Droppin' The Bomb #7 - Elevation

[Swanton Bomb]

Hello everyone, and welcome to the latest edition of Droppin’ The Bomb. I’m Swanton Bomb (or you can call me Niall (or Bomby (or Wanton (or The Gimmick Infringer (or any other nickname you might have for me (It’s not like I can hear you))))))

It’s been a while since I last wrote a column, mainly because I was feeling low after not being able to log on to the site to post my first round CSI entry. However, I did keep in check (or tried to) with all the CSI columns; and most were good, especially the collaborations in the quarter finals. I have to say, congratulations to Mazza and Sean Taylor for making the final. I have read both new columns, and I can’t believe how unbelievably close it is (sort of makes sense, doesn’t it?). Anywho, whichever of the historians wins will have thoroughly deserved it, and as the tagline suggests… One of them will be history.

Grievance

So, on to the column. First things first, let me pay my respects to Andrew ‘Test’ Martin. Don’t worry, this column isn’t about him. There are a lot of people saying that the only reason people are caring about Test is because he is dead. Well, in some cases, that may be true. However I, like other people, did like him as a wrestler. We can’t all be Kurt Angles or Bret Harts, right? Just because he wasn’t a technical wrestler, or wasn’t massively good on the microphone, doesn’t mean to say we can’t like him. So with that I say thank you, Andrew Martin. Thank you for your Big Boot, thank you for your Testicles and thank you for making Scott Steiner look better than he actually is.

Andrew ‘Test’ Martin, R.I.P.

Elevation

Whilst Elevation is one of my favourite U2 songs, I’m actually going to be talking about the elevation of a superstar. In WWE, various tournaments have been created to help superstars achieve a bigger and better status in their career. People like Edge, Harley Race and Batista have all benefited from such tournaments, but there are a lot of questions to be answered. Which is the most entertaining? What level of performer should win this sort of thing? Which is the best for actually raising a wrestler’s status? Well, this is what I’m going to discuss. Now, obviously it’s going to impossible to pick every tournament that has ever happened in WWE, but I’m going to pick (in my eyes) the two most unique, entertaining and consistent tournaments. And they are:

The Royal Rumble and The Money in the Bank Ladder Match

The Royal Rumble

The Royal Rumble is a match where a set amount of wrestlers enter a ring one after another after a set amount of time, trying to eliminate their opponents. You could eliminate an opponent by throwing them over the top rope with both their feet touching the floor afterwards. The last man in the ring would be declared the winner. These are the general rules, as the set created by Pat Patterson in the 1988 has evolved steadily over the years. The inaugural Royal Rumble was held in 1988, where the initial rules were:

• Two superstars enter the ring
• Every two minutes, another wrestler enters the ring, and there is a total of twenty wrestlers
• The only way to be eliminated is to go over the top rope and have both feet touch the floor
• The last remaining wrestler would be declared the winner

Now in the first Royal Rumble, there was no award to be handed out. No title shot, no championship win, just pride. After fourteen minutes of being in the Rumble, ‘Hacksaw’ Jim Duggan eliminated One Man Gang to win the first ever Royal Rumble. What did he get for it? Nothing. Although the match itself was entertaining, how could we improve it? What would make it a more compelling match, with more incentives?

In 1989, it was decided that the Royal Rumble would be held yet again. This time, the rules had changed slightly – Instead of twenty men entering the ring, the number would increase to thirty men. Big John Studd eliminated Ted DiBiase Jr to become the second winner of the Royal Rumble, but this win overshadowed Duggan’s win the year before. Why? Because of the ten extra opponents, and the fact that the first Royal Rumble was shown for free – this one was the first to go out on PPV. These same rules carried on (with Hulk Hogan winning back to back Rumbles) until 1992 – the year of the man.

Yes, Ric Flair won the 1992 Royal Rumble, but this time it was different. There was meaning. There was motivation. And there was the WWF Championship on the line. After eliminating Sid Justice, Flair held his thoroughly deserved championship high in the air. After this night, something must have clicked in Vince McMahon’s mind. Hey, if we give the wrestlers something to fight for, this might just turn into a profiting success! At the next Royal Rumble, Yokozuna (rather unconvincingly) threw Macho Man Randy Savage over the top rope, and won a match against the WWF Champion. Ever since then, the WWF/E wrestlers have fought for their chance to claim the world championship at Wrestlemania.

Along the way, the rules of the match have been tweaked here and there, mainly the time limit being changed from two minutes to ninety seconds to one minute, and then to ninety seconds again. The Royal Rumble has evolved over the years to bring us what we have today: A tournament to decide who is the worthiest of all the wrestlers to challenge for either the WWE Championship, the World Heavyweight Championship or the ECW Championship. So, because the Royal Rumble (and WWE itself) has evolved so much throughout the years, and due to Money In The Bank being a relatively recent event, I’m going to think about the Royal Rumble 2000 and onwards. So, who has won the Royal Rumble since then? And what level were they at then?

