Way To Bury The Entire Locker Room Vince
- Thread starter Jack-Hammer
- Start date
Jack-Hammer
YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!!!
Sounds like you're grasping at straws. We've already known that Lesnar is "beatable" because he's lost a few bouts since his return to WWE. My entire point, which so many seem to have conveniently ignored, isn't that Goldberg necessarily beat Lesnar, but he did it in 86 seconds flat. I'm not a fan of Goldberg or Lesnar, I'd be perfectly fine if both of them never showed up in WWE again; I never cared about Goldberg in WCW and the novelty of the unstoppable juggernaut formula used for Lesnar has long since worn off. My point is that Lesnar, someone that's dominated WWE since his return, is beaten by a 50 year old relic of the Attitude Era who hasn't wrestled in 12.5 years in 1.5 minutes instead of being used to elevate someone in WWE that's not in their 40s or 50s. You know, use the steam that Lesnar has built up as a means of giving someone on the roster that's going to help carry the company for years to come a rub.
Jack-Hammer
YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!!!
I'm curious if you were born this idiotic or if it's something you had to work at. Maybe ate some lead paint when you were a kid, kept banging your head against a brick wall, etc.
For one thing, Goldberg wasn't Vince Russo's "creation" because Vince Russo didn't sign with WCW until early October of 1999. If anything, Goldberg is a "creation" of Eric Bischoff as Bischoff was the one running things when Goldberg hit the scene a full 2 years earlier. If you want to knock WWE, at least find out some basic facts.
For another thing, you realize how idiotic you sound when you constantly bash WWE yet spend your time watching the WWE product and, worst of all, actually paying for it? Even IF all you do is read the various articles on the websites, you're still keeping up with what's going on. I know that you're a troll, I get that and maybe that gives you your own special brand of the warm and fuzzies somehow, but it's really kind of laughable.
It's funny, really.
Everyone is going on and on about how Goldberg's 'squash victory' over Lesnar buries the entire active roster and blah blah blah. But really, how is this different to when Brock beat Undertaker's undefeated streak? Granted, the build to 'takers fall from grace was 20x longer in the making than Lesnar's. But when you look at it on paper, the argument remains the same.
"Ageing part-timer took a huge moment away from someone fresh on the active roster that would've benefited from the rub". But that argument is 100% bullshit.
Because just like back at Wrestlemania 30, the younger guys were doing plenty on their own last night. Every match on the card last night was a MOTN candidate (except maybe the Cruiserweight title match). But just like at WM30, half the hardcore fanbase is too busy complaining about WWE burying their own superstars to realise that they infact, are the ones doing the burying by acting like it was a one match card.
Did Kevin Owens really need to be the guy that toppled Lesnar? He's already the top heel on Raw right now (and the UC). Is he still not solidified in the eyes of some fans?
Or is the argument more that it wasn't a Sami Zayn or a Braun Strowman that put Lesnar down and made him their bitch? Because lets be honest, that's absolutely ludicrous. Even if the momentary shock of seeing them win was enough to get them over, what's to say that would be enough to cement them in that spot long-term?
WWE already went the route of having fresh faced superstars reach the top of the mountain too quickly. Remember Jack Swaggers WHC run? Because that was lauded for being too short sighted and pushing Swagger too high, too fast. And now that I think about it, who did Brock lose to at Wrestlemania 31? Who did he give the massive rub people are saying was wasted last night to? Oh, that's right. It was a young, unproven schmuck that "didn't deserve to be in the main event". It wasn't the right guy, was it?
Enter Bill Goldberg. A man that wasn't around for Lesnar's dominant run. A man that stepped back into the WWE picture and instantly shook everything up. A legend in the wrestling world, with a track record that would see him butting heads with the likes of Lesnar by default, and wouldn't feel forced into the spot.
This win does something few other angles could. It puts Goldberg at the very top of the WWE food chain. A spot they'll likely want him to hold for the presumably short time he's back with the company.
Him dominating Lesnar is no different to the streak ending. The only thing that's changed in the overall landscape of WWE is that now the big question isn't "Who can beat Brock Lesnar?". It's "Who can beat Bill Goldberg?". Eventually, the answer to that question will be one of the young guys that half of you are complaining on behalf of. But until then, the wheels will keep on spinning. The top guys will stay the top guys, a few will rise, a few will fall. And at no point will anyone look worse for the outcome of a program they weren't even involved in.
