Most Dominant in a Short Span

[IrishCanadian25]

I have to confess, I usurped this idea from a chat two other guys were having. Thanks to Norcal and KB for inspiring this thread.

Lesnar. Goldberg. Warrior. Who was the most dominant in a short span of time?​

Lesnar

Brock was undefeated for a while, had a fair feud with Rob van Dam (and even though RVD was dominated, he managed not to look weak), won King of the Ring, and went on to defeat The Rock at Summer Slam for his 1st World Title at age 25. One of the best rookie seasons ever.

Goldberg

Goldberg was famous for being undefeated - maybe moreso than anyone else had been. He was one of the engines that made WCW go in the 90's, and his win over Hogan on Nitro remains one of the more badass moments I've seen.

Warrior

Warrior came in like a ball of fire, won the Intercontinental Title from a guy in Honky Tonk Man who had been champ for more than a year, and carried that belt through to a champion vs champion match against Hulk Hogan at Wrestlemania 6, handing Hogan the first of two all-time Wrestlemania losses (the other at X-8 to The Rock, we don't count the DQ loss to Money Inc in the tag match or the double DQ with Andre).

The question is simple: Who was the most dominant in a short span of time, and why?

 

[jmt225]

The Ultimate Warrior.

Think about this... he defeated an over year-long reigning Intercontinental Champion in just a couple of seconds. SECONDS! Say what you want about the Honky Tonk Man... but for over a year the bastard found every possible way to hold on to that IC Championship, and in just a matter of seconds, The Ultimate Warrior dethroned him.

And then of course, about 6 months after that ordeal, The Ultimate Warrior defeated the immortal Hulk Hogan, a guy who hadn't lost by pinfall or submission in the WWF at that point. He was the first person to defeat him cleanly in over something like 7 years. That's how dominate The Ultimate Warrior was.

Goldberg had a nice long winning streak, and while wins over Hogan, Raven, Giant, Hall, etc. were all impressive, it still doesn't match up to what the Warrior was able to do so quickly during his first run. Plus, Goldberg would struggle in matches against guys like Saturn, Perfect, Hall, etc. before defeating them, whereas Warrior destroyed guys with ease for two years straight.

Brock Lesnar had a great run, and in my opinion, the most entertaining one out of the three, but he wasn't as dominate as the two above. He won the WWE Undisputed Championship rather quickly, but before then he struggled in matches against RVD, and the Hardys gave him a run for his money as wll. Also, his championship reign didn't last nearly as long as Warrior's and Goldberg's.

So, pretty simple choice for me, and it's the Ultimate Warrior. I prefer Lesnar's work over the both of them, but Warrior's dominance during his original run cannot be denied.

 

[Travaje]

Goldberg.

I answer based on the following criteria:

-How many people were watching wrestling at that time
-How many times he won versus he lost, and how almost every match was a squash match
-How over the guy was
-How fast he went from nobody to the biggest star in the company

Warrior is a close second of the three and Brock Lesnar is one of the most overrated, overhyped, overpushed wrestlers in WWE history.

 

[luis_is_king]

I would have to say Bill Goldberg because he was booked as a dominant force in WCW, I read that he has 173 victories to 0 losses. Wait, what was that? 173-0? DAMN! No matter if there was jobbers on that list, this is pro wrestling where wins and losses are predetermined and those jobbers could easily be booked as superstars and superstars could easily be booked as jobbers (example: Jack Swagger actually lost to Santino). I know my second statement kinda of contradicted my reason why Bill is dominant but the way he was booked he really looked dominant because being undefeated makes a wrestler look like an unstoppable force, a dominant and intimidating entity that just goes out and DESTROY people and that was Goldberg's gimmick being that force, that entity.

 

[Via Armbar]

Lesnar. There's not many more reasons than the fact that he did just as much as Goldberg or Warrior but in less time. It took Goldberg more than a year to earn his first world title. It took even longer for Warrior to win his first world title. Correct if I'm wrong, but winning the the worlds championship is the pinnacle of the sport. So in short, if I read the title of the thread correctly, the answer is Lesnar.

