15 Years WWE got the Royal Rumble winner wrong

The Royal Rumble is the most contradictory occasion in all of WWE. It's simultaneously the most anticipated match of the year and also one approached with great caution by fans. The match itself is so much fun, but the endings often let us all down.

That's become notorious in recent years, but the history of the event is rife with wrong winners. That was less important in the early years of the event, but since 1993, when the winner has traditionally been awarded a title shot at WrestleMania, it matters far more.

Sadly, for every time they've gotten it right, they've gotten it wrong, as seen in these years...

---

1990

Wrong man.

Who won: Hulk Hogan

Who should have won: Ultimate Warrior

Though this was still before the traditional award of a title shot at WrestleMania, the victory of Hulk Hogan, the WWF Champion at the time, made little sense. The plan for the mega match at WrestleMania VI was well underway and winning the event would have given the Ultimate Warrior that much more momentum heading into Toronto. Destined to drop the title there anyway, Hulk Hogan's victory didn't wind up contributing to any long-term stories.

1994

Confusing.

Who won: Bret Hart and Lex Luger

Who should have won: Bret Hart alone

1994's Royal Rumble was a strange case, but Bret Hart should have won alone. The Lex Luger ship had sailed by that point and he would soon find himself back in WCW to usher in the era of the Monday Night Wars.

Meanwhile, since Bret Hart was destined to walk out of Madison Square Garden with the title anyway, the whole coin toss situation was more confusing than helpful, even if it added to the obstacles that Bret would need to overcome.

1997

Not the man yet.

Who won: Stone Cold Steve Austin

Who should have won: The Undertaker

Winning by trickery, Stone Cold's victory was overturned and didn't add anything of consequence to the WrestleMania title picture, although Shawn Michaels' infamous "lost my smile" promo also blew up the plans that year. Additionally, Stone Cold was hot, but he wasn't yet the man who would define the Attitude Era. That would have to wait another year.

The whole thing was a big mess, so it's hard to say who should and shouldn't have won, but Undertaker seems like the best choice in hindsight, given what happened.

1999

Intriguing angle, wrong winner.

Who won: Vince McMahon

Who should have won: Stone Cold Steve Austin

Though this match was centered on the Austin/McMahon feud and did its part in the match itself, Vince McMahon would drop his title opportunity the next night, with Stone Cold being awarded it anyway. So the whole thing was pointless. Stone Cold should have won.

2000

Why did we bother with whose feet hit the ground first?

This year is another special case because technically, the right man did win in The Rock. At least, that's what the record books say. Functionally, however, The Rock and The Big Show both won, as the confusion over whose feet touched the ground first left both of them challenging for the championship along with Mick Foley.

It was needless. The match for WrestleMania was clearly The Rock vs. Triple H. The addition of the other competitors and the McMahons in every corner muddied it. The Rock should have been the clear winner and gone on to face Triple H in a singles match. They did so at Backlash that year, so that match should have been moved up a month.

2006

Out of place.

Who won: Rey Mysterio

Who should have won: Randy Orton

Rey Mysterio's victory was moving at the time in tribute to Eddie Guerrero, but it made little sense in hindsight. Randy Orton was coming off a breakout year in 2005 where his feud with The Undertaker was one of the top programs.

Orton would go on to meet Kurt Angle in the championship match at WrestleMania anyway along with Rey Mysterio. Randy Orton was clearly the future. The triple threat only took the spotlight off of him.

Mysterio's title reign after WrestleMania that year was largely symbolic and didn't add much for the long term.

2011

And no one cared.

Who won: Alberto del Rio

Who should have won: CM Punk

The experiment with the 40-man Royal Rumble Match that year was decidedly a poor one. What was even poorer was the choice of winner. Alberto Del Rio must be considered one of the biggest busts in WWE history. He was never able to draw heat no matter what he did and his WrestleMania match with Edge that year, which he lost, was very much an afterthought.

CM Punk, in the meantime, was slowly accumulating heat and would go on to explode that summer. A Royal Rumble win would have only helped that heat.

Sure, the return of The Rock complicated the main event picture that year and John Cena vs. The Miz was done only to set up the eventual mega match between the two for next year's WrestleMania, but all the same, CM Punk's presence would have been far more preferable to what occurred.

2012

Forgettable.

Who won: Sheamus

Who should have won: Chris Jericho

2012's result was a repeat of 2011's. Sure, the 40-man experiment thankfully ended, but Sheamus' victory there and ultimate title win at WrestleMania were both afterthoughts.

Meanwhile, CM Punk was embarking on his record title reign and Chris Jericho's return was red hot. The two would go on to have a well-told WrestleMania feud. A Jericho Rumble victory would have added another dimension to that story and made the January spectacular feel much more important than it did that year.

2013

Boring.

Who won: John Cena

Who should have won: Ryback

It now sounds ludicrous, but Ryback was the hottest act in WWE as 2012 came to a close and 2013 began. John Cena's victory that year was one that few welcomed and the rematch with The Rock would be a disappointing affair. "Once in a Lifetime" was enough. Meanwhile, a Ryback Royal Rumble win followed by a victory over The Rock would have cemented him as a huge star.

The whole episode was an extension of earlier trends that would grow more prominent in the next few years - WWE refusing to pull the trigger on hot new talent while relying more and more on nostalgia acts. Their refusal to elevate acts that have gotten over organically into superstardom is one of the reasons their TV audience has declined 20% since 2015.

2014

Catastrophic.

