With WWE adding 6 female Superstars to their roster during Thanksgiving week, fan's imaginations are running wild with possibilities. But there's one concept that seems most likely: an all-female Royal Rumble.
The Philadelphia event is just 2 months away, so WWE is stockpiling their women's division in order to supply enough warm bodies for 30-woman battle royal. However, just because WWE has the capability to put on such an event, does that mean they should?
Women's wrestling has been launched into unprecedented levels of awareness thanks to the Women's Revolution, but is a Rumble the next logical step in their evolution in WWE? Well, we're here to debate that very point.
Jack: Yes! But it's more because women's wrestling needs it than they deserve it. In only a few short years the Women's Revolution drastically re-prioritized the usage of female Superstars. However, that was merely Phase I of the movement and WWE has stalled in its attempts to shift into Phase II.
WWE has done a wonderful job garnering the most talented women the company has ever seen. Even more, Vince McMahon and Co. routinely put in them in the main event of RAW and SmackDown. And to top it off, we're actually seeing female Superstars have Ladder matches. But there's one big element that has been tragically ignored by WWE: story.
For the most part, every feud written for the women of WWE is the same. Two Superstars are picked, they may or may not say mean things about one another, then they carry their program to the pay-per-view and it typically ends there. Their entire conflict is based on dialogue. This is not good. Imagine a movie where their entire plot hinged upon 2 characters trading elementary school insults like "Biscuit Butt."
However, if WWE were to implement an all-female Royal Rumble they create a pillar of storytelling. Every January, a new winner will be crowned and that lucky Superstar will face an incumbent Champion at WrestleMania. This forces WWE into a long-term narrative, specifically between the Rumble and 'Mania. That's something the women's division has yet to have; a story that runs for several months. Imagine if Sasha Banks and Charlotte got 3 months to build a feud.
Since the Women's Revolution kicked off, the
Ryan: The answer is no. This is not because I don't want to see it, it's because a women's Royal Rumble at the Royal Rumble would get lost in the shuffle, suffer from overexposure, and lose the importance of what the match really should be.
Look, I am a huge fan of the women's revolution in professional wrestling over the last couple of years. The competitors definitely deserve something like that, and I do think the women should be able to put their stamp on an event like the Royal Rumble. But I'm also a realist, and I think that having two battle royals at the Royal Rumble, a men's and a women's match, would suffer from the law of diminishing returns.
The men's Royal Rumble is a unique event with over 30 years of history. It won't matter how well they build up a female Rumble; everyone in attendance will just be waiting for the men's match due to its unique history and place in WWE lore. It's a situation where an opening act comes on for a famous band, and no matter how good they are, they don't stand a chance because everyone is there to see the headliner. It wouldn't be fair to the women to put them in that kind of position, where they are fighting from the very start to play catch-up.0comments
Instead, I'd like to see WWE have a women's battle royal at a completely separate event. Whether it's a television event themed after it, a Network special, or an entirely different PPV. Though a PPV would be challenging because there are relatively few of them where both
Simply put, this needs to happen, but two battle royals at the Royal Rumble PPV is just too much and won't benefit the women in the most helpful way.