already) in the name of Brock Lesnar. He was a face by this point, and would go on to nearly kill himself in a match again Angle at Wrestlemania. Still, the Rumble itself isn't great. It's good, but I just hated this time in the WWE. The talent level might be high, but nobody was really getting elevatedand the booking was terrible from 2002-2005 for the most part. I'm also writing this in 2011, so knowing that Brock Lesnar left after the next Wrestlemania, it seems a waste to put him over so big at this time. Still, a new star was needed so it worked. Plus, that Wrestlemania gave us Jericho/Michaels which was awesome. I'm not a huge fan of this Rumble, but it certainly could have been worse.
Since it's now very late at night, I'm going to stop this year and give you the top 10 tomorrow. After that, look out for Rumble winners that never were, winners that didn't deserve the honor, and rewriting each rumble for better results. This is all leading up to our picks and coverage of the 2011 Royal Rumble! It's going to be an exciting week so make sure to check back here every single day!
Written by:
