Better Year? Warrior in 1990? Goldberg in 1998? or Lesnar in 2002?

[It's...Baylariat!]

All three of these folks had one really great year in pro wrestling and the rest simply didn't live up to the hype.

The Ultimate Warrior in 1990 was headlining Wrestlemania with Hulk Hogan, where he won the WWF title and was the first wrestler to hold both Intercontinental and World Titles at the same time. Warrior took over as the headline in the WWF over Hogan, who had led the WWF for the entire 1980's. Quite a big deal back then. Eventually, he dropped the belt to Savage and shortly thereafter, ended up leaving the WWF.

In the 90's, the one year wonder was Goldberg. The streak started with Hugh Morrus and came to a head when he defeated Hulk Hogan in front of almost 40,000 people at the Georgia Dome to become the WCW World Champion and United States Champion. He was 173 and 0 during his streak, and the majority of the major victories came in 1998. Once he lost at Starrcade to Nash, things went down hill and less than two years later, he was done with WCW.

In the 2000's, the WWE had Brock Lesnar. He debuted when he destroyed Spike Dudley and the Hardy Boyz and went on to go over wrestlers like Underataker, Hulk Hogan, and ended up defeating The Rock to win the WWE title. He also headlined a Wrestlemania with Kurt Angle in a very good match. Soon, he'd want to pursue an NFL career and his push as a superstar was over as quick as it began.

So the question is... which one year wonder was better? Warrior, Goldberg, or Lesnar?

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Well, Warrior lost it to Slaughter, not Savage.


And I'd say it's a toss-up between Goldberg and Warrior. The resume of victories likely has to go to Goldberg, as he wound up defeating the likes of Hogan, Hall, Giant, Sting (though not clean), Paige, etc. Warrior did not beat as impressive of competition after his initial victory over Hogan.

Brock's win record was impressive, but not quite to the level of Goldberg.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I would go with Goldberg for numerous reasons. Goldberg in '98 moved so many mountains its very hard NOT to go with him.

He won the US title from Raven, won the World title from Hogan, only lost once the entire year which was his first loss, became the face of WCW and quite frankly was the second most popular guy in wrestling behind Austin, probably becoming the most popular for a short while there not to mention it seemed like he had numerous big wins and moments (beating pretty much the entire roster, Jack Hammering The Giant with ease).

Warrior had a huge year in '90, being the first guy to hand Hogan a clean loss is nothing to shake a stick at but you saw it coming a mile away as well, maybe not Warrior being champion but he became so popular you knew he was at least gonna challenge for Hogan's crown.

Lesnar had a huge year as well but one of the things that hurt Lesnar was the fact his rise was forced, you knew almost immediately the WWE was planning on putting their stock into Lesnar which I feel made his rise less impactful. Goldberg's rise felt organic (quick but organic) while with Lesnar it felt like WWE was trying to force the fans to get behind the guy. He was the guy before he ever had a match and stuff like that can rub the fans the wrong way.

At Starrcade '97 was the first time I really recalled seeing Goldberg and about 6 months later he was the top dog, he exploded in no time and got unbelievably hot in such a short amount of time.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

Well, Warrior lost it to Slaughter, not Savage.

Sleep deprived. That's true though... Savage hit Warrior with the scepter and cost Warrior the title to Slaughter.

And I'd say it's a toss-up between Goldberg and Warrior. The resume of victories likely has to go to Goldberg, as he wound up defeating the likes of Hogan, Hall, Giant, Sting (though not clean), Paige, etc. Warrior did not beat as impressive of competition after his initial victory over Hogan.

Brock's win record was impressive, but not quite to the level of Goldberg.

Good point.

I would give the edge to Warrior just because he beat Hogan closer to his prime. To beat Hogan in 1990 was, to me anyway, a lot more of a deal than Goldberg's win over Hogan. But Goldberg done more after his title win than Warrior did, so it's, as you said, a toss-up.

I'd give it to Warrior due to his first title win being a slightly bigger deal.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

I'd discount Lesnar straight out of the gate due to the fact that, while booked strong, he did show signs of weakness throughout his initial WWF tenure both as a face and a heel.

