Who would you rather see come back to wrestling?

[D Mac]

Brock Lesnar or Goldberg?

*Edit* Disregard the TNA in the poll title. This is any promotion in general.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

Brock. I never liked Goldberg. Something about him just rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe it was because it was like he didn't have a personality, and was just booked like a dumb animal.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I actually can get into Goldberg, and don't feel like he is completely terrible, but Brock Lesnar was actually good. The way he was heading, he was actually going to be a major star, too. He was being forced on us, I guess, but that worked with Lesnar. We accepted him as someone who deserved to win the title as quickly as he did (deserved may not be the right word, but it felt right).

The other thing about Brock Lesnar, was that he could play both the face and heel roles so well. There is so much for Lesnar to do, as well. He was a guy who could have thrived in the brand environment. Feuds with Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit when he was still around, had so much potential.

I was never the biggest Lesnar fan around, but if he returned to the WWE, I would mark out, and I assume he would become their top priority.

[GD]

I would go for Brock Lesnar. I mean he was the only reason I tuned into Smackdown! with all due respect to his strecher match against Big Slow at Judgement Day.

[Xero]

Brock by a long shot. I used to enjoy watching Goldberg in WCW, but he was a one trick pony. Brock had almost everything. He did need a manger to talk for him, but his in-ring work and his intensity more than made up for it.

Had he not gotten burned out WWE would be a very different landscape. Honestly I think we would have seen a heel Cena vs. face Brock main event feud a few years ago and it's what would have launched Cena properly. Instead they panicked and needed a new face to put on the company and *BAM* Super Cena.

[Loose Cannon]

Cena/Brock the first time around is what actually got Cena over in the first place. Yea, that would of been like Rock/Austin to me of this era. For me, definately Brock. I was never really a Goldberg fan.

[Kane Knight]

Brock is awesome. Goldberg is okay.

[Blue Demon]

Brock is awesome. Goldberg is okay.

[Rob]

Goldberg. Lesnar is fine in the UFC.

[Rammsteinmad]

Brock Lesnar. Nothing against Goldberg, but Lesnar was a fucking beast. He had size and strength, but also the rare ability to be so big and still be an awesome worker.

After their match on Smackdown and the tap out at Survivor Series '03, I SOOOOO desperately wanted a Lesnar/Benoit rivalry, which it looked like where they were headed until Benoit got sent to Raw.

Anyhow, Lesnar was the goods. :y:

[thedamndest]

Brock, especially at this point in the game. Goldberg's got a lot more mileage on him.

[MCEazy]

I liked bill in wcw, but was bored by him in wwe. Lesnar ftw

[NeanderCarl]

Didn't mind Brock by the time he left (he was far too green for his position in 2002, early 2003) but WCW Goldberg 1997-1998 was a beast. I'd rather have that Goldberg around than Lesnar.

Then again, I'd rather have Lesnar around than WWE 2004 Goldberg.

[James Steele]

Brock Lesnar by a billion miles. Brock could do anything in the ring, and he was developing into a good promo guy. Goldberg is worthless unless you book him as an unstoppable beast who buries everybody in 8 minutes or less. WWE didn't ruin Goldberg, WWE just exposed Goldberg for the worthless piece of shit he is. How can you expect a company to book you to bury everybody on their roster?

[NeanderCarl]

Goldberg had charisma without ever opening his mouth. You can't buy that shit. Goldberg could wrestle an exciting squash match like nobody in the history of the business, Ultimate Warrior and Sid Vicious included. Goldberg is one of the few guys in the last ten years to get over without the promotional machine behind him... Lesnar barely got over even with the WWE title around his waist, until The Undertaker, Kurt Angle and Big Show gave him the benefit of their star power.

And Goldberg could work... watch his match with the broken-down Scott Steiner from WCW (2000?) as evidence. He also had other good matches where he held his own end of the bargain, with DDP, Raven, Jericho, even Triple H. His appeal was nicely accentuated at SummerSlam 03 in the Elimination Chamber, and the booking flaws which ruined him in the WWE were also fully exposed in the finish of said match.

