i think orton or benoit deserved to win
2007-02-08 10:19:13 · 15 answers · asked by Hulk Kogan 2 in Sports ➔ Wrestling
i think that orton should won it because he is in a need for a big push,im freaking tired of cena
2007-02-08 10:28:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with your choices even though Benoit won in 2004. But, Taker deserved it more since he was in the Royal Rumble nearly every year since 1991. He certainly deserved it more than Shawn Michaels who won it twice in 1995 and 1996. Hopefully, 2007 will be the year of the Undertaker. If it is, the Royal Rumble was just the beginning. The winners of the last six Royal Rumbles have won the WWE Title at WrestleMania, so that along with the Undertaker's undefeated record at WrestleMania, the Undertaker has history on his side. Orton is still young. He will win a Royal Rumble one day. But, no one deserved it more than the Undertaker.
2007-02-08 18:27:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I dont like Orton but i definatley think he would've made a good royal rumble winner
2007-02-08 18:32:21 · answer #3 · answered by rEaDy4cHaNgE 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wanted either Kane or HBK to win though Undertaker winning is acceptable
2007-02-08 18:52:53 · answer #4 · answered by Austin Darkora 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope Chris Benoit kind of but mostly Nope
2007-02-08 18:22:15 · answer #5 · answered by Malik 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
CHEF should of won..., j/p orton, or booker t Kane too
2007-02-08 19:34:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Great Khali
Sabu
King Booker
No body else.
2007-02-08 18:24:44 · answer #7 · answered by Lights Out #3 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
orton really deserved it but the wwe has been screwing him over lately
2007-02-08 18:24:25 · answer #8 · answered by WILD 4 RKO 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i agree randy orton should of won
2007-02-08 18:24:17 · answer #9 · answered by crazzy_4_randy_orton 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Randy orton
2007-02-08 18:23:34 · answer #10 · answered by beijingrocks! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