Today, we take a look at the worst of the worst for the Royal Rumble winners. Over the years, we've seen some really good outcomes for the Rumble, but what about the other side of the argument? What about the worst winners? There have been many of those, and today, we take a look at the worst Royal Rumble winners in WWF/WWE history.
*Hulk Hogan (1990)
-Let me just ask this right now: why the fuck was the WWF Champion involved in the actual Rumble match without the title on the line? Now, don't get me wrong, I have no issue with Hogan winning in 1991, but why this year? Why not Warrior winning to set up the big Hogan vs Warrior match? Why not even Mr. Perfect, who was in need of a big win and slightly on a roll? Hogan doesn't deserve to be a two time Rumble winner because he was already the Champion. A horrible decision and I'll put him on this list instead of Big John Studd and Hacksaw Jim Duggan, because as a much bigger star and WWF Champion, this was one of the most unnecessary wins.
*Bret Hart/Lex Luger (1994)
-This is more of an annoyance for how the scenario of two winners played out instead of the actual result. Why not book a triple threat? Yes, I know the triple threat wasn't really a big thing then, but why have both men win it? It made no sense and it only furthered the point that Lex was a failure in WWF who couldn't hack it in the main event and that Vince didn't have full faith in Bret either. Vince wanted Lex. Fans wanted Bret. He gave them both of those options but in the end, Bret won the title at Mania. Still stupid.
*Vince McMahon (1999)
-The Worst of the worst. Just so Austin wouldn't end up as a 4 time Rumble winner, the ego Vince had made him give himself the Rumble win for no reason at all. Vince wasn't necessarily a wrestler and didn't deserve this accolade, but when you run the company, I guess you can do what you want right? Regardless, this is the WORST of them all.
*Rey Mysterio (2006)
-If you're an Eddie Guerrero fan, you might feel two ways about this one. You might think this was a great win and uplifting for Eddie's best friend, but if you're like me, you feel like this was useless and only happened due to the death of Eddie. Rey wasn't World Title material and this was further proof. The underdog role was cool, but it just didn't work to me and him winning the Rumble over some other options showcased how lackluster the roster was at the time.
*Alberto Del Rio (2011)
-40 men. 40 men. And the man you choose to give this illustrious honor to happens to be Alberto Del Rio? Alright. No one was excited to see Del Rio win the Rumble and he wasn't really managing to get over much besides his entrance. Otherwise, Del Rio wasn't really the guy for this one, I'd have preferred to see CM Punk get this Rumble victory and go on to a Wrestlemania main event, as the concept of a Punk in a main event with the New Nexus by his side would have helped his momentum. Instead we got Del Rio winning and going on to face Edge. Just... no.
*Sheamus (2012)
-When the winner of the Rumble is met with a despondent response from the crowd, that shows you the WWE made the wrong decision. This happened when everyone thought Jericho should have won and rightfully so he should have. Sheamus wasn't the guy and this whole push for him as a face failed miserably after the Rumble win.
*John Cena (2013)
-When we speak of unnecessary... this is one. In 2008, Cena winning was fine. He was only 4 years into his main event run and returning from injury. 2013? 9 years into the main event run, a multi time WWE Champion, and a previous winner of the Rumble, Cena won to set up the also unnecessary Rock vs Cena 2. The reaction of the crowd when it's down to just Ryback, Cena, and Sheamus as the final 3 says it all. People were hoping for anyone but Cena. Of course we were disappointed. And the fans booed this as well.
*Batista (2014)
-The WWE has been ruining the Rumble with terrible winners for the last few years and this was yet another example of that. Batista was back after a 4 year absence. Why did he need to win the Rumble? He didn't. The fans cheered for Reigns to win JUST so Batista wouldn't and the boos rained down on Batista and forced WWE to change direction after Punk left. This might be the worst decision of them all honestly, as 9 years after winning his first Rumble, Batista won it again. For no damn reason. Vince is a super idiot.
*Roman Reigns (2015)
-I know. Reigns is a favorite to a small group of fans. However, he wasn't the right choice here. The fans weren't sold on him like they were Dean Ambrose or Daniel Bryan, two of the better options to win the Rumble. Neither man won and the fans weren't pleased and even the Rock couldn't save the ending, as fans booed the hell out of Reigns and Rock standing tall together. Another mistake by WWE in recent years.
*Triple H (2016)
-They made this Rumble for the title, put Lesnar in it, had Ambrose building momentum again, and the winner ends up as Triple H to set up a Reigns vs HHH title match that no one really wanted to see. It was done in poor taste and while HHH winning furthered the storyline, it wasn't the right call. Reigns vs HHH shouldn't have closed the show at Mania and HHH shouldn't have been champion. HHH wins his 2nd Rumble 14 years after winning his first. That's a huge problem. A huge problem. Hopefully WWE gets it right this year... but I doubt it.
-True
0 comments:
Post a Comment