EDIT:
I understand that 86 seconds is one hell of a squash loss for Brock. But on the flip side of that, it's one hell of a return for Goldberg. Do you really think he's back to lose one more match to Lesnar and never return? It's one thing to beat Brock Lesnar, but how about beating the guy that put Lesnar down in 86 seconds? The legend, who made a name for himself going undefeated against the likes of Hulk Hogan and NWO in the 1990s, and was still unstoppable 20 years later? Kind of no different to when beating Brock Lesnar replaced beating The Streak as the ultimate accomplishment in wrestling.
Everyone is going on and on about how Goldberg's 'squash victory' over Lesnar buries the entire active roster and blah blah blah. But really, how is this different to when Brock beat Undertaker's undefeated streak? Granted, the build to 'takers fall from grace was 20x longer in the making than Lesnar's. But when you look at it on paper, the argument remains the same.
"Ageing part-timer took a huge moment away from someone fresh on the active roster that would've benefited from the rub". But that argument is 100% bullshit.
Because just like back at Wrestlemania 30, the younger guys were doing plenty on their own last night. Every match on the card last night was a MOTN candidate (except maybe the Cruiserweight title match). But just like at WM30, half the hardcore fanbase is too busy complaining about WWE burying their own superstars to realise that they infact, are the ones doing the burying by acting like it was a one match card.
Did Kevin Owens really need to be the guy that toppled Lesnar? He's already the top heel on Raw right now (and the UC). Is he still not solidified in the eyes of some fans?
Or is the argument more that it wasn't a Sami Zayn or a Braun Strowman that put Lesnar down and made him their bitch? Because lets be honest, that's absolutely ludicrous. Even if the momentary shock of seeing them win was enough to get them over, what's to say that would be enough to cement them in that spot long-term?
WWE already went the route of having fresh faced superstars reach the top of the mountain too quickly. Remember Jack Swaggers WHC run? Because that was lauded for being too short sighted and pushing Swagger too high, too fast. And now that I think about it, who did Brock lose to at Wrestlemania 31? Who did he give the massive rub people are saying was wasted last night to? Oh, that's right. It was a young, unproven schmuck that "didn't deserve to be in the main event". It wasn't the right guy, was it?
Enter Bill Goldberg. A man that wasn't around for Lesnar's dominant run. A man that stepped back into the WWE picture and instantly shook everything up. A legend in the wrestling world, with a track record that would see him butting heads with the likes of Lesnar by default, and wouldn't feel forced into the spot.
This win does something few other angles could. It puts Goldberg at the very top of the WWE food chain. A spot they'll likely want him to hold for the presumably short time he's back with the company.
Him dominating Lesnar is no different to the streak ending. The only thing that's changed in the overall landscape of WWE is that now the big question isn't "Who can beat Brock Lesnar?". It's "Who can beat Bill Goldberg?". Eventually, the answer to that question will be one of the young guys that half of you are complaining on behalf of. But until then, the wheels will keep on spinning. The top guys will stay the top guys, a few will rise, a few will fall. And at no point will anyone look worse for the outcome of a program they weren't even involved in.
EDIT:
I understand that 86 seconds is one hell of a squash loss for Brock. But on the flip side of that, it's one hell of a return for Goldberg. Do you really think he's back to lose one more match to Lesnar and never return? It's one thing to beat Brock Lesnar, but how about beating the guy that put Lesnar down in 86 seconds? The legend, who made a name for himself going undefeated against the likes of Hulk Hogan and NWO in the 1990s, and was still unstoppable 20 years later? Kind of no different to when beating Brock Lesnar replaced beating The Streak as the ultimate accomplishment in wrestling.
Quite honestly the Undertaker going over Brock Lesnar at Mania would have been just a little unrealistic, don't you think? As soon as the match was announced I had a feeling that we would see the end of the streak. On one hand you have an almost 50 year old man, who has had a fantastic career, only wrestles about once or twice a year. Then on the other hand, here is a guy who was in great shape and a former UFC Heavyweight Champion.
Now we all know that wrestling is scripted, but did you ever think for one minute watching the Taker/Lesnar match Lesnar was going to lose. It would have taken an act of God for it to happen.
Taker won at Mania for 21 years in a row. He beat all kinds of wrestlers to maintain that streak, it had to come to an end at some point. I don't agree that Lesnar should have been the one to end it, but obviously I don't run the WWE so my opinion is moot to them. As stated before, Taker is still seen as one of the best that ever stepped into a WWE ring and one loss doesn't erase everything he accomplished in his career. Well only in your eyes.