You could argue that the business was different back in the day and that titles changed hands less frequently. That's a true statment, but regardless the title changed hands. Lesnar had won the same title that Warrior had won years before and did it in a fraction of the time. I agree with the belief that the title meant more than compared to what it means now, but still it's the top prize. That hasn't changed. You could also argue that beating Hogan for the title like Goldberg and Warrior did means more than beating The Rock for the title. Another true statement, but we aren't arguing which title win was more meaningful. I'm saying that given the accomplishments and time from in which they were done, Lesnar takes this. Let us not forget he went over other huge names as well like a more experienced and respected Undertaker and Kurt Angle, both of which are arguably bigger names than the opponents that Goldberg and Warrior went over.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I'd probably have to go with Brock Lesnar. Dominant was exactly the kind of term one would have to apply to Brock Lesnar. He had the look and he had the ability to go with it.

Lesnar debuted on WWE television on March 18, 2002 and his last night in the WWE was WrestleMania XX on March 14, 2004. Over the course of roughly two years, Brock Lesnar defeated the likes of Jeff Hardy, Rob Van Dam, The Rock, The Big Show, Hulk Hogan, The Undertaker, Edge, Kurt Angle and John Cena. He wins the King of the Ring tournament in 2002, wins the Royal Rumble in 2003 and wins the WWE Championship 3 times. Lesnar is to this day still the youngest WWE Champion in history and is still among the youngest world champions in wrestling history. Over a period of 2 years, Brock Lesnar dominated the WWE like nobody had before. No one made that much of an impact in so short of a time and it's still talked about today.

As for the Warrior, defeating Hulk Hogan was the single biggest moment of his career. I'm not saying that lightly. Warrior beat Hulk Hogan at WrestleMania for the WWF Championship. But, even after he got the title, he was still upstaged by Hulk Hogan at every turn. He had the title, Hogan still got most of the attention.

As for Bill Goldberg, his streak is impressive. However, the problem is that most of the names on that list consist of jobbers. Not to say that he didn't have some impressive wins over some big name wrestlers. But, still, most of them were jobbers. Goldberg had a great run, but his entire being seemed to revolve around his streak. Once the streak was ended, a lot of the steam just ran out of the guy. There wasn't anything overly special about him anymore, at least for me.

 

[The Idiot]

Lesnar. There's not many more reasons than the fact that he did just as much as Goldberg or Warrior but in less time. It took Goldberg more than a year to earn his first world title. It took even longer for Warrior to win his first world title. Correct if I'm wrong, but winning the the worlds championship is the pinnacle of the sport. So in short, if I read the title of the thread correctly, the answer is Lesnar.

You could argue that the business was different back in the day and that titles changed hands less frequently. That's a true statment, but regardless the title changed hands. Lesnar had won the same title that Warrior had won years before and did it in a fraction of the time. I agree with the belief that the title meant more than compared to what it means now, but still it's the top prize. That hasn't changed. You could also argue that beating Hogan for the title like Goldberg and Warrior did means more than beating The Rock for the title. Another true statement, but we aren't arguing which title win was more meaningful. I'm saying that given the accomplishments and time from in which they were done, Lesnar takes this. Let us not forget he went over other huge names as well like a more experienced and respected Undertaker and Kurt Angle, both of which are arguably bigger names than the opponents that Goldberg and Warrior went over.

Agreed.

Warrior had the IC title before the world title. Goldberg had his streak before he got big which lasted awhile. Lesnar jumped right in and destroyed everyone like a monster he was.

The answer is easy. Lesnar

 

[wushady]

To me it would be between Warrior and Lesnar. Goldberg was awesome and something original at the time when WCW was all about the NWO. For the most part all he faced were jobbers in the beginning then we he reached the top he fell victim to the WCW politics. He never was the same badass again after losing to Nash.

Warrior was also ripping through jobbers for about a year or so. Then he had great run as IC champ squashing The honkytonk man. Before going after Hulk's title, but he wasn't undefeated when he beat Hulk. Rude beat him for the IC title at wrestlemania 5.

So I think Lesnar was the most dominant he won the WWE title in a way shorter amount of time then both of them still undefeated. He didn't just wrestle jobbers for very long He went through RVD, Hardys, dominated Hogan, beat the Rock for the title, and beat Undertaker in Hell in the Cell. All within his first 6 months. A far more impressive list of stars Warrior and Goldberg beat in the beginning.

