Goldberg's run in 03-04 really a failure?

[HBK/RKO]

I don't understand why almost everyone views Goldbergs run in WWE from 2003-2004 as a failure. He even views it as a failure. The way I see it is this, what more does everyone including Goldberg want? He won the world heavyweight title in his first and only year with the company. He had a feud with the Rock in which he won, he feuded with Jericho and won, he feuded with Triple H, appeared in an elimination chamber match and eliminated almost everyone in it including the likes or Jericho, HBK and Randy Orton and looked very dominant. Goldberg then beat Triple H for the world heavyweight championship when almost no one could get the title off of him. Goldberg went on to beat Triple H again on ppv. He would eventually lose the title after 3 months in a triple threat match against Triple H which also included Kane. He would then appear in the Royal Rumble match and eliminate three men before Kurt Angle eliminated him, he would then go on to cost Brock Lesnar his WWE Championship and have a match with him at Wrestlemania 20 in which he won despite that being a horrible match. He also won many single matches on raw against Future HOFs such as Randy Orton, Batista, Christian, Mark Henry, etc.

So I ask you guys this, does that sound like a bad year to you? Because to me that sounds like a year most superstars would kill for. I view his run as a success. What about you guys?

 

[boozinjedi]

I don't think the year itself was a failure,
I think he meant that they couldn't recapture what they had back in his run in WCW
Too much time had passed for him to be the big draw he once was,had too much remaining on the guaranteed contract..buyout would've been astronomical if I remember correctly it was AOL/Time Warner that bought him out as a housecleaning move to get debt off the books or something like that

You can only catch lightning in bottle like that once a generation or so,
Hogan over the Shiek,over Andre....
Austin 3:16 at KOTR,Stunner on Vince....

 

[The Brain]

Goldberg’s WWE run was not a failure. As mentioned in the op he was world champion and got big wins over some big names. He signed a one year deal with WWE and it was pretty obvious he wasn’t sticking around past that one year. Did this guy just expect to be handed the world on a silver platter when he wasn’t going to commit past one year. He probably did. Goldberg was always a Goldberg mark. Maybe if he would have committed to a longer deal he would have had a better run but for a one year rental I’d say he had it pretty good. By the way, where was Goldberg leading up to WM20? Sitting at home because he already fulfilled all but one of his dates and that final date was mania. If the guy cared about the business at all he could have made some extra appearances to hype up the biggest show of the year but Goldberg is all about Goldberg.

You want to know why I think Goldberg’s run was viewed as a failure? A few people mentioned in some shoot interviews that they didn’t like when Goldberg wore Goldust’s wig. Goldberg took one little ten second segment that would have been completely forgettable and used that to define his WWE career rather than his big feuds and title reign. He’s a guy that takes himself too seriously.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Here is the easiest way to ascertain Bill's run, the WWF didn't renew his contract because he didn't have a big enough impact on the ratings. We can all go around in circles about how good or bad his creative was but the simple fact is that he didn't draw enough.

For this reason alone, he'll always be regarded as a WCW success and WWF failure.

 

[TellMeWhy]

I've read these type of topics over and over. Like I read on other forums, if you consider Bret Hart's run in WCW a failure, then why isn't Goldberg's WWE run a failure. WWE marks always try to give WWE the benefit of the doubt, cut them slack, and act as if they can do no wrong. But will be so quick to point fingers at a WCW, a TNA, a ECW or something. Like please. Goldberg's run in WWE was a failure because they failed due to their own ego. Goldberg didn't reach the success in WWE he had in WCW because of ego. They had a guy like HHH who couldn't draw hogging the light when HHH should have got out the way and make Goldberg the man. Goldberg should have carried RAW not HHH. It's the same story with Bret in WCW. Bret couldn't properly achieve the plateau he was on in WWE in WCW because of guys like Hogan in the way. Goldberg and Bret Hart's story is one in the same. Goldberg's run is a bust. And if you consider Bret's run in WCW a failure but Goldberg's run in WWE a success, then you are two-faced-phony-double standard toting hypocrite

 

[Headman]

Goldberg is a mark for himself so if he's not viewed as the focal point of the company he considers it a bust. The only feud he really had that wasn't one sided in his favor was with Triple H and that seems to be the one Goldberg is most bent out of shape about. It would have been nice had the WWE done the slow build and give Goldberg a year to maul everyone in his path while he worked his way up to Triple H, but that's Goldberg's fault for not agreeing to a longer contract. The WWE basically had one year to work in as many big money matches as they could. There's no time for a lengthy build. If Goldberg had sacrificed a little time and money for a better run it would have worked out differently. Goldberg really has no reason to be as sour as he is.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

If Goldberg expected himself to be an absolute monster like he was in WCW then he's completely wrong. I respect the guy and his reasons that he left WWE, but to think that his run there was a failure is completely wrong. He became WHC, eliminated 2 huge stars and an up and coming star in the Elimination chamber, had a healthy 3 month reign as WHC, and won many of his feuds.