Lesnar might be more well-rounded in the ring, but if that's all that mattered, Dean Malenko would be reigning WWE champion. At the end of the day, Lesnar would wrap Goldberg up like a pretzel in a shoot, but I know which of the two made the more convincing 'hard man' on TV, and it's not the guy currently tapping out at a UFC show near you.

[Theo Dious]

I voted Loose Cannon. And not to be a smartass either. I would rather see Loose Cannon spend half an hour on every wrestling show promoting TPWW than I would ever want to see Goldberg or Goldbrock again.

[Theo Dious]

Goldberg had charisma without ever opening his mouth. You can't buy that shit. Goldberg could wrestle an exciting squash match like nobody in the history of the business, Ultimate Warrior and Sid Vicious included. Goldberg is one of the few guys in the last ten years to get over without the promotional machine behind him...

...and as soon as he loses a single match, nobody cares anymore. Sorry, without "TEH STREEK" Goldberg isn't shit. I contend that a HUGE reason he got over in WCW at all was because WCW fans were begging on hands and knees for some sort of homegrown superstar instead of mercenary talent grown and popularized by Vince McMahon.

[Juan]

The Next Big Thing, Brock Lesnar!

[Mr. Nerfect]

Brock Lesnar by a billion miles. Brock could do anything in the ring, and he was developing into a good promo guy. Goldberg is worthless unless you book him as an unstoppable beast who buries everybody in 8 minutes or less. WWE didn't ruin Goldberg, WWE just exposed Goldberg for the worthless piece of shit he is. How can you expect a company to book you to bury everybody on their roster?

I agree that Goldberg was lost without the streak (to a point where his ring work was not good enough to justify his position as a main eventer), but there was no reason at all that Goldberg should not have won the World Heavyweight Championship at Summerslam 2003. The fans wanted to see it, and Goldberg looked like a beast in that match up until he ran into a sledgehammer and went down looking like a bitch.

I know you'll disagree because you're a Triple H mark, I'm not trying to take digs at Triple H here, he's better than Goldberg, it's just the booking on RAW around this time so damn horrible.

[Sting Fan]

God that whole Era of Raw booking begining with RVD, Booker T and Kane not being elevated as they should have been was a disaster main event booking wise.

WWE missed there chance on all three guys to be real top guys not just filler slot in at any time guys.

Random thought, Booker T busting out his old "Dont hate the player, Hate the game" saying was almost the markout moment of that year for me. So intense.

[Theo Dious]

Incidentally, I will say that if we had to have one of them back, I'd say Brock.

Still, fuckin' Loose Cannon all the way.

[Gertner]

Lesnar with LC second

[NeanderCarl]

The Next <strike>Big</strike> Best Thing, Brock Lesnar!

[NeanderCarl]

as soon as he loses a single match, nobody cares anymore.

Not true. They were mostly deflated by the way it happened (and to whom the loss occurred) but all the while it was an inevitability he would eventually lose; it wasn't really a surprise that the streak ended, just the nature in which it did. They didn't capitalise on the "former champion seeking revenge" bit, they slung him straight into a midcard feud with Hall and turned Hogan face again, stealing all Goldberg's thunder. Many people see the night Goldberg lost the title as THE night WCW sealed its own fate.

And anyone who says "all WWE really did was expose Goldberg as not being able to work" or words to that effect... well yes, more fool WWE for exposing him, because WCW kept up the illusion for 18 months with no problem. You can't throw a powerhouse demolition man like Goldberg into 25 minute matches because it doesn't work.

You wouldn't put The Rock in a lucha libre match, because it doesn't play to his strengths. You wouldn't put Dean Malenko in a hardcore falls count anywhere brawl; aces in their places. You can't knock Goldberg because WWE put him in situations he couldn't live up to: that is the WWE's own fault for not knowing how to accentuate the strengths and hide the weaknesses of their own roster. Pushed correctly ie. the way WCW did for a year and a half, Goldberg could have been huge, and his short but exciting style of match would be tailor made for the crash-bang-wallop short-attention-span TV that WWE produces on Monday nights.

