Haven't 4 men won the rumble from the first spot?

[bischoffs brain]

A minor detail that gets on my nerves this time of year. Cole said on Raw that 2 men have won the rumble from spot 1 and two have won from spot number 2. WHEN WILL THEY REFER TO IT AS SPOT 1A and 1B and say that 4 men have won and that way they can toss a few names other than Mysterio because the other number 1 was of course Benoit. It irked me when they kept claiming that no number 1 had ever won during the Benoit angle as I lays thought HBK should have been considered the first guy to win that was present at the beginning of the match. It's silly, and I should be more concerned with something relevant like how much money I will wager on the Super Bowl or if Lindsay Lohan will ever straighten out her life, is Kim Kardashin's ass real or made of silicone, but I can't help it.

[The Champ]

It's a fact that only two guys have won from the number one spot, saying otherwise would be lying, no matter how similar the two spots may be.

[Stefan]

But when you come out second, you're not number one.


As you can see on this chart, number one is not the same as number two.





Number one is in the ring longer than number two. So it's slightly more impressive.

[Piles]

Out of all the things the WWE does to irk people, this is pretty much non-existent on the list...

[SM]

Number one is in the ring longer than number two. So it's slightly more impressive.

Actually, the Rumble match doesn't start until the #2 entrant gets in the ring.

[mysteriofan]

It's still looked upon that it's more impressive to start at number 1 than number 2...even though it is kinda similar in a match like this cause once your in the ring the number 1 entrant is trying to eliminate you just as much as number 3-30...or 40

[Push Goldust]

Therefore #2 is the worst draw you can get in the Rumble, not #1.

At least if you draw #1 and win, you'll be put in the history books. #2 gets less credit for the same work.

[Stefan]

Actually, the Rumble match doesn't start until the #2 entrant gets in the ring.

Yes but #1 has to walk out first and stand for several seconds in the ring waiting for #2 to enter which looks exhausting.

[AmericanEagle]

But when you come out second, you're not number one.


As you can see on this chart, number one is not the same as number two.





Number one is in the ring longer than number two. So it's slightly more impressive.

Is there any way to make a 3D chart? I think this thread needs it

[bischoffs brain]

Well, hopefully Dolph Ziggler will make reference to this .On Smackdown. As stated earlier, you win at number 1 and it earns you a special place in Royal Rumble winner history, you win at 2 and nothing, even though you were in the ring officially competing for the same amount of time. They should give the first two competitors a different title such as Rumble starters or.....oh hell, why am I burning out so many brin cells thinking abou this?

[Stefan]

Ziggy won't be on SmackDown this week (unless they did a pre-taped segment last night) because he's coming here to Australia.

[BadNewsFan]

2 is absolutely the worst number that you can draw in the Rumble.

1. You are in the ring for the same amount of time as the number 1 entrant because the bell dosen't ring/match doesn't start until the number 2 entrant enters.

2. You do the exact same amount of work in order to win as you would at the number 1 entrant but do not get as much credit.

3. There is absolutely no advantage to being number 2, there is one advantage to being number 1, and that is that by entering the ring first, the number 1 entrant could potentially eliminate every superstar in the match by jumping them while they attempt to enter the ring, a slight advantage but still an advantage none the less.

Number 2 is at least equal to number 1 if not worse than number 1 and because of the small advantage number 1 has of being able to jump people every time, I'd say it's worse.