10 Things I Hate About The Royal Rumble

The battle royale originated in England in the eighteenth century, where it was a proto-MMA style mishmash of grappling and boxing, often involving makeshift weapons: proof positive that there’s nothing new under the sun, Mr. Heyman.

These days, it’s gone from an ultraviolent exhibition match with nasty links to slaveholding and bloodsport to comedy gimmick match, acting as a placeholder bout to clumsily include performers who couldn’t otherwise get on the card.

The Andre The Giant Memorial Battle Royale from the last few WrestleMania events is only the latest in a long line of such placeholder matches; the battle royale has been an on-off WrestleMania tradition for years, having appeared on the card fifteen times since WrestleMania II. Sometimes it’s been for a number-one-contendership, sometimes for some sort of prize, like the Hardcore Battle Royale at WrestleMania 2000 for the hardcore title, or the Miss WrestleMania Battle Royale at WrestleMania XXV, where the sash and tiara were ‘hilariously’ won by Santino Marella in drag.

In fact, by and large WWF/E’s favourite use for a battle royale, on free TV or as a making-up-the-numbers event on a pay-per-view, has been to name a number one contender for a secondary title. The Royal Rumble match is, despite the staggered entrance gimmick and the much touted WrestleMania match prize, just another battle royale to name a number one contender.

Despite this, the Royal Rumble is held in such bizarre reverence in WWE that it's achieved genuine significance in the eyes of the fans; a significance that the match itself doesn't deserve, and has never deserved. And that’s a problem, because...