It will be most interesting to see what play's out now. Not expecting this to be the end of it, and will be surprised if it is, not to mention a little disappointed. Goldberg looked in fantastic shape last night and wouldn't mind at all watching a rematch. Lesnar on the other hand looked like he wanted to be anywhere but where he was and it cost him.
But at the same time, does this loss really hurt lesnar at all, Personally i don'T think so. Lesnar is entering into a program with Goldberg which will makes a tone of money for the company. Last night squash match told a great story of lesnar taking Goldberg lightly because of the fact that he hasn'T wrestle in 12 years and his ten years older then him. That was great story telling on WWE's part in my opinion and when lesnar beat goldberg in their rematch, they can continue the whole conquerer character they did with brock.
Right now, their's nobody on either NXT or the main roster that was at the level of lesnar and that it would have been believable to get the rub by beating him. They waited too long to pull the trigger. This is just like when Lesnar beat Taker to end the streak. At that point, nobody except for maybe cena was on the level of taker to be able to carried to push that came with beating Taker at mania.
Let's face it, WWE is all about making money and this minute 28 squash match will set up another money match for lesnar plus it put him at a lower level that when somebody like a joe or nakamura or braun strowman is ready and look credible when put in a match with lesnar, they will get the rub anyway from being able to conquer the beast because nobody except a small group of fans from the IWC will remember this squash by then. This is just like when Cena beat him in lesnar's first match back or when HHH beat him. Same thing and made lesnar look more human and more interesting and now fans will be excepted again to see what lesnar will do next.
I think that 90% of the opinions would be reversed if Lesnar lost in 86 seconds to Samoa Joe or Shinsuke Nakamura--or Apollo Crews or Big Cass. The folks who don't like Goldberg (including me) would be happy that WWE was giving a new guy a push, the folks who like Goldberg would be complaining that storyline-wise it doesn't make sense.
You also have to look at it this way. Lesnar has torn through the locker room, Cena, Orton, Wyatt, Rollins and Ambrose to name just a few. Other than Styles and Owens there isn't anyone else for him on the roster to have a feud with. Strowman and Corbin are far too green and don't have enough experience yet.
So it's either have a rehash with one of his former feuds or bring someone. That's exactly what they did. Goldberg was brushed off and put in there to take care of Lesnar. At least Goldberg won't be going after any titles and taking them to his ranch for months on end like Lesnar did. And we saw that unstoppable monster can be stopped given the right circumstances.
Realistically the only other thing they could have done was re-unite the Shield and have them take out Lesnar. To tell you the truth that's what I expected them to do, obviously not.
So it's either have a rehash with one of his former feuds or bring someone. That's exactly what they did. Goldberg was brushed off and put in there to take care of Lesnar. At least Goldberg won't be going after any titles and taking them to his ranch for months on end like Lesnar did. And we saw that unstoppable monster can be stopped given the right circumstances.
Realistically the only other thing they could have done was re-unite the Shield and have them take out Lesnar. To tell you the truth that's what I expected them to do, obviously not.
True. And I bitched and moaned about that, too. A lot.
This is a great point, and I'm going to end there instead of rehashing the arguments where we disagree, arguments that have been argued and re-argued time and again.
See, that's what we don't have faith in. We don't believe that, at the end of the day, this all pays off in a program that elevates Rollins/ Reigns/ Ambrose /Owens /Balor /Styles /Joe /Seamus/ etc. We cynically believe that, when Goldberg is done, he will "do the job"--to Cena or Orton or HHH, or maybe the Rock or Sting or HBK.
Maybe that's smart. Maybe characters like Lesnar and Goldberg and the Rock and the Undertaker are just at a different level than characters like the Shield guys and AJ Styles and JBL and JEricho and CM Punk. But we feel like we've seen all we're really going to see of the Lesnars and Hogans and Rocks and Goldbergs and we want something new and we want it now dammit.
Frankly, yes. I think he's gotten his win, his moment of being Da Man again, and he goes out on his back at WrestleMania to put Lesnar back on top of the mountain.
And notice how neither beating The STreak nor beating Brock Lesnar helped create a star we can watch week in, week out on Raw and/or Smackdown and cheer or boo as a top guy? Yeah.
