Write an Article

5 reasons the Undertaker shouldn't win the Royal Rumble

The Undertaker is feared, respected and loved, but him winning the Royal Rumble would be a big mistake. Here's why.

The Undertaker and Bray Wyatt at Wrestlemania 31
The deadman can certainly face Cena at WM without having him win the Rumble

As of now, the Undertaker is a 6/4 favourite to win the Royal Rumble and as history has shown us, it's futile to bet against the Deadman. When the Phenom announced his entry to the Royal Rumble on Monday Night Raw, the outcome of the match became evidently clear.

The odds don't lie and the dirt sheets are rarely wrong, the Undertaker is going to win the Royal Rumble, it's something we'll just have to get used to.  

Everybody can see the WWE are considering a John Cena (c) vs. Undertaker spectacle at WM33, but surely there's another way to reach this destination without ‘Taker ruining the Rumble.

Here are five reasons why the Undertaker doesn't need to win the Royal Rumble.


#5 He's above status quo

The Undertaker on Monday Night Raw
The Undertaker debuted in 1990

Let's be frank, there are only three men in the company today that can go off on a long hiatus, come back and demand a Championship match; John Cena, Brock Lesnar and the Undertaker. When you're a larger than life figure like the Undertaker you don't need to abide by the rules or the laws.

Like he said on Monday Night Raw this week, "he goes where he wants, when he wants." He has no ties to a 'brand' or 'authority figure'.

At the Royal Rumble, there is only one winner, but there are two world titles to challenge for. So say for example a Raw Superstar wins the match, they then challenge for the Universal Championship, leaving SmackDown without a no.1 contender...thus allowing the Phenom to challenge for the WWE Championship.

He doesn't need to do things the conventional way, he's big enough to get a pass once in a while.

Page 1 of 5 Next
Fetching more content...