|
Post by Dynamite Kid on Dec 21, 2007 21:09:00 GMT -5
The first one, but people aren't giving Goldberg's its due. Goldberg was over as hell and he was put over by everybody else. It made him look unstoppable. The ending of it was what buried someone, and that was Goldberg.
|
|
repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,071
|
Post by repomark on Dec 22, 2007 0:11:02 GMT -5
Good though the original was, for some inexplicable reason I always loved the Summerslam 2003 Elimination Chamber. Goldberg decimating everyone was just so well done, and then him getting screwed out of the title made it even more emotion filled. I thought it was really well done - and one of the main reasons I feel people who talk about the Goldberg WWE run as a failure and that he was not given enough of a push are off the mark.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Dec 22, 2007 0:21:19 GMT -5
I liked the Goldberg one too. I wasn't too much of a Goldberg fan, but the fact that he was so over at the time made it fun. I was even kinda disappointed that he didn't win.
|
|
|
Post by Solid Stryk-Dizzle on Dec 22, 2007 2:53:25 GMT -5
I loved NYR 05's EC.
It told a great story (Masters and Carlito, the underdogs working together to get rid of the big names.) It also had some great in-ring work from everyone involved as well. I liked the original as well but I just thought this one told a more interesting story.
|
|
|
Post by lostmysmile on Dec 22, 2007 5:11:13 GMT -5
has anyone noticed how the first of a certain match is usually the best?i mean the first elimination chamber was the best one,as was the first hell in a cell and the first official ladder match is one of the best
|
|