Who won: Batista

Who should have won: Daniel Bryan

A Rumble that will live in infamy. As 2014 began, Daniel Bryan was the most over superstar in WWE since The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin. It seemed a no-brainer that he would be in the main event of WrestleMania, but the company needed to be dragged kicking and screaming into it.

Batista returned that year and, wanting to take advantage of his success in Hollywood, the company selected him as the Royal Rumble winner. When Daniel Bryan didn't show up in the match, his fate was sealed. Showered in a chorus of boos, Batista, through no real fault of his own, looked set to take the company into disaster at WrestleMania with Randy Orton, a match people were sick of already, with or without Bryan.

A long period of convoluted booking took things to the right outcome, but it was an experience that didn't need to happen if only the company would have done the right thing.

2015

Apocalyptic.

Who won: Roman Reigns

Who should have won: Daniel Bryan

If 2014 was a catastrophic volcanic eruption, 2015 was an apocalyptic meteor, an unmistakable signal of how out of touch WWE is with its own fans.

Daniel Bryan's victory at WrestleMania 30 was bittersweet, as he would have to relinquish the title shortly afterward due to injury. From that moment on, fans wanted to see him regain the title that he never lost, which, as the Royal Rumble approached, was in the hands of Brock Lesnar. Nothing could have made for a better David and Goliath story.

That was indeed the story WWE planned on telling - but with Roman Reigns in the role of David. It wasn't believable, as he doesn't exactly look diminutive in comparison to Brock Lesnar. Roman Reigns wasn't the one who fans wanted to see, anyway. They wanted to see Daniel Bryan. When the former champion formally announced his entry into the Royal Rumble, hopes were raised.

Those hopes would soon be shattered, as Daniel Bryan was eliminated quickly early on. This set the event up for disaster, as an orchestra of boos blasted throughout the entire match. The Big Show and Kane dumping everyone out only made the fans' blood boil that much more, as it was obvious who the winner would be.

Roman Reigns' victory went beyond the Pyrrhic variety. It would open a wound that would never heal and cast a dark shadow over his career from that point forward. WWE has tried hard to establish Roman Reigns as its next "guy," but that night guaranteed that he would never be fully accepted by the "universe." Vince McMahon's lack of foresight that night has haunted him (and us) ever since.

2016

"What year is this?" Asked everyone watching.

Who won: Triple H

Who should have won: Dean Ambrose

2016's edition didn't nearly reach the disaster levels that the previous two Rumbles had, but it was a whole big bag of mediocrity. The Authority storyline had grown beyond stale in the previous couple of years and it now combined with the ongoing Roman Reigns push to produce an entirely bland experience.

Bending over backwards to put as many obstacles in Roman Reigns' path as possible to get him over as an underdog, the match centered on a title defense. Roman Reigns would have to put his title on the line in the Rumble itself, with the winner emerging as champion. That winner would be the most uncreative choice possible, Triple H.

It was all just another boring slog to WrestleMania where Roman Reigns would regain his title in one of the worst main events in the history of the Showcase of the Immortals.

Dean Ambrose, meanwhile, had established himself as an organically over fan favorite since the breakup of The Shield. His "Lunatic Fringe" persona was then genuinely hot and a Rumble win would have worked wonders for him. If necessary, he could have gone into WrestleMania as the heel challenger to his former stablemate, which would have been more compelling than what we got. Instead, Dean Ambrose had a terrible match with Brock Lesnar that destroyed the momentum he'd built.

And WWE wonders why it has to rely on nostalgia acts...

2017

How original.

Who won: Randy Orton

Who should have won: Bray Wyatt

A year later, it seems so weird to say that Bray Wyatt was on the up and up as 2017 began, but he was. His latter-half 2016 story with Randy Orton had fans genuinely intrigued and he was beginning to rebuild the credibility he'd lost in years past. A Royal Rumble win and a victory over John Cena at WrestleMania to avenge his 2014 loss would have elevated him tremendously.

Instead, Randy Orton won in a move that felt very random while Bray Wyatt won in an equally random-feeling Elimination Chamber. His sole purpose as champion was to job to Randy Orton at WrestleMania, who in turn was purposed with jobbing to Jinder Mahal. The feud along the way was one of 2017's worst.

Another lost opportunity.

2018

It's what we should see, but we won't.

Who should win: Braun Strowman

Who will win: somebody else

It's not too early to say that this year's winner will be wrong, too. Braun Strowman enters 2018 as WWE's hottest act after a breakthrough 2017. As a reward, he probably won't even be in the Royal Rumble Match itself, but feels like a third wheel in a triple threat match against Brock Lesnar, who he already lost to, and of all people, Kane.

With Braun Strowman likely gone and Samoa Joe's chances of winning almost as non-existent, the likeliest winner will be either John Cena or Shinsuke Nakamura.

A John Cena win would be terribly uninspiring, while Shinsuke Nakamura hasn't exactly set the world on fire.

People do want to see a match between AJ Styles and Shinsuke, though, so of all the realistic options, he's the best one, but he's certainly not the right winner.

As for the historic inaugural women's Royal Rumble, Asuka is the clear choice to win, as she's heading into it with the most momentum and has in only two months established herself as one of RAW's more over female performers. After last Monday's botchfest and confusing clean win over Alexa Bliss though, it's very possible she won't be in it at all and hotshotted to the title instead. That would be the wrong choice. It's still too early and I can't shake the feeling that it would be done solely for her to lose to Ronda Rousey at WrestleMania, which would be an immensely stupid decision when they could have a much bigger match next year.

Unfortunately, stupidity is par for the course in WWE this decade.