Page 1 of 2

Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 18th, '11, 17:41
by yourcrapsweak
Is it a good idea or no?

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 18th, '11, 18:19
by Rabid619
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.

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 18th, '11, 20:31
by Earth Child
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.

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 18th, '11, 21:15
by Bob-O
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!

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 18th, '11, 21:17
by cero2k
Bob-O wrote: With 40, we're sure to get some surprises!
this

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 18th, '11, 21:25
by Rabid619
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.

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 18th, '11, 23:13
by badnewzxl
the more, the merrier....

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 18th, '11, 23:23
by Big Red Machine
I'll go with good idea for now. We'll see at the PPV, though.

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 23rd, '11, 02:37
by badnewzxl
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.....

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 23rd, '11, 08:06
by Big Red Machine
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)

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 23rd, '11, 08:14
by Rabid619
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?

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 23rd, '11, 09:38
by badnewzxl
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....

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 24th, '11, 16:54
by yourcrapsweak
They change it almost every year, but I think it's been 90 seconds for a good while.

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 24th, '11, 16:58
by ECWFlairfan
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

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 24th, '11, 18:03
by Cactus Jack Manson
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.

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 24th, '11, 18:34
by Rabid619
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.

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 24th, '11, 18:59
by ECWFlairfan
PPVs usually have 6-8 matches... now only 5 with a 40 person main event... WAY too many...

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 24th, '11, 20:06
by Rabid619
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.

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 24th, '11, 20:15
by Cactus Jack Manson
In the past, some Royal Rumble's had 3 matches, then the Rumble itself.

Re: Is a 40 Man Rumble a Good Idea?

Posted: Jan 25th, '11, 11:08
by badnewzxl
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