TUP Wrestling Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Wrestling > A Writer's Perspective
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - What Makes A Good Royal Rumble?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

What Makes A Good Royal Rumble?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
Kondor View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
Forum Moderator / Ticket Wars Founder

Joined: 02/June/2010
Location: Right here
Status: Offline
Points: 7020
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (3) Thanks(3)   Quote Kondor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What Makes A Good Royal Rumble?
    Posted: 01/February/2014 at 10:14
In the 2014 Royal Rumble thread, Raven commented that the Rumble is "at least 50% result." I disagreed with that assertion as I don't think it's really just that simple. So in order to dispute his claim, I began to think of what causes me to enjoy a Royal Rumble. I thought of what I consider to be the greatest Royal Rumbles of all time (for me) 1993 and 2001, followed by 1992, and then thought of why I love those and other Rumbles so much. 

For the purposes of this thread, we are referring to the actual Royal Rumble match only and not the pay per view as a whole. 

First I will list major things that (for me) have an effect on how I enjoy a Rumble... 

SURPRISE ENTRANTS/RETURNS

As I stated in the Rumble thread, for me the Rumble lives and dies with surprise entrants. Every year I allow myself to get my hopes up for a grand entrance from someone like Undertaker, Bob Backlund, someone. As people who saw this year WWE Prediction thread I made a wild grasp at straws that Jeff Hardy (who recently left TNA) would make a Rumble appearance this year. 

From near the beginning of its history the Royal Rumble has had surprise entrants. At first it was just due to the fact that someone couldn't show up and they had a replacement (after all, the long standing fine print in wrestling has been "card subject to change"), or just to fill a slot. Nikolai Volkoff in 1992 is an example of this. 

But after a while the Rumble came to be known for surprise returns. Some of the most memorable surprise returns for me in Rumble history have been Bob Backlund in 2000, Big Show in 2001 (after he was sent to Ohio Valley for a few months), Haku in 2001 (whom I marked out for as I love Haku), Mick Foley in 2004 (in the midst of his feud with Randy Orton), Rowdy Roddy Piper and Superfly Jimmy Snuka in 2008 (who renewed their 1984 feud), John Cena in 2008 (after his 2007 injury), Edge in 2010 (also after an injury), Booker T and Diesel in 2011 (who both just returned from TNA), and Kharma in 2012. This year's Rumble included Diesel and the return of Sheamus from injury. 

Also kind of included in this category for me are announced returns or debuts such as Vader in 1996, Mr. Perfect in 2002, and Undertaker in 2003 (after not being seen since Big Show attacked him in late 2002.) The element of surprise is gone; but for me it is still great to see these people. 

And of course, the absence of surprise entrants and/or certain people can have a negative effect, as much of the complaints hurled at the 2014 Rumble was the absence of Daniel Bryan from it.  

AMAZING PERFORMANCES

There are two kinds of amazing performances here that I would like to separate, one is lasting a long time in the Rumble (and actually going through guys instead of just lying on the mat or hiding underneath the ring), and an amazing performance in the form of one guy going on a tear and having multiple eliminations. 

The first type kind of goes along with Raven's assertion that enjoyment of the Rumble is 50% the winner, as obviously the first thing that comes to mind one myself (and I'm sure many others) when they think of a memorable Royal Rumble outing where someone was in there a long time is Ric Flair's amazing performance in 1992, in which as many know he entered at #3 , went through everyone, and won. I would mention Shawn Michaels in 1995, but that Rumble (where guys came in every one minute) was too short for me to call it "amazing" (despite its hype by WWE.) Then there's the guy who offed his family.

But the amazing performance doesn't necessarily have to come from the winner. For example, one of my favorite Royal Rumble performances ever is Bob Backlund in 1993, who started as one of the first two, went through everyone, and was one of the final three until he was eliminated by Yokozuna. Others who come to mind who lasted a long time in Rumbles are The Million Dollar Man Ted DiBiase in 1990, Greg The Hammer Valentine in 1991, Stone Cold Steve Austin in 1997 (who won), The Miz in 2012, and CM Punk this year (even though yes it was anticlimatic for him to get eliminated by Kane.) 

