Least star studded Royal Rumble Match?

[gordon]

I've decided to exclude 1988 due to only featuring 20 wrestlers.

It's a pretty tough decision. 1993 seemed quite weak, 1995 as well. 1998, 1999 and 2000 were too.

What do you think?

[Mr. Old School™]

Hands down, 1995. Probably the worst Royal Rumble in history.

[carly1988]

Jan 31, 2010 17:52:19 GMT -5 Mr. Old School™ said:

Hands down, 1995. Probably the worst Royal Rumble in history.

95 was pretty terrible....and when did you get de-modded and why did you not give it to me haha

[Deleted]

'95 as well.

Great for Michaels to win, but apart from that, woeful.

[Mr. Old School™]

Jan 31, 2010 18:02:09 GMT -5 @carly1988 said:

Jan 31, 2010 17:52:19 GMT -5 Mr. Old School™ said:

Hands down, 1995. Probably the worst Royal Rumble in history.

95 was pretty terrible....and when did you get de-modded and why did you not give it to me haha

I got de-modded earlier on today. It was totally my fault. I goofed up. I wasn't thinking right and I mentioned some stuff that I shouldn't have. About watching tonight's Rumble for free and what-not.

I didn't even know that was against the rules, even just by mentioning it. It's not like I posted a link or whatever.

I just happened to say that I would be watching tonight's Royal Rumble for free and that's it and I got canned. Pretty strict around here, that's for sure.

Oh well. It's done. Nothing I can about it. I'm glad I'm not the MOD anymore anyway. Never wanted to be in the first place.

[Deleted]

95-99 were mostly mid carders and jobbers with 3-5 main-eventers in each. That's mainly because WCW had most of the WWE's guys and WWE was is a re-building process. Notice huge names such as Rock, HHH, Mankind, & Austin were all rookies at that time. I pick 1995 as the least star studded too simply because it's a fact. The only headlining guys in it were HBK, Luger & Bulldog. I've always hated the 1999 rumble though.

[tnafan17: The Total Package]

Gotta go with 1995

[carly1988]

Jan 31, 2010 18:59:50 GMT -5 Mr. Old School™ said:

Jan 31, 2010 18:02:09 GMT -5 @carly1988 said:

95 was pretty terrible....and when did you get de-modded and why did you not give it to me haha

I got de-modded earlier on today. It was totally my fault. I goofed up. I wasn't thinking right and I mentioned some stuff that I shouldn't have. About watching tonight's Rumble for free and what-not.

I didn't even know that was against the rules, even just by mentioning it. It's not like I posted a link or whatever.

I just happened to say that I would be watching tonight's Royal Rumble for free and that's it and I got canned. Pretty strict around here, that's for sure.

Oh well. It's done. Nothing I can about it. I'm glad I'm not the MOD anymore anyway. Never wanted to be in the first place.

That sucks for ya man, sorry to hear it. I didnt think it was against the rules mentioning it but I knew it was if you posted links and stuff. Sorry to hear that but hopefully you wont be a stranger around here

[Ldeow]

That is stupid that you got de-modded for that Mr. Old School.

But yea easily 95.

[Cass]

I'd have to say 99 easily. Most of the first half minus Austin, who wasn't even in the ring for more than half the match, were jobbers or mid-carders. The only hope for a big star was Kane who quickly eliminated himself. Then there was Owen Hart who was really doing nothing and wasn't a big star anymore at the time. So Austin was really the only star worth note in that rumble.

[LeighD]

Jan 31, 2010 17:52:19 GMT -5 Mr. Old School™ said:

Hands down, 1995. Probably the worst Royal Rumble in history.

Its like hearing myself talk.

[DTP.]

Well with the 2000 Rumble, it could only really get down to Rock, Show or Kane, tbh.

[Deleted]

easily 1995.it was a dire outing for all concerned IMO

[BrIaNMeRcY]

1995 simply because of the roster the WWF had at the time.