 

[ccotreau1]

I'd probably have to go with Brock Lesnar. Dominant was exactly the kind of term one would have to apply to Brock Lesnar. He had the look and he had the ability to go with it.

Lesnar debuted on WWE television on March 18, 2002 and his last night in the WWE was WrestleMania XX on March 14, 2004. Over the course of roughly two years, Brock Lesnar defeated the likes of Jeff Hardy, Rob Van Dam, The Rock, The Big Show, Hulk Hogan, The Undertaker, Edge, Kurt Angle and John Cena. He wins the King of the Ring tournament in 2002, wins the Royal Rumble in 2003 and wins the WWE Championship 3 times. Lesnar is to this day still the youngest WWE Champion in history and is still among the youngest world champions in wrestling history. Over a period of 2 years, Brock Lesnar dominated the WWE like nobody had before. No one made that much of an impact in so short of a time and it's still talked about today.

As for the Warrior, defeating Hulk Hogan was the single biggest moment of his career. I'm not saying that lightly. Warrior beat Hulk Hogan at WrestleMania for the WWF Championship. But, even after he got the title, he was still upstaged by Hulk Hogan at every turn. He had the title, Hogan still got most of the attention.

As for Bill Goldberg, his streak is impressive. However, the problem is that most of the names on that list consist of jobbers. Not to say that he didn't have some impressive wins over some big name wrestlers. But, still, most of them were jobbers. Goldberg had a great run, but his entire being seemed to revolve around his streak. Once the streak was ended, a lot of the steam just ran out of the guy. There wasn't anything overly special about him anymore, at least for me.

I agree with you about Lesnar being the best of the 3, because he won his first title within 6 months of his debut in the WWE. I am glad you specified that Lesnar was the youngest WWE Champion, because as we know, Orton is the youngest World Champion, but where they are 2 seperate titles, people might accuse you of being wrong.

 

[trinerigelado]

Goldberg.

The Ultimater Warrior got to work tags with Sting in Memphis and for Bill Watts, and then work World Class befor he went tothe WWF. So he got to work some major territories, one with an ESPN deal.

Lesnar got to work in Ohio Valley the WWE's best developmental territory ever and worked House shows and dark matches for several years before he debuted on Raw.

Goldberg worked house shows with Hector Guerrero for a month before debuting on Nitro.
He's also one of a Handful of wrestlers to win a World Title within in a year of his first match Paul Wight (the Big Show, Giant) is the only other wrestler I can think of that did that.

Warrior and Lesnar had way more seasoning before their big runs.

 

[Via Armbar]

Goldberg.

The Ultimater Warrior got to work tags with Sting in Memphis and for Bill Watts, and then work World Class befor he went tothe WWF. So he got to work some major territories, one with an ESPN deal.

Lesnar got to work in Ohio Valley the WWE's best developmental territory ever and worked House shows and dark matches for several years before he debuted on Raw.

Goldberg worked house shows with Hector Guerrero for a month before debuting on Nitro.
He's also one of a Handful of wrestlers to win a World Title within in a year of his first match Paul Wight (the Big Show, Giant) is the only other wrestler I can think of that did that.

Warrior and Lesnar had way more seasoning before their big runs.

I see what you're saying here but there's a problem with it. Can you really be dominant in developmental? It's training camp essentially. Lesnar spent a little over a year in OVW I believe, which is far less time than many. Hell, a good percentage of wrestlers never make it out at all. What you failed to mention is that Goldberg spent about the sam amount of time in WCW's Power Plant, which was their equivalent to OVW. So there point is a moot one. Both Lesnar and Goldberg had spent time in developmental, even around the same amount of time. Not to mention you can't see any sort of domination at that point in your career anyhow.

 

[PsychoBlack]

brock lesnar was the man if he was still in wwe there wouldbe no cenation because brock was on his way to hogan status in the wrestling world but goldbergs streak was fun to watch when i was younger he went up against the best the nwo had to offer it was just great lol so its definitly between one of them

 

[Tenta]

Goldberg, and it isn't even close, really.