The second type of an amazing performance is a wrestler either having a shitload of eliminations or otherwise going on a memorable romp where they took out a bunch of people. Kane in 2001 held the record for the most eliminations in a single Rumble for a long time until it was broken this year by Roman Reigns. Kane's performance in 2001 was awesome, as was Reings' this year. But what also comes to mind are two very similar spots done, one by Diesel in 1994 and the other by Stone Cold Steve Austin in 1997; where each cleared the ring and the picked off guys one by one as they came in, waiting for the clock. Both of those two performances did wonders for building each of them (and both were WWF World Champion not too long thereafter.) Also, Shawn Michaels eliminating Yokozuna and Vader at the same time in 1996 stands out for me; and I've always liked Hulk Hogan's romp of eliminations in 1989 (which included his famous elimination of The Warlord after only two seconds.) 

Next I will discuss categories which (for me) have an affect on the Rumble that is still major but not as big (for me) as the previous two... 

MID RUMBLE CONFRONTATIONS

Mid Rumble confrontations can be between guys who are feuding with each other or not. Memorable Rumble confrontations between people in a feud with each other for me include Ric Flair vs Rowdy Roddy Piper in 1992 (just after Flair cleared the ring), Ric Flair and Mr. Perfect in 1993, Stone Cold Steve Austin and Bret Hart (who came in just as Austin was on a role picking guys off one by one) in 1997, and of course Stone Cold and Rikishi in 2001 (where an attacked and groggy Austin came to life and went on a tear after seeing him.) Austin also had a memorable locking of eyes and subsequent confrontation with The Rock in 2001. (2001 was a pretty awesome Rumble all around.) Also, who can forget Undertaker tangling with Brock Lesnar in 2003. 

Then of course there are the times where a mid Rumble confrontation starts a rivalry or feud. One of my favorite Rumble collisions ever is when Hulk Hogan and Ultimate Warrior went at it when they were the only two people in the ring for a time in 1990 (that began a rivalry between two good guys that lead to their Wrestlemania VI match.) But usually when a feud begins at a Rumble they eliminate each other, such as Rowdy Roddy Piper and Bad News Brown in 1990 (which set up their Wrestlemania VI match) and Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels in 2005 (which set up their WrestleMania 21 match.) Or, it can even be a memorable argument, such as the one between Macho Man Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan after Hogan accidently eliminated Savage when aiming for Bad News Brown in 1989 (which, among other events, would eventually lead to their Wrestlemania V match.) 

But for me, some of the best mid Rumble confrontations have been collisions between people who weren't feuding with each other. Being a fan of big man wrestling, I always loved Yokozuna and Earthquake going at it in 1993. Ditto with Hulk Hogan and Tugboat in 1991, and also with Yokozuna and Vader in 1996. I liked Batista tangling with Ryback this year. 

And yes I will confess I liked the confrontation between Undertaker and Giant Gonzales in 1993 (even though Gonzales wasn't actually a Rumble entrant.) 

THE END (LAST COUPLE OF PEOPLE) 

This is not necessarily based on the winner himself even though obviously the winner would be included in the final few guys in the ring. What I mean here is actually how the Rumble ends, such as Hulk Hogan (just eliminated by Sid Justice) pulling Sid out of the ring while Ric Flair pushed to end the 1992 Rumble. The confrontation between the final four in the 2003 Rumble (Undertaker, Kane, Brock Lesnar, and Batista) was off the hook in my book. 

Plus of course this of course can be something memorable between the final two. Yokozuna and Macho Man had a good battle as the final two in 1993. The same can be said with Chris Jericho and Sheamus in 2012. Undertaker and Shawn Michaels had an amazing battle as the final two people in 2007. Then of course there was the restart with John Cena and Batista in 2005. There could also be a memorable but quick final two, such as Shawn Michaels kicking out Diesel in 1996. 