In fact, by my count, he lost a total of 4 MATCHES in the WWE, 3 of them not cleanly, and the other was a handicap match against 3 people, and even then, it took 3 finishers to put him down. The first was that elimination chamber match, where Triple H hit him with a sledgehammer, which was not a clean win. Also, Goldberg had already eliminated 3 people, one of which was Shawn Michaels, an icon and a winner of the first Elimination Chamber match, another was Chris Jericho, the first ever Undisputed Champion and he still hadn't reached his peak and the other was Randy Orton, a rising star in WWE at the time. The second time was the Triple Threat Match at Armageddon where he lost the title, where he was low-blowed, and Evolution interfered. Finally, he lost the Royal Rumble, which 28 other people did as well, and it took Brock Lesnar's interference to get him eliminated.

While Goldberg wasn't as dominant as he was in WCW, he was still a HUGE threat and he had a great 1 year run. Goldberg calling it a failure is quite selfish, and as The Brain said, had he signed up for longer, he could have an even larger impact.

 

[CowSlayer]

I've read these type of topics over and over. Like I read on other forums, if you consider Bret Hart's run in WCW a failure, then why isn't Goldberg's WWE run a failure. WWE marks always try to give WWE the benefit of the doubt, cut them slack, and act as if they can do no wrong. But will be so quick to point fingers at a WCW, a TNA, a ECW or something. Like please. Goldberg's run in WWE was a failure because they failed due to their own ego. Goldberg didn't reach the success in WWE he had in WCW because of ego. They had a guy like HHH who couldn't draw hogging the light when HHH should have got out the way and make Goldberg the man. Goldberg should have carried RAW not HHH. It's the same story with Bret in WCW. Bret couldn't properly achieve the plateau he was on in WWE in WCW because of guys like Hogan in the way. Goldberg and Bret Hart's story is one in the same. Goldberg's run is a bust. And if you consider Bret's run in WCW a failure but Goldberg's run in WWE a success, then you are two-faced-phony-double standard toting hypocrite

Not sure how you can compare Bret's WCW run to Goldberg's WWE run.

Bret was THE HOTTEST name in wrestling when he first joined WCW due to the Montreal Screwjob.

WCW could've easily booked him to lead WCW vs NWO as main event status...but instead they don't do anything with his debut...and within a month or so...he becomes one of the 20+ members of the NWO and is stuck in the US title scene for pretty much a year in meaningless fueds.

Finally he 'quits' WCW, only to come back several months later to win a tainted WCW Championship tournament with basically interference in every match. So you finally got your top guy? Nope...turns heel and reforms NWO....and then of course Goldberg ends his career 1 month later.

Most memorable matches in WCW? Maybe the few that he had vs Chris Benoit? Almost none of his matches with Sting had clean finishes...


While with Goldberg, he at least headlined some PPVs, looked dominant, was booked as a main eventer, had a solid title run.

 

[#heel420]

I was into it while it was happening, that being said I was 9-10 years old at the time. Looking back at it now, was it what it could have been? No, but that happens with a lot of things in WWE. Scott Steiner is a prime example, one of the more epic debuts/returns at MSG and he got a crazy huge pop, but it was only downhill from there. Two of the worst matches I've ever seen against HHH at the Royal Rumble and No Way Out completely killed his momentum.

Things could of been a lot worse with Goldberg. For me the majority of it was enjoyable.

 

[Bernkastel]

I don't think it was a failure in the slightest. Like it's been mentioned, he was the world champ, and got a few huge wins without being booked to look completely unstoppable, while bulldozing everyone else. The biggest mistake that WCW made with Goldberg was booking him to look invincible with no room for weakness at all. Once Goldberg lost the streak, he lost most of his momentum too - in fact he never regained the heights in WCW that he had before losing the title. WWE did not make that mistake. Goldberg looked vulnerable and physically weak next to opponents like Kane and Mark Henry and stables like Evolution, but at the same time he was easier to relate to. I feel like if he hadn't of left in 2004, he might have rose to heights he didn't even see while in WCW.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Here is the easiest way to ascertain Bill's run, the WWF didn't renew his contract because he didn't have a big enough impact on the ratings. We can all go around in circles about how good or bad his creative was but the simple fact is that he didn't draw enough.

For this reason alone, he'll always be regarded as a WCW success and WWF failure.

