Goldberg or Lesnar?

[MikeRaw]

After the controversial success of the Batista vs Goldberg thread, I decided to make another similar one, if for no other reason than purely seeking opinions.
I'll post mine later, but just answer this question.
Goldberg or Lesnar?
Go.

 

[jjridpath]

Lesnar he could actually put on a half decent match while Goldberg was just about intesinty and imo was lame.

 

[Moonlight Drive]

Lesnar, he could actually work a good match.

 

[the hibee wwe fan]

K+Lesnar could do more than destroy he could win. Lesnar

 

[Airfixx]

Lesnar. A monster that COULD get down on the matt and wrestle... Who'd have ever thunk it????

 

[JimmyD]

Definitely Lesnar. Even though he was never as over as Goldberg he was a far better wrestler when you look at the two of them objectively.

 

[MikeRaw]

Wooo! Everyone agrees with me. I like Goldberg, as I said many times, but something great has been missing in wrestling ever since Lesnar left.

 

[DerrickNorth]

Definitely Lesnar, success wise, match wise, and credibility wise. Goldberg could have a decent match against the right opponent, but even with a great opponent the match could still either thrive or dive. I don't think I've seen too many horrible Lesnar matches and his success in the MMA realm proves that he is indeed legit

 

[SQUIRREL K1LLER]

Lesnar, quite simply because he is the most all round physically impressive monster wrestler ever.

 

[xtremebadass]

Goldberg. He was around longer and got more of a following. Although Lesnar had a great run in a very short time, Goldberg takes the cake. I don't feel like going into the explanation.

 

[Next Big Thing]

This depends on how you look at it. If you are just looking at what they did in their short careers, then it’s Goldberg hands down. Goldberg was a megastar during a boom period in professional wrestling. He was right up there with Austin for a while as the most popular guy in all of wrestling, and that’s saying a lot. But if we are going to factor in where they could have gone had they kept wrestling, it’s easily Lesnar. Goldberg was a flash in the pan. There was no way he could remain on the level he was at for a long time. Goldberg would eventually have to start wrestling longer matches had he stuck around longer, and the few times that he did go more than 10 minutes, it was far from impressive.

 

[noumenon]

Personally I prefer Goldberg. He had more hype and was really the original fucking beast. He wasn't anywhere near as technical or as good in the ring as Lesnar but he had something Lesnar didn't. Although Goldberg's streak came to an end he never lost that complete domination aura about him. He was almost always an unstoppable force where as Lesnar did cool off a bit after a while.

 

[Wordlife]

tbh I like them both but if I had to choose I'd have to take Lesnar. Lesnar had a solid run with the title and was a HUGE dominant force in the WWE for quite some time. Though Goldberg had credentials, Lesnar had force imo

 

[Kizza]

Lesnar. Easily. Good-Great matches against Taker, and he was a believeable monster who could actually single handedly put on a good match.

 

[kraynor3]

Lesnar, he had slightly more heart for the business.

Goldberg potentially could have been better, but he stopped trying.


In fact, even though he wrestled longer, he may have quit sooner than Lesnar did.



Inflated egos and money grubbing + no real heart for the game = wasted career.