Batista or Goldberg?

[MikeRaw]

Pretty simple. These two guys have alot of similarities. They're both massive, they both have limited movesets, they're both over with the crowd, but they've both also been bashed by internet fans.
So, who do you prefer? People can find plenty of reasons to dislike either guy (although I persoanlly loved both), and reasons to like both, but with all the similaritis, who do you prefer?

I was always a Goldberg fan, but I've gotta go with Batista here. I think his character has more depth, and I think he worked harder to get to where he is. Not to mention, he was in Evolution.
Who do you prefer?

 

[Colin Gimp]

Are you kidding? At least Goldberg had talent and charisma. His electricity would remind your subconscious that Nitro is on and yo could be missing a Goldberg squash match. He's the parallel to Austin. He could go on a mic looking like a badass every time.

Batista is just ..ugh.. definition of how a look can make you a main eventer. He's gotten better over the years or maybe that's me accepting shit with a ribbon tied on it, nonetheless he's cracking 40 any day and he hasn't done anything to hold Goldbergs jockstrap except replica his attitude and spear which is why you're even trading similarities between the two.

 

[Next Big Thing]

Batista. Unlike most people, I actually think he's quite solid in the ring. A lot of internet fans are turned off by the fact that he's not very flashy and he has a small move set. When I watch a Batista match I see someone with a believable move set and good ring psychology. He's great at being able to work a crowd. He can get the fans in the palm of his hand, and the roar of the crowd every time he shakes the ropes is proof of that.

Goldberg on the other hand never did it for me. He was a flash in the pan. I mean he had great charisma and a great look, and during his winning streak he was about as exciting and as popular as just about any wrestler in history. People went nuts for him and loved his 2 minute squash matches. The problem with Goldberg was when it was time for a big match that wasn't a 2 minute squash, he couldn't deliver. Like the OP mentioned, Goldberg never really loved this business, and I personally think that's the reason why he was never able to become a great worker that could put on quality matches. He had all of the tools to become one of the biggest stars of all time, and he damn sure had the push, he just didn't have the passion for it.

 

[MikeRaw]

Are you kidding?

Not quite.

At least Goldberg had talent and charisma.

Are you sure you don't mean Gillberg? I liked Goldberg, but not because of his charisma. You know why? Because while he had alot of charisma, it wasn't in the same way as ou would usually think fo charisma. I liked Goldberg (and am surprised to find peopel who also like him), but I don't think his charisma was anything TOO great.

His electricity would remind your subconscious that Nitro is on and yo could be missing a Goldberg squash match. He's the parallel to Austin. He could go on a mic looking like a badass every time.

The part about being a badass I 100% agree with. That's why I liked him. But he's not quite parallel to Austin, but he is one of the faces of WCW, but the same can be said for Big Dave.

Batista is just ..ugh.. definition of how a look can make you a main eventer.

Oh, you mean compared to Goldberg's 30 second matches? Like I said, I loved Goldberg, but he's pretty much in the same boat as Batista when it comes to that.

except replica his attitude and spear which is why you're even trading similarities between the two.

Well... No. As I said, the fact they have a similar look, both are built as dominant monster faces, both have alot of fans, but both have been heavily christised, and both were older than usual in their prime is the reason I compare.

Damn, all this Goldberg talk makes me wish he was back.

 

[Colin Gimp]

Are you kidding?[quote[
Not quite.

Are you sure you don't mean Gillberg? I liked Goldberg, but not because of his charisma. You know why? Because he had virtually none.

?. What? You saw every time on Goldberg's face the excitement level and he always had an extra stride in his step. This guy had a big ego but he backed it up until he had enough of people hurting his ego instead of stroking it.

The part about being a badass I 100% agree with. That's why I liked him. But he's not quite parallel to Austin, but he is one of the facves of WCW, but the same can be said for Big Dave.