Now I will go through a few things that (once again for me) have a minor but present effect on my enjoyment of the Royal Rumble. 

AWESOME ELIMINATIONS 

By this I mean actual move or spot performed to eliminate a competitor, such as Brock Lesnar F5ing Matt Hardy out of the ring in 2003. One of the coolest Rumble elimination spots for me was in 1990, where Ravishing Rick Rude (in the process of fighting Hulk Hogan) fell out of the ring when Mr. Perfect (who was on the apron) lowered the rope as Rude was bouncing off of it. As I eluded to earlier, Shawn Michaels Sweet Chin Music Superkicked Diesel out of the ring to end the Rumble in 1996. Maven upset Undertaker in 2002 to eliminate him with a quick attack from behind. I seem to remember a cool elimination with Owen Hart from the top turnbuckle in 1999. Then there is the example of whole ring ganging up on Muhammad Hassan in 2005. 

COOL SPOTS 

These are things such as John Morrison's leap in 2011, Kofi Kingston's walking on his hands in 2012, and Kofi's leap this year. Or it can even be something comical, such as Kane smashing a guitar on Honky Tonk Man's head in 2001. 

THE ACTUAL WINNER

This is where I disagree with Raven, as (for me) the actual Rumble winner is a minor thing. Yes, there are times when I might enjoy a Rumble more because it had a strong winner, such as Big John Studd in 1989, Flair in 1992, Yokozuna in 1993, Shawn Michaels in 1996, Austin in 2001, or Undertaker in 2007. 

But there have been very few times where I was actual let down by who I saw win. With me being a Bret Hart fan, of course I was disappointed in 1997 when Stone Cold Steve Austin snuck back in the ring after Bret threw him out (the refs didn't see it as they were splitting up Terry Funk and Mankind outside the ring), eliminated everyone, and won. But that didn't stop me from calling the 1997 Royal Rumble as one of the greatest ever. Granted, if I was booking WWE I would not have chosen Batista to win the 2014 Rumble (mostly because as I stated in the thread he had already had a Rumble victory under his belt), but I would by no means call him a horrible choice. 

The only times the actual winner lessened my enjoyment of a Rumble was when Vince Mcmahon won in 1999, as I'm sure people could guess my thoughts on a non-wrestler winning it (and yes I'm aware that some people probably liked that) and John Cena in 2013 (because it was predictable, he had already won one, and because it set up a rematch I did not want to see [vs The Rock at Wrestlemania XXIX.]) In this Raven has a point. But a large reason why I didn't like the 2013 Rumble was because little memorable things happened in it. 

So, these are the aspects of a Royal Rumble match, in order of importance from greatest to least, that determine how much I enjoy it. All in all I disagree with Raven that as far as a fan enjoying a Rumble it is 50% the winner. 

Please feel free to share your thoughts on my criteria of what constitutes a good Rumble and what yours are. Also, if I am incorrect on any facts please feel free to call me out in it as I wrote this all from memory and didn't look anything up except how to spell people's names (I wanted to spell Nikolai right and I can never remember if Hassan was two s's or three a's or whatever), although I will confess I recently (in the past week or so) saw the 1994, 2012, and obviously 2014 Rumbles. 


Edited by Kondor - 01/February/2014 at 10:22

Back to Top
Raven View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
TUP Mr. 200,000!

Joined: 03/September/2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 16067
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Raven Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/February/2014 at 11:00
Swap your list around, that's pretty much how I look at it. The Royal Rumble is designed specifically to begin the build to Wrestlemania, and the winner of the Royal is (supposed to be) the most important part of that build. Because of that, I view the Rumble as a lesser event if the winner is poor, because it makes Wrestlemania, and the build to it, a lesser event. A bad winner can have a huge negative impact on three months of WWE programming, and I can't forgive that just because there are some cool spots or some guys last for ages or whatever.

This does mean that the feuds (if any) that result from the Rumble match are a big part of it. 2005 is a good example of this, I enjoyed the match that much more because it resulted in the tremendous feud and match at Wrestlemania between Shawn Michaels and Kurt Angle.

Elimination spots, and other assorted spots, are also a highlight for me. Things like Kane putting Sabu through a table in 2007, or Morrison being Spiderman, or any number of Kane's 2001 eliminations, or the huge group eliminations they tend to have every few years, are highlights for me.

I'm also a fan of the final two or three or four (depending on the Rumble), and that is probably the second most important thing to me. I rate the 2007 Rumble as the best ever, and that is almost entirely based on how ridiculously awesome the finish with HBK and Undertaker was. This year was stupid and the way in which Reigns was eliminated was stupid, and that soured my opinion of it as well. The 2005 Rumble, which for the most part was good, and had the right winner, was just about ruined because of Batista's botched spot at the end. 

As a cricket fan, a sport which is even more about statistics than baseball, the records come into it for me as well. Reigns was superb and the best part of the Rumble, but if he'd only thrown out nine or ten I wouldn't have been quite as thrilled with his performance. 2006 was a pretty shit Rumble for a number of reasons, but I still rate it because of the ridiculous amount of time that both Rey Mysterio and Triple H were in it.

Things like confrontations I'm not too concerned about, and Piper and Snuka's confrontation was fucking awful and the worst part of that Rumble. Surprise entrants can come into it, but only if they're genuine shocks that make me mark the fuck out, like Cena in 2008. If it's the same old, like The Godfather, or returning guys that were due back anyway, like Sheamus this year, they mean next to nothing to me.
Back to Top
Collywog3:16 View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar
Ticket Wars Trading Shark

Joined: 13/December/2012
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 3783
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Collywog3:16 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/February/2014 at 11:09
For me, the Royal Rumble is the most anticipated match. Its concept (well, the concept at least they should follow to full extent anyway) is amazing! Having 30 Superstars, (yes, just stick to 30, I know we to over kill it in 2011 with 40 because their were so many freaking member's of The Corre and New Nexus to squeeze in, come on, lets not lie to ourselves, that the reason for the gross expansion) 1 ring and the prize for the winner is first class ticket to the MAIN-EVENT (Yes, main-event means THE LAST MATCH, not a headlined or featured contest, no the MAIN-EVENT, THE LAST MATCH!) and a World Heavyweight Championship opportunity (Again, thank god they only have ONE belt now) at the biggest event of the year, the showcase of the immortals...THE GRAND DADDY OF THEM ALL, WRESTLEMANIA! 

It's brilliant! It can make someone's career in one night out of the blue! The most exciting 60 or so minutes of wrestling/sports entertainment! It has me on the edge of my seat! from the surprise entrants entrants, to shocking elimination's, unforgettable finger nail biting moments that have you one the edge of your seat! The final four, to the final two men left standing in the squared circle! 

Without a doubt, next to Hell in a Cell and maybe the Ladder match, the all time greatest gimmick match every conceived! 


Back to Top
Willy1225 View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar
Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator

Joined: 30/December/2010
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 10403
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Willy1225 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03/February/2014 at 19:12
No offense to Kon but I will just answer this question as opposed to reading what he has to say at this time.

The Rumble match has been around for 25+ years now and so you know exactly what you will see going in. What truly separates good Rumbles from the great ones are the Rumble's that have an overall arc to the match. The Rumble matches that tell a story you can get emotionally vested in.

Flair's win in 92 was one where Flair comes in at number 3 and he has to face all the guys Flair feuded with and tormented during his run as the World Champion in the 80s (only there was no Sting). Flair has to face his demons once more to gain the biggest prize in professional wrestling. Not coincidentally it is seen as the greatest Rumble match ever.

The second best Rumble ever was one where many different stories were told and that was the Rumble match in 2004. That one didn't have really an arc to the entire match but storylines and feuds were built just from that Rumble match and feuds were restarted in the match itself. Kane and Undertaker, Foley and Orton, Goldberg and Lesnar, Angle's heel turn and Benoit trying to end his odyssey-like journey to become WWE World Champion. Benoit not being denied even when having to eliminate a giant all by himself when earlier in the match 6-7 guys couldn't even do that when they worked together is one of the greatest moments in Rumble history and it's depressing to think that wwe will never talk about it again.

