It seems like a lot of people in the comments section of the RR 2010 Rant were questioning the “star power” of the Rumble. I have always tried to count the number of “main event” wrestlers in any given Rumble. But I am currently stuck in a never ending budget meeting that I really have no reason to be in and I decided to goof off by crunching some RR numbers.
Using a purely subjective scale I added up all the guys who would add star power to a given rumble. Now, I am the first to admit that this is a pretty arbitrary system and it is flawed. But, I have divided participants in to three categories-
1) Past/Current/Future World Champions- I defined a “World Champion” as – WWF/E, Pre 1990 NWA, WCW, AWA, Original ECW, TNA, All Japan Triple Crown or New Japan IWGP… That is obviously an arguable list, but I think it covers all the national, long standing promotions from the RR era.
2) Non World Champion “Headliners”- Defined as Champions of the UWF, WCCW, Current ECW and any other wrestlers who did or would conceivably have headlined multiple pay-per-views, but for whatever reason were never awarded a main title. This includes guys like Ted DiBiase, Owen Hart, Roddy Piper, Scott Hall and Jake Roberts among others.
The main flaw is that where as a guy like Shawn Michaels is obviously a big deal; in 1989 he was just some guy. And, maybe someone likeThe Miz is not a superstar this year, but five years from now, he could be a legitimate threat to the main event at WM. But, I think overall it will tend to even out. I just needed some measurable scale.
Adding the World Champions to the Headliners gives you a total that can then be expressed as a percentage of wrestlers in a given Royal Rumble who were not “deadwood” And using that percentage, you can see what RRs had the highest and lowest star power.
And, this confirms that the best Rumbles have the highest amount of stars- As 1992 (Flair’s win -60%) is the highest and is generally considered one of the best Rumbles. 2004 (Benoit) and 2007 (HBK/UT final) are both very well received and have the second highest percentage. Meanwhile everyone craps all over 1995, and rightly so with only 20%.
For the record, 2003, 2004 and 2007 had the highest number of World Champions- showing how deep the WWE roster was after WCW folded.
On average, there are just under 10 World Champions in any given RR with just over 3 other “Headliners” for an average of 43.6% Star Power.
Just a different look at the Rumbles- do with it as you may. But, if you would want to post it, it would mean that I accomplished something of merit from this meeting.
As a note, when I say “deadwood” I don’t necessarily mean midcarders or guys without a shot. I’m referring to a bowling term for the leftover pins laying around the alley before they get cleared for the next person to bowl. So like if you’ve got 10 guys in the ring just sitting around in the corners and punching each other, they need to be cleared away, and thus are “deadwood”.
Anyway, I really liked the distribution of star power in this year’s Rumble, as the early going had enough big names to keep it interesting, but enough filler to give them people to throw out, and that’s a good mix to have. Loading it up too much at the beginning gives you the long dead period at the end where you’re just waiting for the winner to draw 27-30 and finish it off, and loading it up at the end gives you a boring first half.
By the way, the chart wouldn’t format properly, so I cut it, but I think you summarized the gist of it good enough.
Related Posts:
`Tags: ECW, Jake Roberts, Miz, MMA, NWA, RAW, Roddy Piper, Royal Rumble, Shawn Michaels, Sting, TNA, WCW, WWE, WWF
Only issue is that world championships were given out much more often in recent years. Think about the star power of 1990. WWF had had two champions in that time. Hogan and Savage. Compare that to a more recent five year period where you not only turn the belts over faster, but you have two belts to be turning over. So in that respect I’m not sure that Great Khali deserves points for being “star studded” more than Hennig or DiBiase, who never won the belt. Just a small issue.
You’re right on, except it’s a major issue, not a small one. A list like this is a fun exercise for killing time but the results are meaningless.
There are three shows each week, three world champions (two or three?), and a million midcard titles. We’re in a bloated era with triple threat matches and elimination chambers, constant #1 contender matches and 100 PPVs per year. This is an era where the storylines are accelerated so quickly, yet because of the death of the territories, the AWA, ECW, and WCW, and the emphasis on nostalgia and the past, the same guys stick around for 10-15 years. Notice how the numbers on the chart jump drastically in 2002; it’s not a coincidence.
