MoS Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 I have read here, and at other places, that Triple H ruined Goldberg's WWE career by not jobbing to him at Summerslam. While I do understand where the argument is coming from, I do not feel convinced at all. Summerslam had Goldberg beat the crap out of Triple H, and everyone else, before the sledgehammer shennanigans came in. That is a classic way to build heat and keep both the heel and the face hot. Following that, Goldberg beat Triple H clean on two consecutive PPVs. One of them was when he had a kayfabe broken ankle; that did not stop him from destroying Hunter and the entire stable of Evolution. On one leg. He was booked like an absolute monster; and never has Triple H felt so vulnerable, apart from his feud with batista in 2005. An argument can be made that he was wasted in long single matches, and should have had explosive short matches with Triple H. I see the argument, but again, that is a fault of Goldberg and not Triple H. He would have eventually had to be in longer matches, and while I understand the concept of not fixng something that is not broken, I still feel it is on Goldberg and not anyone else. Bottom line: I feel that Goldberg himself is to be blamed and no one else for his failure in the WWE. I would much rather watch a Goldberg squash than a Triple H match, but I do not think Triple H is at fault here at all. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthedoctor Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 I remember seeing the match a couple years ago and yeah still annoys me to this day but from memory I think it was he ran through and destroyed in a short time 3 main eventers and then Hunter comes along does one weak Sledgehammer shot and suddenly wins never mind Hunter had a groin injury around this time so he wouldnt start the match. I dont know how true it is but around the time the Internet was reporting that the reason Goldberg jobbed was because he refused to do the UK tour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbo Slice Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 His one-year deal had a lot to do with that, too. When he wasn't doing that UK tour and had previously gotten a ton of money wrestling for Wrestle-1 in Japan, there wasn't much keeping him there. Then when he broke his ankle, they did everything they could with him but decided it wasn't worth his push. The Brock stuff only happened because they figure it was the only way they thought he could draw. And then Brock decided he wasn't about that life either. The HHH stuff looks bad (hell, it almost always does), but I think the Goldberg stuff was fucked from the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidebottom Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 Bottom line: I feel that Goldberg himself is to be blamed and no one else for his failure in the WWE. In all of your post, you neglected to mention why you think this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWT69 Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 I was there the night he beat HHH for the belt in Hershey. HHH sandbagged him constantly and his big reign on top lasted all of 2 months dropping it back in a shitty 3 way with Kane. This was during the HHH Flair cosplay Raw era. Goldberg never did himself favors but he was never given the ball to run with either. Huge missed opportunity for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 I wouldn't say that HHH ruined Goldberg since the bloom was already off the rose by that point. But Goldberg didn't get over by getting screwed and looking vulnerable. He got over by destroying everything in his path. There was no need to reinvent the wheel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 He would have eventually had to be in longer matches says who? i detest pro wrestling's attachment to long matches for main events. things would be much more interesting and less predictable if there were a greater variety of "big match" structures being used. the world needs more matches like cena-brock at summerslam imo realistically yes, you are right in that WWE would have forced him into that. but i think that's on them. in american sports we say that most coaches try to make their best players fit their system, but the great coaches can make their system fit their best players. WWE would have had to alter its "system" to fit goldberg, and the argument is that it would have been worth it for them to do so. the part you can debate is whether he would have been a big enough draw to merit that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broccoman Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 If I had my way- one match per night for a few months would not have the traditional match structure, or would end it early. The hot tag wouldn't get made. A non-finisher would get the win, etc. Wrestling is too formulaic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 Putting him against a heel the fans were going to cheer like The Rock right out of the gate was a mistake. And Rock being hammy as fuck during that match helped nothing. His goofy overreacting would make 1995 DDP go "Whoah, tone it down a bit out there bro." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoS Posted November 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 Bottom line: I feel that Goldberg himself is to be blamed and no one else for his failure in the WWE. In all of your post, you neglected to mention why you think this. Did I? All right. What I meant by that the reason Goldberg did not pan out in the WWE is not the fault of Triple H, the booking, or the WWE. Ergo, it is he who gets the responsibility for his not getting over enough with the WWE. You can blame the booking for making him feud with The Rock in his first match, but in my opinion, he had recovered from that and the fans were ready to get behind him. The fact that they never got the reason to is because Goldberg was simply not appealing enough. Whether it is because he could not talk, he could not have long matches, or something else, I do not know. But I do feel the booking is an unfortunate scapegoat in this case. I do not think the Hunter booking was as egregious as it is made out to be. Honestly, if Goldberg could not bear the loss, which was a perfectly straightforward cheap heat loss, then that is on him, and not on anyone else. If he did not get over because he was having long matches with Hunter and he cold not do it, then that is again on him, because eventually he would have had to have long matches. It was just the WWE style. Hence, I feel it is he who is responsible for his not panning out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidebottom Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 So it's the square pegs fault, not the tight round holes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 If I had