I'll take arguments for The Warrior, but quite frankly, I think that we can throw away Brock Lesnar right off of the bat. It's not as though he wasn't portrayed as a monster, but it was how he was booked after he won the World Heavyweight Championship that has to force him down to third on my list. He was placed into a feud with an Undertaker that, while pretty intimidating, wasn't near the dominating foe he used to be. Even then, Lesnar may have gotten the upperhand, but he certainly didn't walk out unscathed. Undertaker gave him all he could handle, and then even more. Then, after that, Lesnar was fed to The Big Show. Say what you will about Heyman's interference, but Lesnar lost the match, and had to wait five months to once again regain the World Heavyweight Title. Granted, yes, he won the Rumble, but when one really looks at the context of that win, it was a fairly weak Rumble, with Lesnar the absolute favorite in that match, not only because of his strength, but the weak pool around him. I like Lesnar, but I just feel as though in his World Title reign, he was booked to be far more a credible, and thus less intimidating, foe.

Which brings me to Goldberg and Warrior. It really is quite difficult to separate these two, as they are pretty much 1A and 1AA when it comes to domination. But I have to give it to Goldbeg by a slight margin. Warrior may have beaten Andre the Giant, but he never slammed Andre the Giant. Bill Goldberg took the Big Show, Paul Wight, lifted him over his head for a suplex, and Jackhammered him, clear in the middle of the ring, in two minutes. I don't think I have ever seen a more dominating performance than that. Not only that, but The Big Show even Chokeslammed Goldberg, and Goldberg sat right up. Warrior's wins over Andre were always flukey; Goldberg absolutely manhandled his competition once he was champion. The only man to really give him any trouble was fucking Diamond Dallas Page; everyone else was destroyed by Goldberg in his run to the top. Hogan was somewhat squashed in his match, and don't let anyone fool you; his match with Nash was Goldberg's until Hall came out with a stun gun. Goldberg took on all the main players in WCW, and pretty much annihilated each and everyone. That, plus no one put the fear of God into their opponent like Goldberg. Warrior was never the intimidating force that Goldberg was; no one was afraid to fight The Ultimate Warrior. Men like Rude and Savage challenged Warrior with open arms; absolutely no one wanted to face Bill Goldberg.

Now, as to who was a better champion of the three, it was probably Lesnar. That much I'll consent. Most initimidating, and most dominant of this group? That has to go to Bill Goldberg.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

I am going with Goldberg. The Ultimate Warrior did a lot in a short amount of time. He debuted in the WWF in the summer of 1987, but he didn't win the IC belt until Summerslam 88, and didn't win the WWF title until Wrestlemania VI (early Spring of 1990). It took him nearly 3 years to win his first championship, and since the question has to do with how much time it took each wrestler to "dominate," I can't go with him over Goldberg, or Lesnar for that matter.

Lesnar (easily the best wrestler out of the three) also did a lot in a short period of time. He debuted in March of 2002, and was Undisputed Champ by Summerslam 2002 (within 5 months of debut). The time it took him to become Undisputed Champ, and only at the age of 25, was remarkable. But he wasn't as "dominant" as Goldberg. He had some losses, even though they were DQ's and he was screwed by Heyman. But he wasn't made out to be as dominant as Goldberg was in WCW.

Goldberg was undefeated for more than a YEAR! And the only reason he lost was due to a cattle stun gun shot from Scott Hall (and shitty booking by Kevin Nash). He debuted in September of 1997, and beat Hulk Hogan (in what was basically a squash match) for the WHC in July of 1998 (only took him 10 months). That was the most dominant 14 months (or so) in the history of pro wrestling.

Brock Lesnar won it in less time, but Goldberg was completely undefeated when he won the WHC. He was also the United States Champion during that time period. I just don't think Lesnar won as many matches, nor were his wins as "dominant" as Goldbergs. Was Lesnar the better wrestler? Absolutely. Was he as dominant during as short of a period of time as Goldberg was? No, I don't think he was.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I was chatting with a few wrestling fans at a party last night and I posed this question to them. Out of that, we got into the "Best SHW / Big Man" discussion as well, where I found 2 new Vader supporters. Anyway, I realized something...

Couldn't we also include Paul Wight / The Giant in this list too?