It’s all about context. The stars in the late 80s and early 90s truly were stars. It felt special when they were in the ring together because they didn’t wrestle each other on free TV thirty times a year. So when they actually had a showdown in a match like the Rumble, it was a really big deal. Compare Hogan and Warrior squaring off in the 1990 Rumble to any of the main-eventers going at it in the 2010 Rumble. In 2010, we’ve seen those guys in the ring with each other trading falls, insults and titles a thousand times. When they face each other every week, it’s hard to have much star “power.”
What percentage of the active roster had previously held any WWF gold in 1989 or 1992? 8%? 15%? What percentage of the roster now is a former champion of some kind? 75%? 90??
You can’t just boil it down to a number or a stat like “number of world titles” or “Wrestlemania main events.” For example, I don’t care how many titles Edge has won or how many PPVs he’s main evented- he is not as a big of a star as Randy Savage was. Yeah, Mr. Perfect, Rick Rude, Ted DiBiase, Roddy Piper, Jake Roberts, etc. never won the WWF Title; that doesn’t mean they weren’t bigger stars than Great Khali, Kane, Batista and freaking Sheamus.
I noticed that the numbers say 1990 and 2010 had equal star power. There is no way an overexposed core of Cena, HHH, Shawn, Show, Batista, Jericho and Edge has more star power than Hogan, Warrior, Savage, Piper, Andre, DiBiase, Dusty, Rude and Perfect.
Preach on brother! That is one thing that struck me… half the lineup this year was a “former world champion” in one brand or another and some of them, like CM Punk who have been around a relatively short amount of time, already have multiple title reigns to their name.
This accelerated atmosphere really kills it for me. It is a business in the end though. The WWE seems to be doing pretty well and good for them I suppose.
A-f’ing-Men!!
I would agree on 1990. Actually, despite 1992 coming out on top, I would say, for me, that 1990 is a more star-studded event. Warrior’s only Rumble. Hogan is in it as champion. Dusty’s only Rumble. Andre in there. Savage, Piper, etc. Dibiase was not even in the top five on star power and he made a run from number one til the 20’s. Heck, even Earthquake was in it. He was a main eventer in 1990 and he was way down the totem pole compared to some of the guys in there. Good Rumble. Kind of redundant to have Hogan winning as champion, but hey, nothing’s perfect.
Warrior was in in 88 too, but some don’t consider that a “real” one because o the length and not being on ppv. Point taken, though.
Speaking of “perfect”,
Mr. Perfect was booked to win that Rumble until Hogan usurped him and complained to Vince that the Champ should win.
Star Power this year was pretty good I thought.
Stars: Cena, Edge, Jericho, Tista, HHH, Punk, HBK, Show.
Up and comers: Miz, Morrison, Mcintyre, MVP, Kofi, Truth.
Comedy: Khali and Beth
The rest filled the spaces adequately.
I am the one who sent this to Scott, so let me see if I can get the chart to work-
Champs Eventers Total Star %
1988 3 5 8 40.0%
1989 7 5 12 40.0%
1990 9 5 14 46.7%
1991 8 5 13 43.3%
1992 10 8 18 60.0%
1993 9 3 12 40.0%
1994 11 2 13 43.3%
1995 4 2 6 20.0%
1996 11 3 14 46.7%
1997 11 4 15 50.0%
1998 8 3 11 36.7%
1999 6 4 10 33.3%
2000 9 2 11 36.7%
2001 10 1 11 36.7%
2002 14 2 16 53.3%
2003 15 1 16 53.3%
2004 15 2 17 56.7%
2005 13 0 13 43.3%
2006 10 3 13 43.3%
2007 15 2 17 56.7%
2008 10 4 14 46.7%
2009 10 3 13 43.3%
2010 10 4 14 46.7%
I hope some of you find this interesting… I know it was more fun to make it than it was to pay attention to the budget meeting I was attending while I worked on it.