my way- one match per night for a few months would not have the traditional match structure, or would end it early. The hot tag wouldn't get made. A non-finisher would get the win, etc. Wrestling is too formulaic. ric_flair_YES.gif i especially hate the fact that nothing in WWE can win a match besides finishers, run-ins, and flash pins. a lot of wrestlers have neat secondary moves that never get a pin but should be able to on occasion - thinking of orton's draping DDT here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradhindsight Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 FWIW, the title matches with Triple H were 11:44 (Survivor Series) and 14:57 (Unforgiven). Those are not long title matches. Goldberg was a known entity, so it's on the booking to best accentuate his strengths. I don't necessarily agree that it was Goldberg's fault that the heat didn't stick post SummerSlam but I need to read/watch more around that time. I don't fault them in wanting to move the title in a 1-on-1 match instead of a multi-man. The new PTB Podcast talks Unforgiven 2003 fwiw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoS Posted November 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 So it's the square pegs fault, not the tight round holes? Is your point that the WWE was at fault for trying to book him just like they would book a top star, without seeing it was very incompatible with how Goldberg worked in 1998? I am sorry; English is not my first language, so I may be misinterpreting your point. I guess I would agree with that line of thinking, but unless you wanted the whole promotion to revolve around Goldberg, so much so that they changed the philosophy with which they booked their shows, I do not see any other alternative. He was booked in a classic way to keep alive the chase, and then beat the shit out of Triple H two times in a row. I really fail to see what else they could have done. I did not find any indication of Triple H sandbagging him at all. Maybe I might have missed it. But on Survior Series, he beat the entire stable on one leg. If you still can't get over after that, then maybe it is on you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWT69 Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 Watch the RAWs from the time and the Unforgiven match. They put him over just to say they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artDDP Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Didn't Goldberg do a whole lot of nothing between the Rock match and a Rodney Mack squash on Raw from MSG, which came just weeks before SummerSlam 2003? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidebottom Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Didn't Goldberg do a whole lot of nothing between the Rock match and a Rodney Mack squash on Raw from MSG, which came just weeks before SummerSlam 2003? He had a midcard feud with Jericho which was fun for what it was. On this subject, here's part of a post I made here a while ago: The narrative harped on about Goldberg being incapable of having a good lengthy match whilst ignoring what was perhaps Scott Hall's last ever great match at Souled Out 99 which was a belter as well as the Fall Brawl 2000 match against Steiner which was brilliant. These are just two examples off the top of my head, but to say Goldberg couldn't work is laughable. When he was booked right, he could produce something excellent. Goldberg not being able to work a "normal" length match is about as much of a myth as Goldberg wearing Goldust's wig for a split second ruined him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Wouldn't it had been smart for Goldberg to squash jobbers and lower card guys, a few main eventers all year and go undefeated and then face Taker at Mania and lose? He could had been like 75-0 or something against the streak. Keep him away from the title and Hunter and just have him beat up the Rosey's, Hurricanes and Sylvain Grenier's of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Goldberg had a really enjoyable match with Chris Jericho at Badd Blood 2003, it was brilliantly paced and laid out in an era where those aspects were rarely deserving of praise - most notably because HHH insisted on going half an hour every PPV, usually with out of shape, unsuitable opponents like Scott Steiner and Kevin Nash. Wouldn't it had been smart for Goldberg to squash jobbers and lower card guys, a few main eventers all year and go undefeated and then face Taker at Mania and lose? The Streak wasn't such a big deal back then - he was teaming with Nathan Jones to take on A-Train at the previous Wrestlemania. Also, there is no way they could have got mileage out of Goldberg facing jobbers for a year, his heat was getting dead after only a few weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradhindsight Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 Goldberg had a really enjoyable match with Chris Jericho at Badd Blood 2003, it was brilliantly paced and laid out in an era where those aspects were rarely deserving of praise - most notably because HHH insisted on going half an hour every PPV, usually with out of shape, unsuitable opponents like Scott Steiner and Kevin Nash. False actually: From Chad: Royal Rumble match was 18 minutes, NWO 13, WM 18:45, Backlash 18, Judgment Day 7;45, Badd Blood 21.... so only one HHH match in the year over 20 mins on PPV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 False actually: From Chad: Royal Rumble match was 18 minutes, NWO 13, WM 18:45, Backlash 18, Judgment Day 7;45, Badd Blood 21.... so only one HHH match in the year over 20 mins on PPV Shows you how bad those matches were because they all felt about an hour long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 The HHH wanted long NWA epics for the 2003 run has been seen as a myth to me based on watching the 2003 PPV matches in order the past couple of months. They are still super shitty, just not in an NWA way but more a sneaky heel that will get beat up for 90% of the match and bleed but show how resourceful he is kind of way. We have seen a history of WWF/WWE gaffing on not pulling the trigger at SummerSlam. Angle probably should have beat Austin at 2001 as his win at Unforgiven felt more hollow. The face turn of Orton flopped terribly after 04 and they changed course. The Goldberg example is probably the worst offense of this as the Phoenix crowd was clamoring for him to destroy HHH in the Chamber. HHH cowered in fear and then got a lucky shot to retain to the dismay of everyone. The Unforgiven crowd was terrible and the match was also with neither guy having any focus. I have seen Goldberg have exciting matches in 1998 and have sub 12 minute main events that feel exciting and explosive. The match at Unforgiven was no where close to the Nash or DDP matches from late 1998. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.