10 Times WWE Got The Royal Rumble Winner Wrong

7. Hulk Hogan (1990)

Batista Royal Rumble
WWE.com

What’s that? “Hulk Hogan triumphing at the expense of younger, hungrier talent?” Surely not...

Hogan was still at the height of his powers in 1990. As the wrestling world’s undisputed biggest star, he made vince McMahon more money than anybody else, and without his peak run, WWE wouldn’t be the beast it is today. That being said, there was absolutely no need for him to win the 1990 Rumble, and WWE missed a great chance to elevate the fast-rising Mr. Perfect here.

The Hulkster was already a franchise player, and winning here did nothing for anybody. Perfect, meanwhile, had debuted with a significant winning streak. He was immensely over as a heel, and his technical skills were second to none. A big Royal Rumble victory would have sent him over the top and made him the main event player that he seemed destined to become, but his second-place finish saw him last just 3:32 in the match.

This was also the match in which Hogan and the Ultimate Warrior first ignited their legendary rivalry, and a Warrior victory would’ve added bags of heat from the get-go. Unfortunately, WWE took the easy option in 1990. Hogan’s dominance continued when he won the match again in 1991, and in 1992, Hogan was only eliminated through a lapse in concentration. Talk about over-protection...

Channel Manager
Channel Manager

Andy has been with WhatCulture for six years and is currently WhatCulture's Senior Wrestling Reporter. A writer, presenter, and editor with 10+ years of experience in online media, he has been a sponge for all wrestling knowledge since playing an old Royal Rumble 1992 VHS to ruin in his childhood. Having previously worked for Bleacher Report, Andy specialises in short and long-form writing, video presenting, voiceover acting, and editing, all characterised by expert wrestling knowledge and commentary. Andy is as much a fan of 1985 Jim Crockett Promotions as he is present-day AEW and WWE - just don't make him choose between the two.