Originally Posted by relentless1
Brock had a great great run in 2002-4
Goldberg had an okay one.
Goldbergs problem was that WWE wasn't going to push him the way he was pushed in WCW; Goldberg has a very specific set of skills that got him over, if you move away from that then his character doesn't work as well as it could. WWe knew this and didn't use him to his fullest potential; especially if the guy was only there for a year who does it hurt or hold down if he runs through the company in that 52 week period? the fans get a great show and the tolbert they knell and love and whomever beats him at WM 20 gets the ultimate rub and WWE gets its new golden boy
Yeah you also got to take into consideration the fact that WWE wasn't going to go all out on Goldberg. They had him for a year without knowing if he's going to resign or not. They couldn't just have him go through the entire roster like he did in WCW. He beat The Rock because Rock was leaving and he beat Jericho because Jericho was midcard. Then they booked him even to Triple H and Evolution and rightfully so.
They had their moments during their runs. Their runs could have meant a lot more had they stayed after WM 20. They were sort. The biggest mistake WWE did at the time was that they gave us Goldberg vs Lesnar, when both of them were leaving. It was a bad move from WWE to let the future of these stars so much up in the air until the final weeks before WM. It was the perfect chance to use Goldberg and Lesnar in order to put over two other wrestlers. But I get why Goldberg vs Lesnar had to happen.
Lesnar's run heel or face, was great, because WWE weren't afraid to invest in him. Goldberg's wasn't, because they didn't want to and couldn't invest in him.