That leaves me with Warrior and Goldberg to decide between and I think that Bill edges it for me for two reasons: Firstly, that his year was his first year - he built his aura and popularity by going from the bottom up whereas Warrior had been steadily building momentum as the second face of the company for a couple years. Secondly, while beating Hogan was massive (especially as it was Hulkamania's first clean pinfall loss AND it happened at WrestleMania), in my eyes defeating two of the three main nWo guys in Scott Hall and Hollywood Hogan on the same night to win the WCW Championship just edges that feat.

 

[TheLittleOne]

i lived through them all and the answer is WARRIOR.
its not easy to compare since 1998 had weekly live tv, monthly live ppv..
warrior just had a pre-taped promo on almost every show.. there was an egnima about him, something i havent seen in a while

it just sucks that all of them wanted out so badd after a LiL BIG Taste!!


ok Goldberg did kick ass, but i am biased, i slept in Ultimate Warrior Pajamas on sheets with bossman, jake ,Warrior.. Hogan & LOD!

 

[WunNightStan619]

I couldn't disagree more with the notion that Lesnar's superstar push was over. He remained in the main even through out 2003 as a helluva heel, and then had the feud with Goldberg up until he left. He was a major part of the show up until the day he left.


But to answer the question, I'd have to say that it was Goldberg. Goldberg in just a years time became a household name. He's one of those people where you don't even have to be a wresting fan to know who he is. His overall popularity trumped both Lesnar and Warrior. To this day, people not only remember Goldberg, but still chant his name....and did it all in a year

 

[HBsam31]

Lesner is being seriously under rated so far. He came in and won the King of the Ring, goes on to beat The Rock clean. Then he goes into a feud with The Undertaker and beats him in a HIAC match. In between those to he took out Hulk Hogan. He did trail off a bit after he swapped the title with The Big Show and lost Heyman, but he picked back up again later. I will say one thing he had in his favor though was he beat The Rock when he was going out and same with Hogan I believe. Warrior simply caught fire in 88 when he beat Honky Tonk Man. I was a little young when he started, but it seemed like Warrior had so few memorable feuds. In 1990 he really only beat Hogan, then had another nice feud with Rick Rude then lost the belt to Slaughter. Tough to compare though because Warrior had less outlets to been seen in 1990. The win over Hogan was absolutely epic of course. Goldberg started slow at first, but once the wins started mounting he wasn't to be stopped. Like another poster said, he became a household name in less than a year. Even though Hogan wasn't in his prime it was still tough to get over him clean and Goldberg did that in quite an epic environment. Also consider Lesner was a heel, and started bringing people to his side just from his sheer dominance. I am going to be in the minority, but imo it is Lesner.

 

[Ovaltine]

Okay, As much as I disliked everything about the Goldberg push he wins this hands down. I witnessed all of these events while they were happening and Goldbergs one year as top dog of WCW was booked (for the most part)amazingly well. Never before had an undefeated rookie become champion. When the bell rang to start the match the fans erupted. Mind you the match hadn't even started yet. Goldberg ran through the entire roster (not that that was a good thing in my eyes and it certainly hurt the company later) Hennig, DDP, Hall, Nash, Giant, Hogan. He simply destroyed everyone... eventually that made a lot of people turn on him. Those Goldberg chants were always pumped in, but they were REALLY pumped during the last few months of his reign. I remember signs in the arena that read Getting Old-berg. The streak went on too long, but it was insanely over for a good 8 months. I would like to say that the warrior run was more memorable, but it wasn't. Yea he beat Hogan, but after that who else did he defeat that was really worth taking notice of? I don't blame warrior for that. I actually blame whomever was booking WWF at the time. Maybe there weren't enough quality heels at the time to feed to Warrior. Brock came in during a time when the 90s boom was on its last legs. His "streak" didn't seem to be as big of a deal as guys like Goldberg or Warriors were. At their respective times Goldberg and Warrior were their federations. I never got that feeling with Brock. I had the feeling that Brock was just a part of the show. Yes he was awesome, but he never made it to his full potential during his initial run in the WWF. Now, when he returned to the WWE a year or so ago he had the potential (if booked right) to be huge. Here was a legit badass coming off of being UFC champion returning to WWE... and what do they do? Do they push him to the moon? No they use him as a highly paid job guy!