[James Steele]

Not true. They were mostly deflated by the way it happened (and to whom the loss occurred) but all the while it was an inevitability he would eventually lose; it wasn't really a surprise that the streak ended, just the nature in which it did. They didn't capitalise on the "former champion seeking revenge" bit, they slung him straight into a midcard feud with Hall and turned Hogan face again, stealing all Goldberg's thunder. Many people see the night Goldberg lost the title as THE night WCW sealed its own fate.

And anyone who says "all WWE really did was expose Goldberg as not being able to work" or words to that effect... well yes, more fool WWE for exposing him, because WCW kept up the illusion for 18 months with no problem. You can't throw a powerhouse demolition man like Goldberg into 25 minute matches because it doesn't work.

You wouldn't put The Rock in a lucha libre match, because it doesn't play to his strengths. You wouldn't put Dean Malenko in a hardcore falls count anywhere brawl; aces in their places. You can't knock Goldberg because WWE put him in situations he couldn't live up to: that is the WWE's own fault for not knowing how to accentuate the strengths and hide the weaknesses of their own roster. Pushed correctly ie. the way WCW did for a year and a half, Goldberg could have been huge, and his short but exciting style of match would be tailor made for the crash-bang-wallop short-attention-span TV that WWE produces on Monday nights.

The Rock could wrestle any style match that the WWE has (WWE never has or will have lucha). Dean Malenko could work a street fight. Goldberg can only work a match where he kicks everybody's ass in 5 mintues. You actually think that a superstar who can only get over by beating everybody is worth burying the rest of your roster?

[Destor]

WWE had lucha guys come in and work Lucha in '96. Just fyi.

[Destor]

Maybe it was 94...anyway, they did do it.

[NeanderCarl]

They had AAA guys in early 1997, and got some lucha guys during the early days of the Light Heavyweight division at the end of 97/early 98 too.

Besides the point, the Rock couldn't work a cruiserweight clusterfuck match anyway. Nor would anyone want him to.

Don't put Goldberg in a 20 minute match where he's selling for guys much smaller than him for most of the match, or put him in comedy skits and make him wear a long blonde wig, then expect the fanbase to take him seriously as an unstoppable monster gunning for the top belt just a couple of weeks later. Hey presto! problem solved.

[Anybody Thrilla]

Brock Lesnar, please. I could NEVER get into Goldberg, even at the peak of his popularity in WCW. I was a huge Lesnar mark, though.

[Kane Knight]

Not true. They were mostly deflated by the way it happened (and to whom the loss occurred) but all the while it was an inevitability he would eventually lose; it wasn't really a surprise that the streak ended, just the nature in which it did. They didn't capitalise on the "former champion seeking revenge" bit, they slung him straight into a midcard feud with Hall and turned Hogan face again, stealing all Goldberg's thunder.


They didn't really have anywhere to go with Goldberg. They had built him up solely around the premise. While they could have capitalized, it was a short-term fix for a long-term problem.

Many people see the night Goldberg lost the title as THE night WCW sealed its own fate.

Many people believe that we never landed on the moon, too.

And anyone who says "all WWE really did was expose Goldberg as not being able to work" or words to that effect... well yes, more fool WWE for exposing him, because WCW kept up the illusion for 18 months with no problem.

All WWE really did was expect him to suck about as much as their usual powerhouse types. It's not even about exposing his weakness. It's about the fact that it was a sinking ship. Goldberg couldn't be inflated forever, especially without WCW's stream of endless jobbers.

You can't throw a powerhouse demolition man like Goldberg into 25 minute matches because it doesn't work.

And if that were the only problem.

You wouldn't put The Rock in a lucha libre match, because it doesn't play to his strengths. You wouldn't put Dean Malenko in a hardcore falls count anywhere brawl; aces in their places.

The Rock could put on a good match in almost any format. Dean could play hardcore. The fact is that Goldberg lacked the versatility to do anything beyond something which the door'd been shut on.