Wight won the WCW World Title in his debut match against Hogan. He and Flair defeated Hogan and Savage before Wight finally lost his first singles match to Hogan in a cage. He was a major part of the tide turning in the nWo angle, becoming the 4th member to Hogan and th Outsiders.

Is it impossible to see Wight in this discussion, or is he little more than a fair #4?

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

Before I answer the question... there's something in common with all three of these wrestlers. They were put over by Hulk Hogan. Warrior at Wrestlemania VI, Goldberg on WCW Nitro, and Brock Lesnar on Smackdown. So Hogan gave them the nudge they needed to get to superstardom. Now the question is, who did this help out the most?

I'll say it helped out The Ultimate Warrior more than anyone. Think about this. After Goldberg and Lesnar defeated Hogan, their careers took a turn a lot shorter than Warrior's did. Lesnar was done less than a year later, and Goldberg lasted longer, but once he lost to Nash, he was done shortly after. Warrior managed a few good feuds with Savage and Sgt. Slaughter and was still waaay over with the crowd, while Goldberg and Lesnar fizzled out sooner than he did.

So as far as I'm concerened, Warrior was the most dominant based on the fact that he did more with what he had in that short time than Lesnar or Goldberg did.

 

[Tenta]

I was chatting with a few wrestling fans at a party last night and I posed this question to them. Out of that, we got into the "Best SHW / Big Man" discussion as well, where I found 2 new Vader supporters. Anyway, I realized something...

Couldn't we also include Paul Wight / The Giant in this list too?

Wight won the WCW World Title in his debut match against Hogan. He and Flair defeated Hogan and Savage before Wight finally lost his first singles match to Hogan in a cage. He was a major part of the tide turning in the nWo angle, becoming the 4th member to Hogan and th Outsiders.

Is it impossible to see Wight in this discussion, or is he little more than a fair #4?

I'd say he's more than a four.... I actually put him over Brock Lesnar, actually. I think the issue is, IC, that the Dungeon of Doom was so bad, that most people like to forget just how dominant he actually was. He was, in fact, the recipient of the ROTY Award as well as Wrestler of the Year in 1996 by PWI, so technically, yes, he did have the biggest showing. The problem is, he was put with the Dungeon of Doom, so not only did less people see his dominance, less people want to admit to liking his early run.

I've said before that The Giant actually was better than Andre The Giant in last year's Wrestlezone Tournament, and that's fairly high praise for me. The guy could do everything, and beat all the best names. In a span of six months, The Giant beat;

Hulk Hogan
Randy Savage
Ric Flair
Lex Luger
Sting
Jeff Jarrett
Scott Steiner
Arn Anderson
Chris Benoit
Jim Duggan

All of these names will probably make a hall of fame, in some way or fashion, soon. The Giant was pushed to the moon in WCW. His only problem, IC, was being put with the Dungeon of Doom.


Oh.... And Lariat, don't think I forgot about you. I think your criteria doesn't mesh well with IC's. Warrior may have had an extended stay, but we're asking who was more dominant in a short span, not over their entire career. Seeing as how you used all of Warrior's career, I need to know exactly what you see as Warrior's dominance. Was it before, or after his championship win? Because the point is who was most dominant, to me, in reaching the top. Besides, Warrior as champion absolutely sucked. He still played second fiddle to Hogan, even as Champion, and once Vince knew Warrior was not a good champion, he found his transition champ in Slaughter, and went right back to Hogan.

 

[Shocky]

Lesnar, without question. He won the WWE Undisputed Championship (that's the combined WCW and WWF Titles) within 4 months of debuting in the WWE. In a year that saw Jericho, Triple H, Undertaker, Hulk Hogan, The Rock, and Shawn Michaels win world titles, the Rookie Brock Lesnar out shined them all.

The dude was simply bred to be a world champion. Think about the percentage of time Brock spent as a World Champion. He spent nearly 50% of his time in the WWE as the WWE Champion. He spent 100% of his time in Japan as the IWGP World champion. Can you think of anyone that spent probably somewhere between 2/3rds to 3/4ths of their career as a world champion?