Well, you could have had Lesnar squash Goldberg, the 50 year old guy who's been out of the ring for 12 years while Lesnar was kicking ass in Japan and UFC and WWE, winning world titles and breaking the Undertaker's streak while "Da Man" was calling a few MMA matches and screwing around with cars on a reality show.
THEN you tell the story of the old man's comeback and redemption, with Goldberg beating Lesnar at Wrestlemania.
OYDK
King Of The Ring
I've made my point already but I'll reiterate because I feel like stirring some shit up. Brock Lesnar is not there to do the job to Braun Strowman or AJ Styles or Kevin Owens. Brock Lesnar is in the WWE to make Vince McMahon money. Brock Lesnar is there to make the WWE newsworthy. Brock Lesnar losing to Kevin Owens does not make WWE instant money. Brock Lesnar losing to AJ Styles does not make WWE newsworthy. Brock Lesnar losing to Goldberg, a guy who the casuals will all tune into see? That makes the WWE money. That makes headlines. It will make money and headlines when it happens the second time and it will make money and headlines when it happens the third time. There is a reason Brock faces guys like Dean Ambrose and Roman Reigns at Wrestlemania and guys like Taker and Cena at the other shows.
Brock is the cash-cow. And he's going to remain the cash-cow until he decides to hang it up. Having Samoa Joe beat Brock Lesnar does not automatically take him to Lesnar's level in terms of drawing power. But having Lesnar lose to Samoa Joe could hurt his credibility. Losing to Goldberg negates all of those negatives because Goldberg is one of the few guys who can squash Lesnar without it hurting Brock in the least.
After having some time to think about it, I'm happy with the way things played out. Contrary to popular belief, in a strange sort of way, it makes a lot of sense. And also contrary to popular belief, this is not going to hurt Randy Orton or Dean Ambrose or Roman Reigns at all.
Brock is the cash-cow. And he's going to remain the cash-cow until he decides to hang it up. Having Samoa Joe beat Brock Lesnar does not automatically take him to Lesnar's level in terms of drawing power. But having Lesnar lose to Samoa Joe could hurt his credibility. Losing to Goldberg negates all of those negatives because Goldberg is one of the few guys who can squash Lesnar without it hurting Brock in the least.
After having some time to think about it, I'm happy with the way things played out. Contrary to popular belief, in a strange sort of way, it makes a lot of sense. And also contrary to popular belief, this is not going to hurt Randy Orton or Dean Ambrose or Roman Reigns at all.
If you reserve the roles like you wrote then it doesn't help anybody. Goldberg lose all his momentum that he gain since his comeback because what the casual fan wanted to see was the unbeatable wcw version of goldberg and lesnar is becoming so untouchable that you can't put him against anybody on the roster. Then having him lose to goldberg at mania serve no purpose either because fans lost all interest in goldberg and lesnar will be sticking around after mania and a lost to a goldberg could hurt him more that way.
so this way you tell the story of lesnar taking goldberg lightly and how lesnar will react after the lost so that when the rematch happens, either at the rumble or mania, fans will still be interested in that match.
Bischoff created goldberg not russo. Russo was still in wwe when goldberg started in wcw. Russo arrive way after goldberg streak ended and was one of the main reason why goldberg wasn't as over as he once was because russo didn't know how to book goldberg when he came it and he even thought that it was a good idea to turn goldberg heel, to recreate the Montreal screw job with goldberg and bret and to restart the winning streak. All bad idea that almost killed the goldberg character
Bischoff's Knob Slobberer
Getting Noticed By Management
Uh no! Russo created Goldberg. What the hell is wrong with you people?
If you saying that russo killed goldberg then I agree with you but if you really believe that russo created goldberg, go watch more wwe network. Goldberg starred in 1997 and russo started in wcw in 1999 so how russo created goldberg when they weren't working in the same company at the time of goldberg debut in wcw.
Aquaman6686
Mid-Card Championship Winner
It didn't have to come to an end, and it shouldn't have come to an end. Undertaker should have retired with The Streak intact, because that WAS his legacy. Even if he somehow continued to defy time and wrestled another 20 years, it's meaningless. He could be 50-1 at WrestleMania and NOTHING matters except that "1". 21 years of dominance, and he got effortlessly squashed by Lesnar. If that was the ONLY time Lesnar beat Undertaker, his career would still mean something. But EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY HAD A MATCH, Brock Lesnar dominated and annihilated Undertaker from bell to bell. Even the one match Undertaker "won" was booked to show Brock Lesnar as all-powerful, and Undertaker as a pathetic weakling who had to cheat to win. Undertaker's entire career was for nothing, and apparently I'm the only one intelligent enough to understand that.