2000 – The Rock/The Big Show* – Main Event
2001 – Stone Cold Steve Austin – Main Event
2002 – Triple H – Main Event
2003 – Brock Lesnar – Main Event
2004 – Chris Benoit – Upper Midcard
2005 – Batista – Upper Midcard
2006 – Rey Mysterio – Midcard
2007 – The Undertaker – Main Event
2008 – John Cena – Main Event
2009 – Randy Orton – Main Event

*The Big Show showed footage of the Royal Rumble, showing that The Rock hit the floor with both feet first, but managed to slip into the ring before the referees saw anything. Therefore, the two fought later over who earned the win. They both ended up fighting in the main event match in a fatal four way at Wrestlemania.

As you can quite plainly see, the Royal Rumble has been dominated by the Main Event. From The Rock to Randy Orton, the majority of Royal Rumble winners have already been established as main event wrestlers. However, as we can see, Batista and Chris Benoit (both Midcarders) won the Royal Rumble, and had since risen in popularity and status. Batista had gone on to win many more world championships, and Chris Benoit (before his death) won the World Heavyweight Vhampionhsip, and was on his way to winning the ECW World Championship. Rey Mysterio also managed to win the World Heavyweight Championship but, due to poor booking, has remained in the upper midcard ever since. Other wrestlers who benefited from the Royal Rumble are John Cena and Kane. Although he came second behind Batista in the 2005 Royal Rumble, and was eliminated towards the end of the 2004 Royal Rumble by The Big Show (injuring him in the process), John Cena gained a lot of popularity and credibility, winning the US (ironically beating The Big Show) and WWE Championships at Wrestlemanias in 2004 and 2005, respectively. Kane also benefited because of the immense amount of superstars he has eliminated, and the amount of Royal Rumbles he has appeared in, giving him more credibility and prestige. Sadly, nothing can be done about the crap job WWE are doing of keeping Kane seem like an actual threat anymore.

The Money In The Bank Ladder Match

In 2005, Chris Jericho pitched an idea to then General Manager of Raw, Eric Bischoff. His idea was to hold a six-man ladder match at Wrestlemania 21, with a briefcase being suspended from the ceiling. Whoever managed to climb the ladder and retrieve the briefcase would be named winner, and would be able to ‘cash in’ an opportunity to fight the World Heavyweight or WWE Champion in a title match, whenevr and wherever, by the next Wrestlemania. Jericho named it ‘The Money In The Bank Ladder Match’, and Bischoff was highly impressed with the idea. Eric booked Jericho, Kane, Christian, Edge, Shelton Benjamin and Chris Benoit in the match, and what took place was the next step up in the ladder match. In the end, Edge (proving why he is the ultimate opportunist) managed to take advantage of Chris Benoit’s injured arm (Kane had repeatedly closed a ladder on Benoit’s arm after being in the crossface) by hitting him with a chair, and gained the contract. Ever since, Money In The Bank has been a mainstay at every Wrestlemania, and the format of this match has stayed the same over the years; the only noticeable difference being that the number of participants seems to change over the years, but staying in between the numbers six and eight. Here is a list of all past victors:

Wrestlemania 21 (2005) – Edge (Upper Midcard)
Wrestlemania 22 (2006) – Rob Van Dam (Upper Midcard)
Wrestlemania 23 (2007) – Mr. Kennedy (Upper Midcard) / Edge (Main Event)
Wrestlemania 24 (2008) – CM Punk (Midcard)

Now this time, the focus shifts from Main Event to Upper Midcard. In 2005, Edge cashed in his shot at New Year’s Evolution, defeating John Cena after he had just participated in a gruelling Elimination Chamber match. Even though Edge’s reign only lasted until the next Royal Rumble, he had managed to get his foot in the door of the main event. Since the Royal Rumble, he has managed to gain another seven world title reigns, with one being yet another benefit of the briefcase. In 2006, Rob Van Dam cashed in his shot at One Night Stand in what was to be the only ever scheduled cashing in, again against John Cena. Van Dam gained the championship after Edge had speared Cena through a table. Van Dam hit the 5 Star Frog Splash on Cena, and Paul Heyman counted the pin. After this night, Van Dam was awarded the new ECW World Championship and, until his release in 2008, stayed in and around the Main Event.