 

[Tenta]

The dude was simply bred to be a world champion. Think about the percentage of time Brock spent as a World Champion. He spent nearly 50% of his time in the WWE as the WWE Champion. He spent 100% of his time in Japan as the IWGP World champion. Can you think of anyone that spent probably somewhere between 2/3rds to 3/4ths of their career as a world champion?

Well, all that tells me, Shocky, is that the guy doesn't typically stay long whenever he enters a company. Goldberg probably spent half his time in WCW As World Champion, mind you.

Yes, his reign was in the midst of many wonderful names around, but what you fail to note is that both Michaels and Hogan got the belts out of respect, and a final victory lap with the title. That, plus Jericho was pretty much way in over his head as champion, Triple H had the belt for all a month before he decided to let Hogan have his victory lap, and The Undertaker is probably the Worst World Heavyweight Champion on the face of the Earth. Sure, the Rock is an impressive name to win the belt from, but we both know this wasn't the Rock in his prime; he would leave the company soon enough anyway.

That, plus his struggles with The Undertaker and Big Show made me realize that he wasn't nearly as dominant as champion as we believed. And aged, terrible version of Taker (The American Tranvestite Biker) took him to the limit. We're talking about the same Biker who got taken to the limit by Test at that year's Summerslam. Fucking Test. And yes, The Big Show was the one to end his reign. He had a great run to the belt, but once he faced the big names of the business, he got slammed, and hard.

That, plus Rock, Taker, Big Show, and Angle were the big names in which he faced. Read; no Triple H, no Benoit, no Kane, no anyone on The Raw brand, which was the superstar brand, mind you. And, for that matter, his Championship loss was the Eddie Guerrero; the very definition of an experimental champion.

Lesnar as the most dominant? LULZ. As you said so well, My ass.

 

[Shocky]

What??? He struggled with the Undertaker, did you completely not watch the Hell in a Cell match in 2002. You know, that Hell in the Cell where Brock Lesnar gave the Undertaker the worst beating of his career? The one where Brock stood on top of the Cell triumphant at the end.

Or how about the rematch he had with the Big Show at the Royal Rumble without Heyman screwing him over? Sure Show won at Survivor Series, but Brock more then made him his bitch throughout 2003.

Triple H was on Raw, to avoid Brock Lesnar. I know, rumor mill, blah blah blah, but the old tale goes that they split the world titles because Triple H was feeling inferior to the rise in popularity. Can it be proven, of course not, but it can't be disproven either.

Are you seriously suggestion that Kane has been anything more then an upper mid carder, at best throughout his career. The One day world champion. Serious threat to nobody.

Chris Benoit, right... [YOUTUBE]ekh5tuwEV4Q[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Tenta]

What??? He struggled with the Undertaker, did you completely not watch the Hell in a Cell match in 2002. You know, that Hell in the Cell where Brock Lesnar gave the Undertaker the worst beating of his career? The one where Brock stood on top of the Cell triumphant at the end.

I miss the worst beating part, and found a Hell in a Cell that, yes, Brock won, but wasn't nearly the blowout your hyperbole would have the viewers believe.

Or how about the rematch he had with the Big Show at the Royal Rumble without Heyman screwing him over? Sure Show won at Survivor Series, but Brock more then made him his bitch throughout 2003.

Sure, but again, how impressive is that? Show was lazy, out of shape, you get the deal. 2003 was probably the worst year of Big Show's career, maybe 2005. But 2003 was Show at his absolute worst. Compared to Goldberg, who got a Giant that was in shape, dominant, and still hot, having established himself as either one of WCW's most dominant heel or face, pending whether or not he was in the nWo at the time.

Triple H was on Raw, to avoid Brock Lesnar. I know, rumor mill, blah blah blah, but the old tale goes that they split the world titles because Triple H was feeling inferior to the rise in popularity. Can it be proven, of course not, but it can't be disproven either.

But what can be proven? That, indeed, Triple H and Brock Lesnar have never wrestled.

Are you seriously suggestion that Kane has been anything more then an upper mid carder, at best throughout his career. The One day world champion. Serious threat to nobody.

From 2002-2003? Yes. This was his greatest run as a wrestler, perhaps even better than the 1998 run. You know as well as I do had Trips not been champion, using your old rumor mill you brought up, Kane would have been World Champion for far more than a day.