So it got a little compressed, but the numbers are-
Rumble Year World Champions Headliners Total Percentage
I agree with Comdukakis above about the number of world title reigns recently. That is why I included the “Headliners” . In the early years you will notice a hgher number. Now days there is no way a guy as over as Piper or Duggan (yes, he was massivly over) would not get at least a short run with a belt.
OK… enough explaining me little project here…
Okay, interesting little project to be sure, but does someone like Kane, who was WWF Champ in 1998 for a day, who was a main eventer in 1998 count as main eventer today, you mentioned that Shawn Michaels 1989 was not a main eventer but obviously came to be one years later, Kane is the reverse for me, main eventer then midcarder, so should he really count, this is just me nit-picking but I thought it was interesting point anyhow
If your a ‘headliner’ in modern day terms these are the criterias I go by:
Former WM head liners
Former RR winners
Guys who may of not of headlined WM or won the RR but had more than ONE world title run.
That comes down to:
Cena, HHH, HBK, Batista, Jericho, Edge, Show and Punk what can be classified as ‘headliners’.
The Great Khali and Kane don’t despite being former champs.
The rest are midcarders that either have some value now and MAY be a headliner one day or had value in the past as potential main eventers.
So we had 8/30 headliners = 26.7%
How many times has Beth Phoenix been WWE champ?
It’s a good thing that Bob Backlund had that two day title reign, as the previous 6 year reign alone is obviously not enough to be a main eventer.
All these stats are pointless, and kind of geeky. Just think back on the history of the Rumble, and which ones featured the most people that are considered legends now. Because being a world champion in this day and age doesn’t mean anything.
1992 was the biggest of the Hogan era, as it featured every major name outside of Andre and Warrior.
2001 was the biggest of the Attitude Era, with Rock and Austin at the peak of their rivalry.
I haven’t watched a PPV in years, so I can’t really comment much. They have been relying on the same 5 or 6 guys in the main event so long that all the recent ones probaly blur together.
Yeah I’m with you on that last bit, since 2005 for me, they blur together, when Benoit won it, it was probably the last time it really meant something to me, but then I gave up on the federation in 2006 and stopped watching after WrestleMania 23 completely (outside of the PPVs that have something special on them)
You also have to realize that there can be a difference b/w star power and people who conceivably could win. This year had a lot of star power, but of that star power, only a % was believable winners (in my opinion, just over 25%).
For example, Morrison, Kofi, Miz, Truth, and to a lesser degree Ziggler, and Swagger all are above average mid-carders compared to years past (when you had people like La Resistance, Luther Reigns, and Nathan Jones), but nevertheless, did any of them really have a shot at winning?
Believable
————
CM Punk
Triple H
Shawn Michaels
John Cena
The Big Show
Chris Jericho
Edge
Batista
Strong Mid-carders (often with a strong push, really helped round out the “star power”)
———————-
Zack Ryder
Drew McIntyre
Ted DiBiase
John Morrison
Cody Rhodes
MVP
The Miz
R-Truth
Kofi Kingston
Limbo (not good or bad, just there. mo recent definable push)
——-
Evan Bourne
Kane
Matt Hardy
Shelton Benjamin
Mark Henry
Jack Swagger
Dolph Ziggler
Scrubs
——–
JTG
The Great Khali
Beth Phoenix
Carlito
Yoshi Tatsu
Chris Masters
*no recent definable push*
This is all true, about the modern era with more than one title leads to more “star power.” And despite it all, 1992 is still the tops. Interesting.
And, as people have pointed out, there are degrees of star power. There is a big difference if one of your “stars” is Kane (or Hacksaw from an earlier era) or if your stars are Hulk and Stone Cold.
Its funny, looking back everyone says 1992 was unpredictable, but going in, my brother and I only saw two who could win (Sid and Flair) and they were the final two! The memories…our first live-ordered pay-per-view at home. Have to give my brother credit. He was only 11, but when Flair came out at number three, he said, “He’s going the whole way.”
But the difference between then and now is, that 1992 a Midcarder like Shawn Michaels or Bret Hart was then a bigger star, than our current WWE Champion.
