Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

All Time Greatest, Worst, Sickest, Weirdest, Funniest...you get the idea.

40 Man Royal Rumble?

Good idea
11
79%
Bad idea
3
21%
 
Total votes: 14

User avatar
yourcrapsweak
Posts: 2001
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 18:12

Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by yourcrapsweak » Jan 18th, '11, 17:41

Is it a good idea or no?
"I was trending worldwide on Twitter once. And then I looked in my wallet, and there was no money in there."
-Kevin Steen

User avatar
Rabid619
Posts: 6093
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 14:02

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by Rabid619 » Jan 18th, '11, 18:19

If it means we'll see the guys we want to see in there that would likely be left out of the 30 man rumble, then im all for it.
Image

User avatar
Earth Child
Posts: 874
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 21:44

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by Earth Child » Jan 18th, '11, 20:31

I think its a good idea. It accomodates for almost everyone on the roster minus the Divas. Thought you never know, they might throw one in again.

User avatar
Bob-O
Posts: 3390
Joined: Dec 17th, '10, 06:06

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by Bob-O » Jan 18th, '11, 21:15

Earth Child wrote:I think its a good idea. It accomodates for almost everyone on the roster minus the Divas. Thought you never know, they might throw one in again.
This! There are 50 men on the combined rosters, and that's including those that are injured (Bourne, Sheffield, Tarver Undertaker, Christian, Triple H). With 40, we're sure to get some surprises!
Image

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 20950
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by cero2k » Jan 18th, '11, 21:17

Bob-O wrote: With 40, we're sure to get some surprises!
this
Image

User avatar
Rabid619
Posts: 6093
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 14:02

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by Rabid619 » Jan 18th, '11, 21:25

I'd like to point out that Tarver is no longer injured. He came back at an FCW show either late last month or early this month. I kinda want to see him in the rumble to see what they do with him.
Image

badnewzxl
Posts: 2918
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:53

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by badnewzxl » Jan 18th, '11, 23:13

the more, the merrier....
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 27378
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by Big Red Machine » Jan 18th, '11, 23:23

I'll go with good idea for now. We'll see at the PPV, though.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Ultimate Gate 2013
ROH/CMLL Global Wars Espectacular: Day 3

badnewzxl
Posts: 2918
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:53

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by badnewzxl » Jan 23rd, '11, 02:37

The Awesome One wrote:Its longer, why not?
it's actually just as long. They changed the grace period from 2 mins to 90secs, so it evens out.....
Image

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 27378
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by Big Red Machine » Jan 23rd, '11, 08:06

badnewzxl wrote:
The Awesome One wrote:Its longer, why not?
it's actually just as long. They changed the grace period from 2 mins to 90secs, so it evens out.....
But still, it will take longer to eliminate the extra 10 guys (if done well, anyway)
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Ultimate Gate 2013
ROH/CMLL Global Wars Espectacular: Day 3

User avatar
Rabid619
Posts: 6093
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 14:02

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by Rabid619 » Jan 23rd, '11, 08:14

badnewzxl wrote:it's actually just as long. They changed the grace period from 2 mins to 90secs, so it evens out.....
I thought it was 90 seconds between entrants already?
Image

badnewzxl
Posts: 2918
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:53

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by badnewzxl » Jan 23rd, '11, 09:38

Rabid619 wrote:
badnewzxl wrote:it's actually just as long. They changed the grace period from 2 mins to 90secs, so it evens out.....
I thought it was 90 seconds between entrants already?
I thought it was always two minutes, except the one HBK won back in the 90's when it was like a minute....
Image

User avatar
yourcrapsweak
Posts: 2001
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 18:12

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by yourcrapsweak » Jan 24th, '11, 16:54

They change it almost every year, but I think it's been 90 seconds for a good while.
"I was trending worldwide on Twitter once. And then I looked in my wallet, and there was no money in there."
-Kevin Steen

ECWFlairfan
Posts: 510
Joined: Jan 4th, '11, 19:55

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by ECWFlairfan » Jan 24th, '11, 16:58

Its a bad idea because it pretty much eliminates the undercard... 5 matches for the event I guess? 1. RR match, 2. WWE title match, 3. World title match, 4. Tag team title match, 5. Divas title match... Guess Chavo will be left out again...lol

User avatar
Cactus Jack Manson
Posts: 140
Joined: Jan 7th, '11, 16:35

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by Cactus Jack Manson » Jan 24th, '11, 18:03

badnewzxl wrote:
Rabid619 wrote:
badnewzxl wrote:it's actually just as long. They changed the grace period from 2 mins to 90secs, so it evens out.....
I thought it was 90 seconds between entrants already?
I thought it was always two minutes, except the one HBK won back in the 90's when it was like a minute....
I had to check that on wikipedia, it's about half and half of the rumble's had 90-second & 2-minuet intervals: 1994, 1996-2000, 2003,2004,2005, & 2006 had 90-second for sure. It wouldn't tell me about any other the Rumbles after that. 1988-1993, 2001, & 2002 were 2- minuets. And 1995 was the only Rumble that had 60-second intervals.
R.I.P. Randy Mario Poffo, aka Randy "Macho Man" Savage
11/15/52 - 5/20/11

Image

User avatar
Rabid619
Posts: 6093
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 14:02

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by Rabid619 » Jan 24th, '11, 18:34

Catus Jack Manson wrote:I had to check that on wikipedia, it's about half and half of the rumble's had 90-second & 2-minuet intervals: 1994, 1996-2000, 2003,2004,2005, & 2006 had 90-second for sure. It wouldn't tell me about any other the Rumbles after that. 1988-1993, 2001, & 2002 were 2- minuets. And 1995 was the only Rumble that had 60-second intervals.
2007, 2008 & 2009 were also 90 seconds. I'm not certain about last year though.
Image

ECWFlairfan
Posts: 510
Joined: Jan 4th, '11, 19:55

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by ECWFlairfan » Jan 24th, '11, 18:59

PPVs usually have 6-8 matches... now only 5 with a 40 person main event... WAY too many...

User avatar
Rabid619
Posts: 6093
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 14:02

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by Rabid619 » Jan 24th, '11, 20:06

ECWFlairfan wrote:PPVs usually have 6-8 matches... now only 5 with a 40 person main event... WAY too many...
Its 2 championship matches &
Hidden text.
A Divas Match
plus the RR match itself.
Image

User avatar
Cactus Jack Manson
Posts: 140
Joined: Jan 7th, '11, 16:35

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by Cactus Jack Manson » Jan 24th, '11, 20:15

In the past, some Royal Rumble's had 3 matches, then the Rumble itself.
R.I.P. Randy Mario Poffo, aka Randy "Macho Man" Savage
11/15/52 - 5/20/11

Image

badnewzxl
Posts: 2918
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:53

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Post by badnewzxl » Jan 25th, '11, 11:08

Catus Jack Manson wrote:In the past, some Royal Rumble's had 3 matches, then the Rumble itself.
yeah. I can't remember any RR with more than 4 or 5 matches besides the Rumble. There simply isn't much time for other matches, unless you want several of them to be less than five minutes
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests