WWE Royal Rumble 2011: Why 40 Participants Is a Good Thing
Hi fellow Bleachers, today I'm going to discuss why having 40 wrestlers compete in the Royal Rumble is a good thing.
Many have spoken of how this dilutes the Rumble; adding 10 wrestlers that have little to no shot of winning. But the way I see it, the over the top Rumble match itself literally is the card. The buzz around the Rumble is at an all time high; with many Bleachers speculating everything from the winner to the surprise returns.
I also feel this year's Rumble is more wide open than in recent years. There are at least 10 men of the 40 that have a legitimate shot. This is my favorite WWE pay-per-view of the year because it's easily their most unique.
When I told my sister about the Rumble match (who has no interest in wrestling) she even liked the over the top rope concept: likening it to a Gladiator type match. My friends and I even have a betting pool where we put odds on each of the wrestlers and pick our top four (as well as the three title matches).
Moreover, the title matches at the event look fairly predictable, in my opinion all three reigning champions (Edge, Miz, and Nattie) will retain. If WrestleMania is the Super Bowl of Wrestling, then Royal Rumble is the All Star Game. So why not give more time to the Royal Rumble? After all, the pay-per-view is called "Royal Rumble"!
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?