Yeah, but unpredictable isn’t always the best way to go, sometimes telling a good story from start to finish is a lot more fun to watch, instead of booking your matches on a napkin.
Then again, in a match like the Royal Rumble that has been around for as long as it has now, I guess this whole “surprise late entrant wins the Rumble” is the only thrill left, besides giving it to a total dark-horse. I just wish sometimes they paid more attention to writing a good story in the first place, instead of lucking into one or having to resort to shock to carry these big shows.
Honestly, unpredictable is overrated, but, if you wanted unpredictable, then just take away the stip for “winner gets Wrestlemania title shot!”
I know it is heresy to suggest it, but, they have titles matches on Raw now. The first Rumble with that official stip was 1993 I believe (Hogan went on to do it in 1991, but I do not know that it was a match stip).
Just have it be for good old competitive spirit. The winner can be some up-and-comer they want to push but not give a title shot to quite yet. I don’t know, it might not be the best idea, but the old thinking was, “The title is the ultimate prize, this gives everyone in the WWF a shot at the ultimate prize.” Now, anyone, almost, can get a title shot on Raw. Again, unpredictability is not everything, but this would juice it up.
It wasn’t an official stat in 1991 but it certainly gave Hogan momentum to warrant a title shot against Sgt. Slaughter at WM VII. (In kayfabe, that is…short of pulling a Benoit, I can’t think of anything Hogan could’ve done to NOT get a title shot in those days.)
You do have a point about the Rumble though–with the Elimination Chamber PPV in February to settle the matches for WM, you don’t even need a title shot on the line in the Rumble anymore, really.
Yes, but the title shot at the Rumble is to MAIN EVENT Wrestlemania. That’s a lot different then getting a shot at TLC.
But the winner of the Rumble doesn’t always get to go on last. Like Cena in 2008, Rey Rey in 2006, etc. But there is a certain amount of prestige that goes along with getting to wrestle for the title at WM, whether you get to go on last or not.
If you notice, the best Rumbles are always the ones with multiple possible winners. In 1992, there were at least five guys (Flair, Savage, Hogan, Sid, Taker) who had a legit shot at winning, not to mention other guys like Piper & Jake Roberts, who they at least paid lip service to. And in 2004, Benoit was rumored as the favorite but any of the last 6-8 guys (Angle, Goldberg, Jericho, Big Show, etc.) could have won.
And last night’s Rumble….hell I didn’t know who was going to win until Edge actually did. They did an EXCELLENT job of building up a lot of guys as possible winners and I think it helped them in booking the match. I can’t remember a Rumble match that went as smooth as last night’s….the ring never filled up too much and there was an excellent flow to it.
Leaving aside Royal Rumbles, I still remember ‘taking a step back’ and looking at the WCW roster in 1997-98 and being amazed by the star-power. In an era when being a former world champion really meant something, you had (off the top of my head) the following in the federation :
Hulk Hogan (WWF and WCW)
Ric Flair (WWF and WCW)
Lex Luger (WCW)
Sting (WCW)
Ultimate Warrior (WWF)
Kevin Nash (WWF and WCW)
Bret Hart (WWF and WCW)
Randy Savage (WWF and WCW)
Diamond Dallas Page (WCW)
Curt Hennig (AWA)
Sid Vicious (WWF and WCW)
That’s not including those present who went on to be world champs, including Jericho, Benoit, Jarrett and Guerrero.
Ahhh – WCW, where good ideas go to die
WHat a hot RAW ending!
Yeah, I think that was the best RAW since MSG! So, what do you make of the ending? Batista/Cena with Vince/Bret in their corners? Tag Team match?
seems likely based on the past with the Trump/Vince thing at WM and with Cena coming out to yell at Vince the week before. Otherwise, why in the world would it be Batista who comes out? I don’t pay much attention to Raw (except for Bret stuff) but I don’t think Batista has any connection wtih Vince.
Hopefully, involving Batista might spread the feud to SD! as well which could allow The Hart Dynasty and Chris Jericho to possibly get involved as well.
