|
Post by bmfjules on Oct 31, 2018 18:24:46 GMT -5
Goldberg's streak should only have been broken by another Goldberg. A second fully home grown star who could have benefitted from the rub gained by ending it. If WCW had signed Kurt Angle instead of WWE, then somewhere in mid 2000, around the time he won the WWF title in real life, have him beat the streak and win the title with a clean wrestling move like a small package, victory role, crucifix (the move, not the ECW angle that pissed him off) etc...
|
|
|
Post by Gravedigger's Biscuits on Oct 31, 2018 18:26:22 GMT -5
From a business perspective, the only answer is Goldberg.
Like it's not even debatable.
|
|
|
Post by bmfjules on Nov 1, 2018 3:30:27 GMT -5
From a business perspective, the only answer is Goldberg. Like it's not even debatable. I would say drawing the biggest pay-per-view number in wrestling history up to that point should at least make you debatable in terms of being the guy, re Sting. Crow Sting was lightning in a bottle before Goldberg but WCW gonna WCW.... Also Bret Hart walked out of WWF in storyline as the unbeaten world champion and had a ready-made angle with Hogan based off of real life tension which was then promptly ignored. Two big what ifs for me. Either of them could have been the guy over Goldberg in 98, however it was clear that Goldberg was going to be the guy going in to the next millennium and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by carter 15 on Nov 1, 2018 8:21:55 GMT -5
It was clearly Goldberg at the time. You have to play mental gymnastics with quite a few what ifs to really question otherwise.
|
|
thecrusherwi
El Dandy
the Financially Responsible Man
Brawl For All
Posts: 7,656
|
Post by thecrusherwi on Nov 1, 2018 11:29:47 GMT -5
I think Goldberg, but I disagree with those saying the undefeated streak should’ve gone one longer than it did. That would’ve been very stale. I think having him drop the belt on a fluke/interference to Nash was the right move. Nash was over as hell and it gave Goldberg a chance to chase and destroy those who wronged him. I would’ve booked post Starrcade differently (mostly by having a Nash heel turn slowly burned over the course of months with curious circumstances and actions by his former friends always favoring him but giving him plausible deniability that he wasn’t in on it). I prefer the concept of Goldberg getting screwed and chasing the title over being undefeated forever and ever.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,292
|
Post by The Ichi on Nov 1, 2018 15:48:00 GMT -5
Glacier.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Nov 1, 2018 17:16:24 GMT -5
From a business perspective, the only answer is Goldberg. Like it's not even debatable. I would say drawing the biggest pay-per-view number in wrestling history up to that point should at least make you debatable in terms of being the guy, re Sting. Crow Sting was lightning in a bottle before Goldberg but WCW gonna WCW.... Also Bret Hart walked out of WWF in storyline as the unbeaten world champion and had a ready-made angle with Hogan based off of real life tension which was then promptly ignored. Two big what ifs for me. Either of them could have been the guy over Goldberg in 98, however it was clear that Goldberg was going to be the guy going in to the next millennium and beyond. Sting should have won clean at Starrcade '97, but considering Sting and Bischoff agree he was in no condition to carry the company, I give them a pass. Now Bret Hart, that was just absurdly stupid. You literally had the WWF Champion(in kayfabe) and they botched the whole thing.
|
|