WWE didnt want to get rid of him, Goldberg didnt want to stay, WWE woud have been happy to keep him around for another contract but he wasnt interested, particularly in the travel schedule.

As for was it a failure, hardly. He did quite well although I agree he should have been booked as more of a monster bad @#$ than he was. What he wasnt was the absolute biggest thing walking, like he was in 1998 for instance. However, the same could be said of Stone Cold circa 2003 or The Rock now.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

WWE didnt want to get rid of him, Goldberg didnt want to stay, WWE woud have been happy to keep him around for another contract but he wasnt interested, particularly in the travel schedule.

As for was it a failure, hardly. He did quite well although I agree he should have been booked as more of a monster bad @#$ than he was. What he wasnt was the absolute biggest thing walking, like he was in 1998 for instance. However, the same could be said of Stone Cold circa 2003 or The Rock now.

It was documented at the time that the WWF wanted him to take a massive pay cut to remain because he wasn't having the impact they desired and he was unwilling to do so. They knew he wouldn't accept the downgrade so lined him up to put over Brock at WM months in advance only to be blindsided at the 11th hour by Brock's decision to tryout for the NFL which incensed Vince so much, he changed the outcome.

 

[mustafa33]

It wasnt a failure but could have been much better ,I think they dropped the ball,Goldberg should have a streak in WWE aswell leading upto a match with Undertaker,would have been epic

or just a match with Taker WM 2o could have been better than Brock vs Goldberg because Brock was his way out and Goldberg aswell so Taker would have been best opponent ,whille Taker need something better than that what he got at WM 20. If WWE is smart they can pull it off also a Jhon Cena vs GoldBerg feud at this time of career of Jhon would be perfect .Then Goldberg can go into hall of fame

 

[Dagron]

To me, Goldberg's WWE run comes down to The Elimination Chamber match and his WM match with Brock. While the Elimination chamber was every bit as entertaining as any of his WCW moments, ultimately, you get remembered for what you do or don't do at Wrestlemania. While everything leading up to his brief feud and match with Brock went about as well as you could reasonably expect, since his lone WM match was such a stinker, his run has to be seen as a failure.

 

[HBK/RKO]

I see my post has a lot of mixed reviews about Goldbergs run. I ask the guys who thinks its a failure, what more could he have possibly done in that one year he was around? He practically did everything except win the royal rumble. He was still booked as a beast and those who say he should have a winning streak is silly because why revisit what WCW did. It would never be as good or have the same feel.

 

[EastCoastFan]

Goldberg wasn't a failure somuch as he and WWE were not a good fit for each other. They probably liked his look, but his lack of wrestling skill outside of power moves, his lack of promo skills and him being fed to the two greatest mic workers ever (The Rock and Chris Jericho) right off the bat killed him, even though he won the matches against them. They made him look so bad in their promos he never really recovered. WWE fed him most of the roster and gave him a reign as WWE Champ (the only person Goldberg lost to the entire time he was there was Triple H), but I don't know if he was ever really that over there. Pro wrestling fans (fans who care more about the matches) saw him as one-dimensional. Sports entertainment fans (fans who care more about promos and storylines) thought his opponents were much better than he was and sided with them.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

I used to be in the camp of wanting Goldberg to come back to WWE, but then I found out what an egotistical jerk Bill Goldberg is. I'm not 100% sure, because it's been a while. But I remember reading reports about Goldberg turning down TNA, because they wouldn't give him a Sting-esque deal. Goldberg is nowhere near the legend Sting is, so he didn't deserve the deal. That, and he usually whines on Twitter about how poorly he was treated in WWE, and he complains about Tripe H. Give me a break.

As far as his 03-04 run goes, yeah, I'm going with the consensus of WWE gave Goldberg the moon and the stars. He beat Triple H during his time with the WHC, which was damn near unheard of back then. He beat The Rock in the main event at Backlash, and he tore through the remaining men in the EC Chamber at Summerslam '03 like a unstoppable monster, until Naitch tossed the hammer to HHH. On top of all that, WWE put Goldberg into a high profiled dream match at Wrestlemania XX at the Garden. What more could he ask for?

Bottom line, Goldberg's mystique was going to fizzle out pretty quickly. The momentum he had in WCW started to fade after Nash and Hall screwed him out of the streak, and that happened in WCW. Goldberg was nothing more than a flash in the pan, and Bill Goldberg the man is delusional, if he seriously believes he's worthy of the red carpet treatment as one of the all-time greats. Hulk Hogan might be the king of pompous bullshitters in pro wrestling, but at least he has the stats and accolades to back up his claims.