In 2007, Mr. Kennedy defeated seven other superstars for the contract, after a hard fought battle against CM Punk. However, after discovering a three month injury (later discovered to be just three weeks), Edge defeated Kennedy for the briefcase after provoking him. Edge then cashed in his opportunity against a weakened Undertaker, who had just drawn with Batista in a steel cage match, and been attacked by Mark Henry. 2008 saw another young star in CM Punk get propelled to the main event. Punk (rather ironically) cashed in his shot against Edge in a true mark out moment (Edge had just been on the receiving end of a Batista Bomb). However, due to poor management of Punk’s title reign, he now finds himself a (fluke) triple crown winner, and in this year’s Money In The Bank Ladder Match.

Which Is The Best?

I think it goes without saying that whilst Money In The Bank is a very entertaining match, Royal Rumble is by far the more compelling tournament, what with its (at most time) unpredictability, ability to give you an adrenaline rush and overall legitimacy. The Royal Rumble match has also managed to set up a lot of feuds going into Wrestlemania with good examples being Kurt Angle vs Shawn Michaels and Shawn Michaels vs Vince McMahon. Plus how good have the Michaels/Undertaker teasers been? However, Money In The Bank is still exciting, especially when you see Super RKOs and seated sentons through ladders (I am so looking forward to Markj Henry going through a ladder a la Shelton Benjamin in 2008).

Now the big question: which is the best for raising a wrestlers status and who should win it? This may seem a bit obvious, but MITB should always be for the upper midcarders. Why? Well, apart from CM Punk’s series of unfortunate events, everyone who has cashed in the contract has managed to raise their standing in the company, and this can only be a good thing. Still, it all depends on how creative handle the chosen wrestler from then on, as to how big a success story they are.

On the other hand, the Royal Rumble should not just let the main eventers take the glory. After all, Batista and Chris Benoit were nothing but upper midcarders, and they both got pushed to the sky. The problem now is that there aren’t really anymore upper midcarders who would suit a Royal Rumble win. CM Punk should not win (he might need it, but his win would seem about as legitimate as Rey Mysterio’s), and JBL is too beaten and bruised to get another run with a world title. The only wrestlers perfect for a Rumble win are Kane and The Big Show. And I really don’t see them winning it anytime in the future.

So, who’s going to win this year’s Money In The Bank? Well… it’s right open at the moment, and the only person who isn’t going to win is Mark Henry. Although it is WWE…

So I woudn’t bet on it.

[Kano]

Really Good man, it's good to see you back!. Some minor errors with wordings you spelling Championship "Vhampionship" within this column. Other than minor errors I enjoyed it a lot. continue writing more man.

Good to have you back

[Martin Riggs]

Interesting thoughts. The thing with MitB at the moment is that everyone had won the title, so right now it's essentially a match for a title reign at a later date, whereas the problem with the rumble is that although there are 30 superstars, each year you can pick about 4 of them who have a chance at winning it.

Overall it was a solid column, and you made good arguments for your points. Just check the spelling, and give it a once-over, and you'll be fine!

Good work

[cicero]

A comparison of MiTB and the Royal Rumble, seems a little too predictably one sided don't you think?

So let's split this feedback into two bits so as to make things easier on everyone (but mainly me);

technically- no complaints, minor spelling errors that were more to do with typing and a lack of proofreading as opposed to full on retardation.

topical- some complaints, a rather frivlous and possibly redundant topic but one still handled in an entertaining manner.

I'd give it a 7/11

[stuck_in_hell]

Nice thought provoking article buddy.

I think one of the major reasons why Rumble is 'reserved' for main eventers is the short time duration between rumble and mania. While for MITB, the bookers get an entire year to build up the credibility of the challenger, the rumble winner has only 2 months.

[Leonard]

The respondant above me has a pretty good point that I haven't thought of before. Maybe this is an unfair comparison because of the amount of time each has been around (22 for the Rumble--21 for 30-man; 4 for MitB--soon to be 5). Would it be more worthwhile to compare the Rumble to the King of the Ring? I don't know. Anyhow, you did quite a good job in the task you set for yourself, so I commend you for that, and I agree with most of what you said. Nice to have you back, sir. Read you next time.

--Leonard

[Evelyn]

I have to say I've really enjoyed all of your columns, and this one didn't fail to impress. If I'm honest my wrestling knowledge as sketchy at best, but I've found your columns a really good, easy to understand way of getting to know a bit more about the interesting stuff. I'm looking forward to your next one!

[The Maz]

^^^ = plant.

Anyway my blue friend, interesting stuff as always and it seems like it has been a long time. It is clear the Rumble still holds a lot more weight and prestige but the MitB has it's own purpose... I think it is a little unfair to compare them in that way but you still gave us a very nice insight into both events... watch those typos and look out for my own MitB column which is on its way.