 

[relentless1]

gotta go with goldberg, his rise was phenomenal, he was the most dominant that year out of the three guys and he pulled the same feat as warrior (holding the secondary title and the world title at the same time) plus he defended the world title every nitro, running through the nWo, DDP, the wolf pac, ravens flock etc

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

Goldberg gets the nod.

Warrior was a bit of a let down and he was constantly blown up by the entrances he used to make. He was a spectacle and an adrenaline buzz but he was not a long term main eventer. He failed in his returns in 1992, 1996 and 1998.


Brock was a great WWE talent in 2002. He had some great matches and from an in-ring point of view was the best of the 3 mentioned. But there was something missing, and I am not sure what it was. I guess he had a lot to follow after Stone Cold and The Rock's blistering main event runs.

Goldberg, the best. He got over, and got over big. Not only in the face of the WWF's popularity at the time, but also in the face of WCW mis-management and too many guys in the back with too much creative control. And when Mick Foley became a megastar, WCW paniced and slapped the championship on him on Nitro (waste of a good PPV main event) yet it was an awesome sight. His only low point was his treatment of Jericho (refusing to work with him- even in a squash match; which would have got them both over more than they were). I go with Goldberg as the man. Lesnar a very close 2nd and a distant 3rd for Warrior.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

Goldberg gets the nod.

Warrior was a bit of a let down and he was constantly blown up by the entrances he used to make. He was a spectacle and an adrenaline buzz but he was not a long term main eventer. He failed in his returns in 1992, 1996 and 1998.


Brock was a great WWE talent in 2002. He had some great matches and from an in-ring point of view was the best of the 3 mentioned. But there was something missing, and I am not sure what it was. I guess he had a lot to follow after Stone Cold and The Rock's blistering main event runs.

Goldberg, the best. He got over, and got over big. Not only in the face of the WWF's popularity at the time, but also in the face of WCW mis-management and too many guys in the back with too much creative control. And when Mick Foley became a megastar, WCW paniced and slapped the championship on him on Nitro (waste of a good PPV main event) yet it was an awesome sight. His only low point was his treatment of Jericho (refusing to work with him- even in a squash match; which would have got them both over more than they were). I go with Goldberg as the man. Lesnar a very close 2nd and a distant 3rd for Warrior.

I agree with this assessment. I remember Brock going over the Rock as being somewhat inevitable at that point. Rock was beginning his slow roll out of the WWE, and it showed. To me, that took away from Brock's win. WWE had to get the belt off Rock.

Warrior would've won this hands down had he not completely fizzled after his win over Hogan. His feud with Rude was long and lackluster. The next few months saw him paired up with the LOD against Demolition. When the WWF Champion becomes second fiddle in a 6 Man Tag Team match for 3 straight months, you got a problem. Then came Slaughter and Savage. Savage pulled him out of the doldrums, but the damage was done.

Goldberg was a slower build, but once it became apparent that they just weren't going to stop, it became all the more impressive.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Lesner is being seriously under rated so far. He came in and won the King of the Ring, goes on to beat The Rock clean. Then he goes into a feud with The Undertaker and beats him in a HIAC match. In between those to he took out Hulk Hogan. He did trail off a bit after he swapped the title with The Big Show and lost Heyman, but he picked back up again later. I will say one thing he had in his favor though was he beat The Rock when he was going out and same with Hogan I believe. Warrior simply caught fire in 88 when he beat Honky Tonk Man. I was a little young when he started, but it seemed like Warrior had so few memorable feuds. In 1990 he really only beat Hogan, then had another nice feud with Rick Rude then lost the belt to Slaughter. Tough to compare though because Warrior had less outlets to been seen in 1990. The win over Hogan was absolutely epic of course. Goldberg started slow at first, but once the wins started mounting he wasn't to be stopped. Like another poster said, he became a household name in less than a year. Even though Hogan wasn't in his prime it was still tough to get over him clean and Goldberg did that in quite an epic environment. Also consider Lesner was a heel, and started bringing people to his side just from his sheer dominance. I am going to be in the minority, but imo it is Lesner.