 

[rokuma]

When I think of Goldberg's run with WWE, I think of a comment Vince McMahon made about Bret Hart going to WCW: "They won't know what to do with a 'Bret Hart.'"

Likewise, WWE didn't know what to do with a 'Bill Goldberg.'

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

I see my post has a lot of mixed reviews about Goldbergs run. I ask the guys who thinks its a failure, what more could he have possibly done in that one year he was around? He practically did everything except win the royal rumble. He was still booked as a beast and those who say he should have a winning streak is silly because why revisit what WCW did. It would never be as good or have the same feel.

That's a tough one because Goldberg had a massive hurdle to overcome from the off; he was one of the WCW guys who nearly ran the WWF out of business and he was thrown in as a face against one of the guys responsible for putting WCW out of business who the WWF fans were meant to boo... anybody else see a small flaw in that logic? Yes, he went over the Great One but he lost a lot of fan support from the off. Now, had he come in against Brock who was not a part of the Monday Night Wars, he could have had momentum with the fans from the off and (as his match with Big Poppa Pump at FallBrawl 2000 indicated) that first match could have been one for the ages.

Had Goldberg started his time right, the whole journey might have went differently.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

It wasn't a failure in my eyes. Goldberg came in with alot of hype, had a decent debut match against The Rock, was booked dominantly in the Elimination Chamber, feuded with Triple H and had a World Title reign in his 1 year contract. He may not have been able to dominate the show as he did in WCW, and had to sell more for his opponents than he ever did before (which he didn't like), but he was still a success in my eyes- other than the shocking match with Lesnar at WM20.

I don't think Goldberg liked the fact that he wasn't booked in exactly the same way as he had been booked in WCW, but that was never going to happen on the Triple H-dominated Raw in 2003-04.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I'll call it more of a disappointment than a failure. Goldberg was booked to be invincible in WCW and even though he lost the streak, he was still one of the most over wrestlers in WCW. I hated the buildup and the match against the Rock. I still believe that Goldberg should have squashed him in about three or four minutes. Goldberg should have won the title at Summerslam even if they had to change the match from him vs. Triple H to the Elimination Chamber. Then, the whole broken ankle angle was lame and we all know about his feud with Brock Lesnar.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

In my opinion, so much of Goldberg was already spoiled by the time he got to the WWE by the way he was used in WCW. Kevin Nash and Scott Steiner exposed the holes in Goldberg's game...i.e., if there wasn't someone there to carry Goldberg and make him look good (Watch Diamond Dallas Page at Halloween Havoc for an example), then all the bravado seemed lame.

His arrival in the WWE included a match with a departing Rock, which provided absolutely ZERO suspense as to who was going to win. From there on, watching Goldberg was just kind of painful. This was just not a great time for the WWE. Trips had to carry guys like Nash, Steiner, and Goldberg, and it was really damn tough to get decent matches out of these guys.

I suppose at this point, I'm just ranting. Goldberg was a legend in his own mind.

The dude just fucking sucked as a wrestler.

 

[HBsam31]

I never thought it was a failure, but I also knew that it wasn't going to be the same as his run in WCW. He won the World title, and defeated some top opponents. Like has been mentioned, he only signed for a year. I don't know how much more they could have done with him. He wasn't going to have an undefeated streak, and I think one World title win in a year would classify his run as at least semi successful.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

He wasn't a failure in WWE. I've posted about this on another Goldberg thread here in the past. The guy was a star. A lot of it was hype and great booking. But at the end of the day, the guy was still a star.

In his WWE run, he got a huge pop and chants when he debuted and it was something like 5 years after his 1998 run with the streak. While the run was short, was still successful. He went over The Rock, Triple H, Brock Lesnar, and held the World Championship for 3 months - All in less than one year with the company. Who has ever gone over all three of those guys PLUS win the title within just 6-9 months?

He could have been booked better I think. And they could have made more money off him if they gave him a longer title run and booked him as more indestructible instead of just another pawn for Triple H. But his run was still successful, I'd say.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The internet was a big reason but not why you would think... Yes he was a failiure, but you can immediately see his draw diminish when news broke that he'd lost his backstage fight to Jericho...

Had he pasted Jericho across the wall, then Goldberg would have been the hottest thing on the IWC and that would have translated into ratings, people would have been talking about him as a bad ass again. What actually happened though and that it got out destroyed his aura in a moment. This big tough guy, who has security and snorts out sparks, throws elbows and kicks and is supposedly a monster gets put down by "tiny, whiny" Jericho? He was finished the moment that got out, and it got out to everyone ... that WWE persevered with him title wise was probably more contractual than out of choice but you can't paint a guy as indestructible when he is known not to be...