The last Rumble match wwe ever bothered to tell a story with was the HBK Rumble in 2010 that was just incredible. I was absolutely gutted when HeelTista eliminated him that year.

Typically all Rumbles are good from a wrestling standpoint, but what seperated good Rumbles from great ones is the storyline arc that is being told in the match. If you get both, you have an all time classic Rumble. The three Rumbles I mentioned are usually considered 3 of the top five best Rumble matches ever.
TNA Would Be Nothing Without #TeamDixie

Back to Top
HBKDX97 View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
Winner of Ticket War VI

Joined: 11/November/2010
Location: US
Status: Offline
Points: 11160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HBKDX97 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/February/2014 at 08:35
Agree with Raven about the 2007 Rumble, the interactions between 'Taker and HBK were some of the biggest mark out moments in my career as a wrestling fan. 

I think that, to me, the story being told throughout the match is what truly separates a good Rumble from a forgettable one. There's the obvious stories with HBK's 1995 marathon (I disagree with Kon that it was the worst ever, although there certainly HAVE been better) and Ric Flair's winning the WWF Championship, but even the minor stories help to bring everything together. To me, more people in the match generally gives the fans a chance for a truly entertaining match, since more people have time to rest up without killing the pace, and the spotlight gets to bounce around and get the fans re-energized as the tempo ebbs and flows. 

I loved the 2000 Rumble for many reasons. Kai En Tai's repeated failed attempts at entering the match, Rikishi's somination in the beginning to middle of the match, the Too Cool dance off, etc etc. It was a truly fun match, and the end with Rocky outwitting The Big Show capped it off nicely. 

The 2004 Rumble was also very well done, in that [insert wrestler's name here] had his story going strong, yet they also managed to tie in a Raw vs Smackdown type of stand off that intrigued me greatly. And has been mentioned, the 2007 Rumble was action packed and had a great conclusion.

I think that the results are only as significant as the story told allows it to be. Because without that definitive, grade A plot, then the winner is remembered for the match he will eventually have at Wrestlemania rather than that single moment. 
Back to Top
NFaMouZ View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 30/September/2011
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote NFaMouZ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/February/2014 at 09:38
I'll use the 2007 Rumble as a reference to most of this because that is the best one I have seen in my opinion. Will basically repeat a lot which has been said. 

I think you need a guy to start near the start of the Rumble and get near the end. Just to tease the marathon win that everyone can get behind. Plus that gives the guy something to crow about for a while. Countless times that has happened and it comes across as a massive accomplishment to start near the start and get to the end.

You need some sort of interesting confrontations/ moments during the Rumble at certain parts to keep it interesting otherwise you can turn the TV on 45 minutes in and miss nothing. Undertaker single handedly eliminating a Great Khali who was near untouchable at the time right after he had cleared the ring was a great moment. The HBK and Jericho stuff in the 2003 Rumble kept it interesting throughout. 

Returns are a big thing as well. Both legends returning for one night and actual talent making their return are needed in a "good" Rumble match. As much as people hate to admit it Cena returning as the 30th spot was a massive thing. And then there were returns like Henning etc which add a lot. 

Then the final section of the Rumble has to be good. And in my opinion there has not been any Royal Rumble after the 30th entrant than 2007. We saw Undertaker eliminate Khali, a great final four and then a phenomenal final two. This is where this years fell absolutely flat.

And yes the winner matters. There are good winners and there are bad winners and there isn't much in between. Benoit, Batista, Taker and Cena (the first time) were good winners. The last few Rumbles not so much. 