Lesnar came in and became dominant in a down-swing period of the business. Rock was leaving and Hogan was well past his prime and the nostalgia over his return had mostly worn off. Big Show had lost his luster. So you have Taker and Angle as Lesnar's biggest wins. As big as those were, they don't quite measure up to Goldberg's run of dominance through the WCW roster in a time where wrestling was at the peak of its popularity.

 

[Honkey_Kong]

The Ultimate Warrior hands down had the better year. I mean, he defeated the guy who could not ever be defeated in order to become WWF champion. And look at what it led to? He faced Rick Rude in the cage at Summerslam and finished the year starting a feud with Savage (run-in at the Rumble). I mean you can say what you want about Warrior in the ring, but that was a bigger year than Goldberg or Lesnar had.

Let me emphasize, he DEFEATED Hulkamania. Even Andre couldn't beat him clean in Hogan's WWF run, but Warrior did.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Warrior had a great, albeit brief run, but Id take Goldberg. Warrior's build wasnt organic like Goldberg, WCW literally tripped and fell on Goldberg where as Vince & WWE immediately started pushing Warrior as "The next big thing"...Granted, the push worked, at least initially, but Goldberg was a case of a guy connecting with the audience through sheer charisma regardless of booking. We've seen examples of guys who suffered from horrible booking but remained very popular, usually though in those cases the wrestlers had already established themselves as major main eventers, the connection with the audience already existed. Goldberg really just came out of nowhere as a WCW mid card filler guy who drew so much heat from the audience the company had to push him, at least until Hogan got involved.

As for the better year, Warrior in 90 was a good year with one good fued (Rude, a caryover from their past run ins over the IC Title) and one historic victory (Hogan at WM). Goldberg in 98 cleanly beat Giant/Big Show which was a big deal, beat Sting which was exceedingly rare, he beat DDP at the absolute height of his career in a match that drew the highest ratings of any single match on either Raw or Nitro all year, Main Evented Starracde vs Nash, and had the historic win over Hogan in the GA Dome.

Goldberg it seems did more in his 1998 run than Warrior in 90.

Obviosuly this isnt a discussion based on their skill or Lesnar would clearly be ahead and Warrior would clearly be well back in last place.

 

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

I would pick Goldberg with the two biggest reasons being performance and responce. Of course Goldberg had the streak so that comes with all the wins and most in dominate fashion. A bi product of the streak was the responce he got which was huge.

Interesting note on the three guys up for debate is that they all beat Hogan in their year.

 

[Judah's Lion]

Interesting note on the three guys up for debate is that they all beat Hogan in their year.

and this to me is what levels the playing field. yes, Warrior beat Hogan clean at Mania. epic moment. i just watched the match recently and it's still as amazing now as it was then. same goes for Goldberg. his match with Hogan on Nitro was pretty great. could've been better if it was at a major ppv with a proper build, but it was still pretty great. and Brock's win over Hogan came on a Smackdown show if i remember correctly. so definitely Warrior beat Hogan on the bigger stage. but all these guys beat Hogan nonetheless.

Warrior loses by a mile for me here. not only was his year in discussion not his debut year, but outside of Mania, his year sucked. his feud with Rude had been done before and then he lost to Slaughter at the Rumble. he never got a rematch for the World Title either. his match with Savage at Mania 7 was amazing, but 2 great matches in the span of a year is not enough for my vote this time.

Goldberg was very impressive. and the fact (at least according to Bischoff in his book and Goldberg himself in several different interviews and his own book) that it was all very accidental and organic only makes it that much better. his first year in, he dominates the entire company and wins the World Title still undefeated. not only that, he did it at the height of professional wrestling as a whole. pretty amazing. but i can't remember too many great matches or feuds he had. his feuds were all very short lived which i think hurt him. i actually enjoyed his match with Hogan, minus the lack of build, his match with DDP was amazing, and i even liked his match with Nash, minus the finish. and seeing the Jackhammer on the Giant was impressive to say the least. Goldberg is my number 2 pick.

