I hope they show the battle royal on the show though they have done 40 man battle royals in the past in the early 90s. They are just adding 1 more man to it.
Posted By: Guest#9687 (Guest) on September 28, 2011 at 09:40 PM
Special appearance by DX, yippy!
Posted By: Guest#3386 (Guest) on September 28, 2011 at 09:53 PM
lol 41 man eh?
I thought i read WWE to hold largest battle royale in history, period. but i think DDT has that covered with a 100+ person/object battle royale.
Posted By: Guest#8575 (Guest) on September 28, 2011 at 09:56 PM
The rings gonna collapse.
Posted By: Guest#0930 (Guest) on September 28, 2011 at 10:12 PM
The Battle Royale intrigues me? The only wrestlers that have a chance to win if it's televised are Cody Rhodes, Sheamus, Ziggler, JoMo if they use this to push him or if they are in it CM Punk and Christian.
Posted By: Dr. Wiki (Guest) on September 28, 2011 at 10:35 PM
Theyre just tryig to get the ring to collapse again. They have'nt done this since Lesnar-Show.
Posted By: The Revolting Blob (Guest) on September 28, 2011 at 10:38 PM
Haha, 41-man?
Posted By: but these go up to 11 (Guest) on September 28, 2011 at 10:40 PM
The Largest Battle Royale in WWE history - A 41 Man Battle Royal featuring stars from RAW and Smackdown
-------------->
Really? Really Really?
Dude did you know that this past year of the Royal Rumble had 40 Participants?
Now your saying that next year's Rumble will have just one extra participant making it a 41 Man Battle Royal???
Isn't really much of a big deal to call it the LARGEST!
Posted By: The Real Truth (Guest) on September 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM
@The Real Truth
you do realize the Royal Rumble is NOT a battle royal right? battle royals are when everyone starts in the ring not come down every couple minutes, and using stupid catchphrases when you are spouting erroneous info makes you sound really dumb, plus its not that big a deal change your panties and enjoy the show
Posted By: blb1983 (Guest) on September 28, 2011 at 11:34 PM
these aren't dark matches. not all of them can be dark matches.
Posted By: Guest#1404 (Guest) on September 28, 2011 at 11:52 PM
hahahahaha.
Posted By: Guest#9254 (Guest) on September 28, 2011 at 11:53 PM
The Largest Battle Royale in WWE history - A 41 Man Battle Royal featuring stars from RAW and Smackdown
-------------->
Really? Really Really?
Dude did you know that this past year of the Royal Rumble had 40 Participants?
Now your saying that next year's Rumble will have just one extra participant making it a 41 Man Battle Royal???
Isn't really much of a big deal to call it the LARGEST!
Posted By: The Real Truth (Guest) on September 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM
-------------------------------------
yeah except a Royal Rumble and Battle Royal arent the same thing
Posted By: Guest#6926 (Guest) on September 29, 2011 at 01:00 AM
Knowing the WWE they'll probably somehow have 53 eliminations as well, since in the Royal Rumble earlier this year they had 47 eliminations when there were only 40 participants.
WWE fans are easily fooled by things like this, so it's no wonder the WWE get away with non-logical booking!
Posted By: Latex (Guest) on September 29, 2011 at 01:40 AM
@The Real Truth
you do realize the Royal Rumble is NOT a battle royal right? battle royals are when everyone starts in the ring not come down every couple minutes, and using stupid catchphrases when you are spouting erroneous info makes you sound really dumb, plus its not that big a deal change your panties and enjoy the show
Posted By: blb1983 (Guest) on September 28, 2011 at 11:34 PM
Don't worry i will still enjoy the show. Bu the way, I'll change my panties when you change your s**ty diapers.
Posted By: The Real Truth (Guest) on September 29, 2011 at 01:46 AM
I know for a fact the indy company HWA has done 100 man battle royals so sick of WWE and it's BS
Posted By: Fack Checker (Guest) on September 29, 2011 at 02:13 AM
I wonder if Cena will somehow win the Battle Royale...
Posted By: Mojotheclown (Guest) on September 29, 2011 at 03:22 AM
Oh...for the love of God, not all of them can be dark matches! Not ALL of them! The PTA is diabanding! AAAAAH!!!!
Posted By: Riding so---loooo (Guest) on September 29, 2011 at 08:05 AM
I know for a fact the indy company HWA has done 100 man battle royals so sick of WWE and it's BS
Posted By: Fack Checker (Guest) on September 29, 2011 at 02:13 AM
hey FACT Checker, itsays biggest battle royale in WWE history, which means more than a 100 person indy or japanese promotion. In the WWE everyone is well known and the result means that much more
Posted By: Sabby (Guest) on September 29, 2011 at 08:49 AM
Battle Royals are usually really lack luster.....so within thirty seconds half the roster will be gone and we'll see some solid wrestling. Then a heel falls under the bottom rope. Jumps in and battles it out.
Posted By: Guest#6553 (Guest) on September 29, 2011 at 09:37 AM
The Largest Battle Royale in WWE history - A 41 Man Battle Royal featuring stars from RAW and Smackdown
-------------->
Really? Really Really?
Dude did you know that this past year of the Royal Rumble had 40 Participants?
Now your saying that next year's Rumble will have just one extra participant making it a 41 Man Battle Royal???
Isn't really much of a big deal to call it the LARGEST!
Posted By: The Real Truth (Guest) on September 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM
NERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD
Posted By: Guest#5125 (Guest) on September 29, 2011 at 07:24 PM
NERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD
Posted By: Guest#5125 (Guest) on September 29, 2011 at 07:24 PM
P***YYYYYYYYYYYYY !!
Posted By: JD (Guest) on October 08, 2011 at 07:38 PM
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
