Try saying that seven times fast. Now, it's true that 1992's Royal Rumble was also for the big belt. Ric Flair won the WWE Championship, becoming the last man standing in the ring after eliminating Sid Justice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXMgdbjvE1E The difference back then was that everyone in the Rumble in '92 was competing for a vacant championship. Here, Reigns is defending his championship in the Rumble. It's a lovely spin on his own 'one versus all' catchphrase, that they also talked up on this Monday's RAW, when the McMahons placed Reigns in a One Versus All match in the main event of the show. Originally, I was quite keen on the idea... but the more I think about, the more doubt creeps in. Does anyone seriously think that Reigns isn't going over? So that would mean him winning the Royal Rumble for the second year in a row, right? If this is more or less a foregone conclusion (which I think is fairly safe to assume), and since so many of WWE's biggest stars are sidelined with serious injuries, there's less and less reason to watch the event at all. Unless, of course, Brock Lesnar and Reigns are numbers one and two, eliminate all the other contestants one-by-one as they hit the ring, and then spend the entire Rumble match having a singles encounter with an over-the-top-rope stipulation and regular interruptions. Damn, I think I've just sold it to myself again.
Professional writer, punk werewolf and nesting place for starfish. Obsessed with squid, spirals and story. I publish short weird fiction online at desincarne.com, and tweet nonsense under the name Jack The Bodiless. You can follow me all you like, just don't touch my stuff.