Chris Benoit, right... [YOUTUBE]ekh5tuwEV4Q[/YOUTUBE]

[/QUOTE]

In 2003, off his heel run after beating Angle. Yawn. By this point, Brock was proven very beatable, and while a great wrestler, not nearly as dominating.

 

[Checkmate]

Of the three, I'd personally have to say The Ultimate Warrior.

The Warrior rose to the top incredibly fast, though not as quick as Lesnar, and was the guy to end the Honky Tonk man's unrivaled Intercontinental Reign. Then, while maintaining the IC Title, he would main event Wrestlemania and defeat Hulk Hogan to win the WWF Title. The idea of beating Hogan (WWF Hogan, not WCW Hogan) was something that almost never happened, and the Warrior did it clean and on the biggest stage possible. He rose to the position of "The Man" of the WWF and knocked off the biggest guy possible to do so.

By comparison, Goldberg also had one hell of a run. The only reason why he isn't my pick is because of the build up involved. I have nothing wrong with streaks in wrestling, but in comparison to Warrior or Lesnar, Goldberg wasn't a focal point of WCW in the initial stages of the undefeated streak. His domination, though quite evident, wasn't the main thing people were tuning in to see, as the NWO was running rampant at the same time. After a while, when Goldberg's build up elevated him to the main event level, Goldberg achieved the fully dominant status, but didn't really get the torch passed to him the same way that the Warrior did (even if it was from the same guy).

Lesnar would have to be third on my list of the three. He came in and beat up Jeff Hardy. Ok, nobody really expected Hardy to do much more than sell. I guess this would be the Warrior vs Honky Tonk Man of Lesnar's career, only Hardy put up more of a fight than Honky did. Then, he reached a new level of domination when he won the King of the Ring, though the only real threat to him was Rob Van Dam. Finally, after several months, he beat the Rock (who was leaving) to win the Undisputed title. While many would think this would be the peak for Lesnar, he went on to beat the Undertaker in Hell in a Cell. I agree with Tenta that the beating he gave Taker wasn't as bad as many make it out to be, especially since Taker was selling a broken hand the whole time.

So Lesnar was riding high until...he lost to the Big Show. Ok, he got screwed over by Heyman, but still. The Big Show. The most Dominant champion in a while, who beat Taker in Taker's match, just lost to the Big Show and Paul Heyman. Dominant status = severely weakened, especially since he didn't win the title back. Ok, so then Brock wins the Royal Rumble (after entering #29, not a huge surprise really) and gets his main event at Mania with Kurt Angle. The whole time, it appears though Angle and Brock were damn near equals. So I guess this would be Brock's version of Hogan/Warrior, except Hulk Hogan has turned into Kurt Angle. No disrespect to Angle, but he is no Hulk Hogan.

Basically for me, it comes down to consistency, relevance, and the peak of dominance. The Warrior consistently pushed his way to the top, and beat perhaps the most recognizable character ever to win the WWF title on the biggest stage of the year. Goldberg never lost, pushed his way to the top, and eventually won the title, though the standard wasn't the same. Lesnar came in, dominated most of the time, but was only the champion on the tier 2 show. Granted, a champion is a champion, but compare the wins:

Warrior: won vs Hogan at Wrestlemania 6
Goldberg: won vs Hollywood Hogan on Nitro
Lesnar: won vs The Rock at Summerslam (Undisputed Title becomes exclusive to Smackdown)

Clearly, the most impressive was the Warrior's win. This is one of the few factors that ranks him above Goldberg's similar domination in my opinion. Good thread, nice read.

 

[Tastycles]

Who was the most dominant in a short span? Easy, Goldberg. Who was the most dominant of the three? Warrior, without question. The man lost no more than 4 matches in 5 years, including house shows, becoming the first man to ever beat Hogan clean in the process. Warrior beat all the biggest names of the era at that time too, beating all the big WWF names, something Lesnar didn't.

Goldberg run rampant through WCW initially, but towards the end of his run, he was beatable, and regularly lost in multiple man matches. The other thing to remember with Goldberg is that he had no contests and DQ victories, Warrior rarely did. Warrior is the most dominant of the unbeatable type wrestlers.