Talk:Royal Rumble (1988)

Orphaned references in Royal Rumble (1988)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Royal Rumble (1988)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "pwwew.net": From Survivor Series (1987):  From WrestleMania IV:  From WWF The Wrestling Classic:  From Royal Rumble (1989):  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This was actually the SECOND Rumble
In the Jan 24 Observer Newsletter, Dave Meltzer says that this was actually the second Rumble. The first took place the previous October and was won by One Man Gang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lusy (talk • contribs) 10:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you want real history or the WWE's version of history? The royal rumble match of 1987 was advertised in the St. Louis market according to a pro-wrestling history, not a paid off one, Dave Meltzer. They did a test run to see how the concept would do, and the show bombed. It was regarded as a financial failure because the WWF drawing 1,800 to show was significantly below the average for any year in WWE history, especially in 1987 for two reasons. (Well, 1995 might have been worse, but I don't even think that is true.) Missouri was a decent market for the WWF, outside of the Northeast and the West Coast. That they didn't draw with this concept is a financial failure. There is no way around that. If you knew anything about 1980s WWF and how the markets worked, all main events were advertised in advance because their business depended on live gates. Unlike today, house show business meant a lot and even moreso than PPV and TV since the WWF didn't get television rights unlike today. If you're going to edit out anything I post, give a better reason than arguing against the obvious fact that the WWE is not exactly keen on giving an unbiased representation of history. Any historian of the wrestling business knows that.

Lastly, your argument that 1988 complicates the history (and that the WWF doesn't seem to mind that) is silly. 1988's Royal Rumble was a highly televised event and the most watched pro-wrestling event on cable TV in history up until that point. 1987's house show that featured the royal rumble match was untelevised and drew poorly at that. So, they clearly have no motive in bringing it up. Pat Patterson knows that this event took place because he had a vested interest in its success since he came up with the idea and was Vince McMahon's right-hand man at the time, along with George Scott. But by the WWF's standard, untelevised events do matter when it comes to title histories. (Think of all the insignificant Hardcore Championship title changes at house shows that have been noted in the history books.) If those title changes are noted, then why is the 1987 royal rumble test run not noted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.193.112 (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Compromise

 * I will not include this Royal Rumble in the list, seeing as its the first. Over 40 wrestlers have appeared in at least 8 royal rumbles, only 10 of them have won it, and only 2 on their first attempt.--TBBC (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)