Maybe it won’t have to spread to SD! to get them involved if the newz is to be believed: There are plans to feature SD! stars on RAW and RAW stars on SD! leading into WrestleMania.
Hell yes!! That promo from Bret was money. Man oh man, I couldn’t stop thinking “what if” this was in Canada.
Either way, I’m not a fan of having Cena fight Batista as representatives for McMahon and Hart. Why not use this opportunity to elevate Davey Boy’s kid?
Really? I found it super dull. Well, I found Bret’s part super dull. Vince was pretty much dead on in his analysis.
Surpise, surprise.
Seriously,Bret Hart has to be the most polarizing figure in pro wrestling history. And it sure seems that no matter what the subject related to him, certain people are gonna hate it, and certain people are gonna love it. It’s like clockwork and it’s horribly easily to predict.
The fact that you found Vince “dead on” in his analysis is why you (and certain others) will never like anything Bret does. If you honestly 100% believe that Bret lacked charisma, lacked a command of the English Language, and can’t understand why anyone ever cared about his work and thought the only reason they did was who he feuded with, then you aren’t ever going to like anything in this angle.
Which is fine. But just remember that anytime someone else has the same feelings abotut Orton, HHH, Cena, etc.
I’m a Bret fan, but I didn’t really enjoy his promo either. Obviously he’s a bit out of practice, but the interrupting “are you finished?” stuff was very annoying.
I’m just glad he’s on TV and hope that some good can come to TJ, Harry, and Nattie from all this.
Plus I’m going to my first Mania this year, so the timing is perfect.
Wow, Danny, you found something dull about something we all thought was pretty darn good? SHOCKING!!
A million bucks says that if we found it dull, Danny would of LOVED IT.
Well, I don’t know if he does hate everything everyone else likes, but I do know that he and Johny C are guaranteed to have a negative remark anytime Bret is brought up, no matter the context. And that’s fine. It’s their thing and I do think he’s the most polarizing figure in wrestling for “smart fans” (not an insult just trying to find a term for those of us who post on wrestling message boards). I just find it odd that some of the same types who hate Bret (not necessarily Danny and Johny C) and never miss a chance to say something negative, will bitch and complai if someone is consistently negative about Cena, Orton, HHH, UT, etc. And derisively call them a “smark” Just a bit of hypocrisy I’ve noticed. That and I’ve found that the Bret/Vince thing seems to break down along American political lines. I’ve found that most people who hold solid right wing views are strong supporters of Vince, and the reverse. Of course people who are in the middle or apolitical don’t work for that theory.
Kinda like difference between being a union man (as Bret has mentioned WWE needing in the past) or a company man like Vince?
Raw was great, the ending was awesome but I enjoyed the whole show. Cena and HHH matches were predictable (although HHH-Swagger was decent) but Orton/HBK was very good and Shawn’s current situation makes for some really compelling TV. Also delighted to see some fresh talent in the chamber, particularly Kofi and Dibiase who are two of my favourites. DX/SES/Miz-Show should be great next week.
Bret’s promo stood out for me because it was different to the usual stuff we see. And the feud is really getting the best out of Vince, I haven’t enjoyed his character this much in a long time. Keep it up WWE!
But the big question still remains…will Kofi actually make it inside the Elimination Chamber this year?
Well, since Bret can’t really wrestle at all and a brawl between 50 year old Brett and 64 year old Vince @ Mania would actually kinda suck if it went on for longer than 2 minutes, I think the idea to have the big Cena/Batista match with Bret & Vince in each corner is a great idea. It’s a forgone conclusion that Cena will win, both b/c he hasn’t won the last 2 Mania’s and b/c it will lead to Bret beating Vince down to close the angle and give us the payoff we all wanna see, but whatever. Both those guys were gonna be on the show one way or another, and if it keeps them out of the title picture, fantastic.
They give us Punk/Mysterio Hair vs. Mask and Jericho/Edge for the title & this is gonna be a HELL of a show. Keep up the good work Hogan!
Cena won the world title last year in the triple threat match.
At Mania last year, I mean.