HBSAM is 100% correct in saying that Lesnar is getting seriously under-rated thus far and he ultimately gets my vote today. he entered the WWE, and in his debut year (unlike Warrior's year in question) accomplished a ton. he won the King of the Ring and the right to face the champ at Summerslam. that champ was the Rock. Brock pinned the Rock clean at the second biggest stage WWE has to offer, thus becoming the youngest WWE champion (at the time) and also matching Goldberg in becoming the World Champion while still being undefeated. then Brock feuded with Taker, eventually pinning him clean inside the Hell in a Cell, Taker's specialty. next up was Big Show. Brock gets dealt his first loss, but not before hitting the F-5 on Show, also very impressive to watch. Brock beats Show in a rematch at Rumble, then goes on to win the actual Rumble Match. enter Kurt Angle. this was one of the best feuds and had some of the most incredible matches in the history of the sport. and yes, Brock did pin Kurt Angle cleanly in the main event of Mania to regain the World Title.

no contest. Brock had the better year.

 

[Makaveli31]

I just watched the Best of Nitro Vol.1 and Goldberg was over HUGE!! Every impact move he did elicited a HUGE pop from the fans....and it wasn't just '98 it was in '99 also. I remember watching Goldberg in those years but it's all the more impressive today. I honestly think Goldberg could have saved WCW and even gave Austin some legit competition is used right. Too bad Nash and Hogan buried him after Nash took the book in '99 and booked his friends like DDP and Sting in the top spots.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

HBSAM is 100% correct in saying that Lesnar is getting seriously under-rated thus far and he ultimately gets my vote today. he entered the WWE, and in his debut year (unlike Warrior's year in question) accomplished a ton. he won the King of the Ring and the right to face the champ at Summerslam. that champ was the Rock. (1)Brock pinned the Rock clean at the second biggest stage WWE has to offer, thus becoming the youngest WWE champion (at the time) and also (2)matching Goldberg in becoming the World Champion while still being undefeated. then Brock feuded with Taker, eventually pinning him clean inside the Hell in a Cell, Taker's specialty. next up was Big Show. Brock gets dealt his first loss, but not before hitting the F-5 on Show, also very impressive to watch. Brock beats Show in a rematch at Rumble, then goes on to win the actual Rumble Match. enter Kurt Angle. this was one of the best feuds and had some of the most incredible matches in the history of the sport. and yes, Brock did pin Kurt Angle cleanly in the main event of Mania to regain the World Title.

no contest. Brock had the better year.

(1) Use of a steel chair AND outside interference from Paul E ≠ "clean".
(2) He had at least one high profile disqualification loss before he became Champ and he lost many times on the house show circuit.

Brock was fantastic when he had Paul E in his corner but this reduced his aura of indestructibility ESPECIALLY when Heyman turned on him because this left the implication that he NEEDED Paul E to be dominant.

Warrior and Goldberg where solo indestructible forces who didn't require weapons or managers to stamp their superiority.

And Goldberg gets the edge for me in that he was completely 100% undisputed undefeated from his first match on Nitro against Hugh Morris (who, ironically, is one of the guys with a house show victory over Brock in 2002) until Scott Hall tasered him 15 months later costing him his streak and the WCW Championship.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

I will leave Goldberg and Brock up to you guys because I have no clear memory of that era.

To the Warrior point, I think he was bigger in 1989 than he was in 1990. Yes, the Hogan match took place in '90...but what else happened that year? Teaming with LOD? Defending against Haku? A recycled Rude feud? ...ehh.

The posedown at Royal Rumble '89(where the crowd was hugely behind him already) started the original Rude feud. That carried through the WrestleMania V match, which cost Warrior the belt but helped get him over even more. His regain at SummerSlam '89 was HUGE! Granted, his feud with Andre left plenty to be desired; but, this then led to the face off at Royal Rumble 90 and that storyline...

I just think Warrior had a bigger '89 than 90. He got old real fast and although he had big moments ahead of him (Savage/Warrior WM7, for example)--it was known he couldn't carry the ball at that point. Whereas, in 1989, this guy was coming and fast!

 

[HBsam31]

Lesnar came in and became dominant in a down-swing period of the business. Rock was leaving and Hogan was well past his prime and the nostalgia over his return had mostly worn off. Big Show had lost his luster. So you have Taker and Angle as Lesnar's biggest wins. As big as those were, they don't quite measure up to Goldberg's run of dominance through the WCW roster in a time where wrestling was at the peak of its popularity.