You can't knock Goldberg because WWE put him in situations he couldn't live up to: that is the WWE's own fault for not knowing how to accentuate the strengths and hide the weaknesses of their own roster.

While I could knock WWE for not knowing the strrengths and weaknesses of their own roster, and not working with them, they managed to make a bunch of limited guys look decent. Goldberg was special because....?

Pushed correctly ie. the way WCW did for a year and a half, Goldberg could have been huge, and his short but exciting style of match would be tailor made for the crash-bang-wallop short-attention-span TV that WWE produces on Monday nights.

Again, it sounds nice, but that doesn't make it sustainable. It doesn't make it a good plan, or a long term strategy.

[NeanderCarl]

I disagree. The huge money that they were paying him meant they should have made it work in their favour and use Goldberg as a money generator. With the most logical and learned of booking, they could have had a huge return on their investment. The guy had the appeal and charisma to pay dividends in that role. They chose, out of stubbornness, to "Vincify" him, to WWE-him up.. They dug their own grave with Goldberg, he was set up to fail from day one.

I'm not saying the 'Berg was a potential five-star match kinda fellow, but he certainly wasn't abysmal as people seem to be making out. I'd rather watch Goldberg than Batista, for example, and I actually quite like Batista.

Plus, wrestling's only big Jewish star... there's got to be a gap in the market for the Jewish dollar, right?

Or am I just asking for skinflint Jews jokes now?

[Anybody Thrilla]

Barry Horowitz was far superior to Bill Goldberg.

[NeanderCarl]

And that was the last in the current series, but don't worry, The Anybody Thrilla Show returns to our screens next Spring with more insights and opinions on the world of professional wrestling.

[Destor]

I agree with ABT.

[Anybody Thrilla]

Remember when he beat Skip? That was awesome.

[Zen v.W.o.]

Bret Hart.

[Anybody Thrilla]

I really would like to watch Brock/Angle from XIX right now.

[Kane Knight]

I disagree. The huge money that they were paying him meant they should have made it work in their favour and use Goldberg as a money generator. With the most logical and learned of booking, they could have had a huge return on their investment. The guy had the appeal and charisma to pay dividends in that role. They chose, out of stubbornness, to "Vincify" him, to WWE-him up.. They dug their own grave with Goldberg, he was set up to fail from day one.

I'm not saying the 'Berg was a potential five-star match kinda fellow, but he certainly wasn't abysmal as people seem to be making out. I'd rather watch Goldberg than Batista, for example, and I actually quite like Batista.

Plus, wrestling's only big Jewish star... there's got to be a gap in the market for the Jewish dollar, right?

Or am I just asking for skinflint Jews jokes now?LOL.

[Theo Dious]

Not true. They were mostly deflated by the way it happened (and to whom the loss occurred) but all the while it was an inevitability he would eventually lose; it wasn't really a surprise that the streak ended, just the nature in which it did. They didn't capitalise on the "former champion seeking revenge" bit, they slung him straight into a midcard feud with Hall and turned Hogan face again, stealing all Goldberg's thunder.

So basically what you're saying is that Goldberg's unstoppable streak should have been followed up with... another unstoppable streak?

[Mercury Bullet]

I'd rather watch Goldberg than Batista, for example...

Agree.

...and I actually quite like Batista.

Disagree.





I don't want either to come back. I want Brock to stay in MMA. I want Goldberg OFF my screen and not doing commentary for any MMA Org.

And I want D-Lo Brown to come back full time and fued with Chris Jericho over the IC title RIGHT NOW.

[Fox]

Gillberg.

[NeanderCarl]

So basically what you're saying is that Goldberg's unstoppable streak should have been followed up with... another unstoppable streak?

No, but maybe it shouldn't have come to an end at the hands of the overexposed and washed up flop draw Kevin Nash. And maybe upon winning the title from Goldberg, Nash shouldn't have laid down to Hulk Hogan's fingerpoke, effectivelyt passing the issue to Hogan, who had jobbed once to Goldberg and wasn't about to do it gladly again.

[HeartBreakMan2k]

Brock Lesnar easily. Brock was the last guy I really, REALLY marked on.