|
|
Post by showster22 on Mar 8, 2012 17:01:36 GMT -5
I'll start this off
Golldberg was a Failure in the WWE. I dont get this. He shows up the day after WM to a big pop. He beats the rock in his first match with the company (He did it clean to mind you) He beats Jericho, suffers his first loss in the elimination chamber, but cmoes back and beats Trips 2 times in one on one matches. he loses the title in dec in a triple threat (which I'm coll with because hes better chasing the title then holding it) fews with lesner (He wins there too) and left the company
Now how does beating every top guy on raw = failure.
and dont give me that stupid wig excuse because its not like he put it on himself and danced around in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by AnActualBear on Mar 8, 2012 17:09:41 GMT -5
The problem with Goldberg is they wanted people to recognise him from WCW, then they proceeded to systematically destroy everything that made him a star. They WWE'd him up by changing his music, changing his ring attire, having him cut promos, doing the ridiculous Elimination Chamber match where he gets beaten by one sledgehammer shot and putting him in situations where he was likely to be booed. They spent several years portraying WCW as the enemy, then they bring in all the main event WCW guys and expect the majority of them to be faces. It just didn't work.
Besides, putting him against The Rock was such a bad idea. Yeah Rock at the time was a complete dick, but he was the WWE's dick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 17:12:29 GMT -5
Goldberg’s WWE career wasn’t a complete bust but it was a letdown, and this is coming from a Goldberg fan.
Goldberg vs. The Rock
Goldberg vs. Triple H
Goldberg vs. Brock Lesnar
Those were all dream matches that for various different reasons didn’t live up to the hype. HHH was working injured in 2003 and couldn’t get the type of match out of Goldberg he would have if it took place a year or two earlier or a year or two after. Lesnar and Goldberg were both obviously on their way out so no one took their match seriously. And Goldberg-Rock was alright but not as huge as it should have been. It was just a strange match that felt too big for Backlash. And it felt like Rock was working as a babyface and Goldberg a heel.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegame415 on Mar 8, 2012 17:16:41 GMT -5
Without a doubt the idea that John Cena the wrestler sucks. His character is what sucks. There's no conflict. There's no depth. When you let the character show weakness and some human qualities, he's really good. Look at the early Nexus, CM Punk, and Kane storylines. IMO, the best Cena has ever been.
|
|
|
|
Post by Been burned too many times on Mar 8, 2012 17:16:47 GMT -5
That Russo's the worst person in the world.
That 'you don't matter' if you're not in the wwe.
That women's wrestling doesn't/can't draw.
|
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Mar 8, 2012 17:25:07 GMT -5
Goldberg's run was far from a failure. He was booked to be stronger than anybody else in WWE history, and I really think that was only because WWE knew it'd be dumb to do it any different considering how invincible he was in WCW. For an ex-WCW guy, he got amazing treatment. Plus, he put on better matches in WWE than he ever did in WCW.
The only disappointing part about Goldberg's WWE run to me, was the match with Lesnar. Awesome build up, terrible match. That wasn't WWE's fault though, that was Lesnar and Goldberg being a couple of lazy bastards.
Anyway, for my own unpopular IWC opinion:
WWE's version of ECW was a piece of s***. Granted, that was a very popular IWC opinion during the first year or so of the show, but when it basically became the jobber show, everybody suddenly loved it. I understand why people liked it, it's cool to see underutilized talent get to have story lines and longer matches, but the fact that they had the nerve to still call it ECW just put me off of it for good. There was nothing extreme about the show, and nothing about it resembled the old ECW after the first few months. It was such an incredible missed opportunity. The two One Night Stand PPV's were incredible, if ECW on Sci Fi had followed that same format, I believe it would have raked in some serious cash for WWE. ECW never lost its fans even when it went out of business, and there's a reason why.
|
|
|
|
Post by kriskomet on Mar 8, 2012 17:38:38 GMT -5
Russo being the wrestling equivalent of the Anti-Christ.
CM Punk could be the Next Steve Austin.
The Rock has been shit on the mic since he got back.
Chris Benoit shouldn't have been erased from the history books.
|
|
|
|
Post by SeVeN: #TheBadGuy. on Mar 8, 2012 17:39:03 GMT -5
While I like both of these guys, CM Punk and D.Bryan are not the greatest thing since T.V.
I disagree with all the Miz and Cena bashing.
IWC and HHH....nuff said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Mar 8, 2012 17:42:29 GMT -5
I like Triple H.
I want Santino and Ryder to be World champions one day.
I love cheesy wrestling crap and think the WWE needs more of it(this is not so unpopular on this board in specific but you know what I mean).
I like Bryan and Punk but not that much, honestly.
I like Miz.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Mar 8, 2012 17:43:07 GMT -5
What are IWC opinions, exactly?
|
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Mar 8, 2012 17:45:37 GMT -5
What are IWC opinions, exactly? The IWC concept is irrelevant at this point. But when people talk about IWC opinions, I just gauge it by what seems to be the popular opinion on these boards. For instance, something like 70% percent of people polled here earlier this week think that Santino is better than The Miz. That's not an IWC opinion, but I wouldn't feel wrong saying that this board prefers Santino over The Miz now that I saw the results of my poll. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 17:46:25 GMT -5
What are IWC opinions, exactly? Opinions about this indy fed apparently - shouldn't this be in Wrest of wrestling?  |
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Mar 8, 2012 17:48:08 GMT -5
What are IWC opinions, exactly? Just a guess, but the OP probably meant opinions that are popular with the IWC? Such a broad and indefinable range! |
|
|
|
Post by salsashark on Mar 8, 2012 18:05:22 GMT -5
That 'you don't matter' if you're not in the wwe. How in the world is this an IWC opinion when IWC guys are the ones supporting ROH, TNA, Chikara, etc.?  |
|
|
|
Post by showster22 on Mar 8, 2012 18:36:45 GMT -5
IMO Kevin Nash put on decent matches in WCW in fact I think they were better then his stuff from 95
|
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Mar 8, 2012 18:47:42 GMT -5
I seriously don't get the idea that Triple H "buries" people. He got beat clean by Batista at WM 21, John Cena at 22 and less than cleanly by Randy Orton at 24. In fact he lost 3 times in a row to Batista. How is that "burying" anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by thegame415 on Mar 8, 2012 18:47:43 GMT -5
IMO Kevin Nash put on decent matches in WCW in fact I think they were better then his stuff from 95 I think Nash from the NWO Invasion until ending the streak was the best he's ever been in terms of all around appeal. |
|
|
|
Post by blackmegaman on Mar 8, 2012 18:48:41 GMT -5
Guys like Hogan , Luger , and Cena "Don't know how to work"
|
|
|
|
Post by Been burned too many times on Mar 8, 2012 18:53:33 GMT -5
That 'you don't matter' if you're not in the wwe. How in the world is this an IWC opinion when IWC guys are the ones supporting ROH, TNA, Chikara, etc.? Speaking of the members of the IWC with that mindset. The IWC isn't just one group with one set opinion. There are members of the IWC who do enjoy/support other companies and others who refuse to give other companies a fair chance. It's the mindset that 'wwe will always be better no matter what.' |
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Mar 8, 2012 18:55:32 GMT -5
I disagree with IWC opinion that there is an IWC opinion that can be disagreed (or agreed!) with.  I'm the ultimate maverick! See my works, ye would-be rebels, and despair! |
|