I hear what you are saying, but it's not Brock's fault that he came in when he did. The fact remains he got clean wins over Hogan and The Rock in his rookie year. You can't take those away from him. Goldberg had a lot of filler wins, and that is what ultimatly lead me to pick Brock. Brock made it his business to beat legends. Hell I might give him the nod just for beating Taker in the cell. I have to say again that Lesner also did these things as a heel, and through his run he got people liking him just from his sheer dominance. I respect your opinion, but I still have to give the slight edge to Brock.

 

[jrush1978]

Goldberg was a slower build, but once it became apparent that they just weren't going to stop, it became all the more impressive.

I gotta completely disagree in the slower build department. Not trying to be disrespectful, just an opinion. Goldberg went from nothing to headlining Starrcade and being (as another poster said) for a short amount of time probably the most popular wrestler on earth, Steve Austin included. Warrior was ridiculously popular before 1990. He received quite possibly the pop of the night when he came out against Honky Tonk Man at SummerSlam 1988.

I think what gives Goldberg the nod in part is how quick the meteoric rise was. The only major thing Warrior had was the Hogan win. Completely unheard of at the time and 100% clean. But I was young, older fans told me it was pretty easy to see coming, so i'll take their word for it. Other than that it was downhill. No disrespect to Rick Rude and that feud was "ok" but it had just been done the year before with the two trading wins at WM & SS. Then his fall was completely forgettable. After that since the original question was 1990 or 1997 you cant really even count the Slaughter feud (at least not the RR match) or Savage feud. As other people said, Goldberg just beat everybody week in, week out, nitro, ppv, he just blew up the card.

 

[tom9422]

Lesnar, easily. You can talk about Goldberg's win streak but in the end it didn't really mean that much. Warrior was also a flash in the pan.

Lesnar comes in strong, beating the Hardy Boys and within a year he beats Hogan, Rock, Taker, Edge, RVD and Angle while also winning King of the Ring, the Royal Rumble and winning the WWE title twice off of huge stars. He would have beaten Stone Cold too if only he would have done the job. What more can someone accomplish in the WWE within a year?

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Warrior

The WWE invested in him heavy. He was supposed to be THE guy for the 90's. The next Hulk Hogan. They put him over Hogan clean, which just didn't happen. And... less than a year later they went back to the real Hogan because the Ultimate Warrior just wasn't working as THE guy.

Kayfabe wise you could say that Warrior had a good year in 1990. He was the champ after all. In reality though, a good year for the Ultimate Warrior would have been continuing the momentum that he'd built prior to being champ, and not dropping the ball that the WWE gave him. Forget how things turned out for the rest of the 90's. Their original plan was for the Ultimate Warrior to replace Hulk Hogan, and their business would continue as it always had.

Goldberg

I'll be the first to admit that I wasn't a fan of Goldberg. Looking back on it now though, I have to admit I'm impressed with how well he did.

Think about it. Goldberg had never wrestled. He came out of the Power Plant at the end of 97 a completely unknown rookie... in late 90's WCW. The home of Hogan, Hall, Nash, Savage, Flair, Hart and pretty much everyone in the industry that had ever drawn a dime in the 90's. A land of countless contracts with creative control, bookers beholden to others, and major talents in the business stuck either opening shows, or at home because there was nothing to do. A guy as green as Goldberg had no business whatsoever making it... let alone on the level that he did. He had an amazing year.

Lesner
Much like the Ultimate Warrior before him, the WWE invested heavily in Lesner. Much like the Warrior before him, Lesner didn't care much about it. But unlike the Warrior... Lesner didn't drop the ball he was given. The guy did seriously well in 2002, and if he actually had cared to stick with it, the business would have been completely different over the past decade.

All in all though, I'd have to say the best year belonged to Goldberg, because of where he started it, and where he ended it.

 

[dman1373]

Warrior and Goldberg where solo indestructible forces who didn't require weapons or managers to stamp their superiority.

But they were faces, brock was a heel so thats not a fair statement.

and in my opinion brock had the most memorable year, because while all three won the title in there respective years, only one of them was a good champion.