Except it's not an opinion. Goldberg wins his first WCW World title on July 6, 1998. Vince Russo joined WCW on OCtober 9, 1999. 1999 is AFTER 1998.
I don't think anything was offensive until now. Before, you were WRONG. Now, you're being offensive.
Time well spent, clearly.
You're 6'4 240 lbs and super buff, along with being an accountant and an MBA and having a superduper awesome secret plan for Dixie and Billy Corgan's eyes only to fix TNA.
Jeff Deliverer of Mail
Money for nothin, chicks for free
Russo did not create Goldberg. But he did turn Goldberg HEEL. One of the 30 dogshit ideas Russo had in WCW that didn't work at all.
Another point:
Now there are two big rubs off which upcoming wrestlers can profit. One by defeating Brock Lesnar and another by defeating Goldberg.
We all know that Goldberg ain't going to win Royal Rumble. He is going to appear at Royal Rumble and get screwed by someone. That someone would be feuding with Goldberg for a Wrestlemania match. That someone has many possibilities and it could be very profitable too. Let him go over Goldberg at Wrestlemania and then Goldberg retires.
Now there are two big rubs off which upcoming wrestlers can profit. One by defeating Brock Lesnar and another by defeating Goldberg.
We all know that Goldberg ain't going to win Royal Rumble. He is going to appear at Royal Rumble and get screwed by someone. That someone would be feuding with Goldberg for a Wrestlemania match. That someone has many possibilities and it could be very profitable too. Let him go over Goldberg at Wrestlemania and then Goldberg retires.
BigDaddyKewl
Getting Noticed By Management
I was thrilled to see Goldberg finally slay the beast last night. WWE could've had one of there guys like Reigns, Ambrose, Rollins or Orton be the one take Lesnar down and beat him clean. But they didn't they just kept building Lesnar up and plowing through all the top names.
When the rumors strted last summer about Goldberg possibly returning and you heard the chants at Summerslam I knew this was gonna be big. Goldberg has been a big draw since returning and there has been a lot of attention from the mainstream press and on social media.
I think there likely be a rematch at Mania where finally Lesnar will finally conquer the one man alive he hasn't beat Goldberg!
When the rumors strted last summer about Goldberg possibly returning and you heard the chants at Summerslam I knew this was gonna be big. Goldberg has been a big draw since returning and there has been a lot of attention from the mainstream press and on social media.
I think there likely be a rematch at Mania where finally Lesnar will finally conquer the one man alive he hasn't beat Goldberg!
Aquaman6686
Mid-Card Championship Winner
ShinChan;5611953 said:
So you think Goldberg should start his return with one of the most shocking moments of all time by beating Brock Lesnar in a squash, and then end it by jobbing to someone at WrestleMania? Who? Some nobody like Braun Strowman or some NXT call-up?
If someone loses, then it doesn't mean that he jobbed. Sometimes, losing is used to put over the other talent. He doesn't need to job to anyone like Strowman at Wrestlemania. He needs to put over a credible main eventer thus making him a star. And that too in a competitive match.
No upcoming wrestler should defeat Goldberg just like Goldberg defeated or better squashed Brock Lesnar.
Uh no! Russo created Goldberg. What the hell is wrong with you people?
If you read their wiki pages it states that Bill Golberg worked for WCW from 1997 til 2001. Vince Russo didn't join WCW until October 5th, 1999. He was still writing for the WWE in 1997.
I got that from their own wiki pages, so if you have further information that says their pages are wrong then please provide it.
Why are you mad at everyone for what happened? Write a letter to creative or Vince, tell them you're pissed and they made the wrong decision.
Your argument is always the same, no veteran should beat someone who is newer to the business than they are.
And how is it so shocking that Goldberg beat Lesnar. He did it once before.
Aquaman6686
Mid-Card Championship Winner
You're so wrong it's ridiculous. I was ECSTATIC that Goldberg squashed Lesnar, it was absolutely brilliant and exactly what needed.
My argument is the EXACT OPPOSITE. Veterans should be winning 99% of their matches and only losing when it matters.
Maybe if you actually READ anything I've said, literally ever, you'd actually know what you were talking about.