All Hail Mitchell Johnson and David Warner.
Back to Top
Kondor View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
Forum Moderator / Ticket Wars Founder

Joined: 02/June/2010
Location: Right here
Status: Offline
Points: 7020
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kondor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/February/2014 at 09:25
Originally posted by Raven Raven wrote:

Swap your list around, that's pretty much how I look at it. The Royal Rumble is designed specifically to begin the build to Wrestlemania, and the winner of the Royal is (supposed to be) the most important part of that build. Because of that, I view the Rumble as a lesser event if the winner is poor, because it makes Wrestlemania, and the build to it, a lesser event. A bad winner can have a huge negative impact on three months of WWE programming, and I can't forgive that just because there are some cool spots or some guys last for ages or whatever.

I guess that's the difference between the way I watch wrestling vs the way you watch wrestling, that I can just appreciate a good match at that moment for what it is where you look at the future, but it causes you to overlook the present. I almost want to say this is a borderline flaw in looking at wrestling from your view, as you peering ahead to "the build to WrestleMania" too much to the point where it prevents you from enjoying the match going on in front of your face.   

If the Mountie or Curt Hawkins would have won a Royal Rumble, my mindset would be, "What an upset that was" and as long as it was a good actual Rumble match, I would enjoy it. 

Now, if it was a bad actual match, that would be another story.  

Originally posted by Raven Raven wrote:

Things like confrontations I'm not too concerned about, and Piper and Snuka's confrontation was fucking awful and the worst part of that Rumble.

That is a bad example... because it was a bad confrontation. I brought it up as it was a famous example of a surprise return; but it totally relied upon nostalgia for those who saw their 1984 feud and they didn't really do anything when they met in the Rumble in 2008. But other confrontations like I mentioned are awesome for me, especially if they are in the midst of a feud. 

Originally posted by Raven Raven wrote:

Surprise entrants can come into it, but only if they're genuine shocks that make me mark the fuck out, like Cena in 2008. If it's the same old, like The Godfather, or returning guys that were due back anyway, like Sheamus this year, they mean next to nothing to me.

I would agree here. If it's the same guys all the time like Godfather or Hacksaw Jim Duggan, it looses it's luster. But if it's a guy not seen in a while, like Road Dogg in 2012, then it's a positive in my eyes. 

Originally posted by Collywog3:16 Collywog3:16 wrote:

For me, the Royal Rumble is the most anticipated match. Its concept (well, the concept at least they should follow to full extent anyway) is amazing! Having 30 Superstars, (yes, just stick to 30, I know we to over kill it in 2011 with 40 because their were so many freaking member's of The Corre and New Nexus to squeeze in, come on, lets not lie to ourselves, that the reason for the gross expansion)

I guess I was the only one who liked it in 2011 when they expanded to 40 people. But I agree; while I don't mind the occasional act of tag team partners or allies helping each other out, the act of every Nexus member just being there to help CM Punk was a dampener to that Rumble. It lessened the expected chaos of the Rumble as it went against the "every man for himself" philosophy. 

Originally posted by Collywog3:16 Collywog3:16 wrote:

(Again, thank god they only have ONE belt now)

I agree. 


Edited by Kondor - 21/February/2014 at 09:30

Back to Top
John The Baptist View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
Asked To Be Mod 2 Years Ago

Joined: 26/August/2008
Location: Engerland
Status: Offline
Points: 42786
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote John The Baptist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/February/2014 at 13:54
Most important part IMO is the build up, there needs to be a few clear contenders going into the Rumble and a rough idea of what is gonna happen at Wrestlemania (ideally the Mania build woulf start at Survivor Series like it did in the '80s)

Flair's "real world champion" gimmick, Michaels selling the task of winning from the #1 spot, Austin having the deck stacked against him, the Evolution break up resulting in Batista and Triple H's tension, all great examples of pre-Rumble build up.

The stand off moments in the actual match are a highlight for me too, whether it's Hogan and Warrior or Lesnar & Goldberg, theres something special about seeing two huge stars clash in the Rumble.

One thing I wish they'd stop doing though is the pre-planned spot you can see coming from a mile off, it used to be Shelton Benjamin's thing in MITB, now it's a Rumble ritual to have Kofi nearly eliminated and pull some athletic shit out the bag. Match is meant to be unprefictable.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.187 seconds.