Except for the fact that Goldberg strived to find his own identity during the Austin era while still having the similar characteristics between him and Austin. You can't compare Austin and Batista. It's not even Apples and oranges. It's like comparing a cold Budweiser to a big piece of shit with a ribbon tied around it. Big reason Batista even caught on with the fans, is miraculously because of Michael Cole with his monikers and covering up Batista's holes.

Oh, you mean compared to Goldberg's 30 second matches? Like I said, I loved Goldberg, but he's pretty much int he same boat as Batista when it comes to that.

Yeah because Goldberg never had any big matches in his career. (lawl that was sarcasm) Not only has he been in numerous big matches but he was booked so well any match he was in had the big match feel if it was against a formidable foe. Yes it got overbearing but he eventually lost. And during that period he made his matches iconic. Had the best one-two combo in Wrestling, and he made it look like they just got hit by an anvil. Everyone would watch a Goldberg match for the Spear to Jackhammer and everything inbetween didn't matter. Even though he could actually wrestle.

Well... No. As I said, the fact they have a similar look, both are built as dominant monster faces, both have alot of fans, but both have been heavily christised, and both were older than usual in their prime is the reason I compare.

If you look at the time periods between the two you would see that it's not similarities rather then imitation.

Damn, all this Goldberg talk makes me wish he was back.

 

[MikeRaw]

Except for the fact that Goldberg strived to find his own identity during the Austin era while still having the similar characteristics between him and Austin. You can't compare Austin and Batista. It's not even Apples and oranges. It's like comparing a cold Budweiser to a big piece of shit with a ribbon tied around it. Big reason Batista even caught on with the fans, is miraculously because of Michael Cole with his monikers and covering up Batista's holes.

I didn't compare Austin and Batista :laugh: I compared Goldberg and Batista. YOU comared Goldberg and Austin, and I said it wasn't even close, and that Goldberg wasn't close to being on Austin's level, but he was one of the faces of WCW, and I said the same can be said about Batista, as in he is the same type of guy. Not close to the level of Austin, but still one of the faces of his company.

Yeah because Goldberg never had any big matches in his career. (lawl that was sarcasm) Not only has he been in numerous big matches but he was booked so well any match he was in had the big match feel if it was against a formidable foe. Yes it got overbearing but he eventually lost. And during that period he made his matches iconic. Had the best one-two combo in Wrestling, and he made it look like they just got hit by an anvil. Everyone would watch a Goldberg match for the Spear to Jackhammer and everything inbetween didn't matter. Even though he could actually wrestle.

You sound like you're trying to convince be Goldberg was good. I already know that. As I said, Goldberg is one of my all time favorites. I just like Batista better, or at least at the moment. You don't eed to explain any Goldberg stuff to me though, I love the guy.

Damn, all this Goldberg talk makes me wish he was back.

 

[Kizza]

Lol, I always thought Goldberg was better then he was shown to be in the ring. Batista just fucking sucks.

 

[Colin Gimp]

bafb

 

[the hibee wwe fan]

Unlike Vince I'm not a fan of big buldging mucculer guy. onestly neither intrest me but if I had to pixk it would be Goldberg, much quiker of the two and more charisma.

 

[He who knows more than Nation]

Ugh. This is like asking would you rather drown or burn to death. They both suck. Goldberg injured people and Batista is always injured. At least the E wouldn't prefer Khali as champ over Goldberg as they did with the Walking Muscle Tear. People to this day still know the name Goldberg, people who haven't watched since his last run couldn't tell you who Batista is, so I guess Goldberg??

 

[Wrestling Station]

Batista.
1- He works harder in the ring
2- Has more meaningful storylines and feuds
3- Worked well and had good matches (with Taker and HHH) not like Goldberg all his matches sucks ass.
4- Atleast Batista showed us that he can sleep with Melina... but Goldberg.. :shifty:
5- Goldberg was that asshole who doesnt give a shit about the fans eventhough he was tend to be a face! :/ fucked up shit right here.

 

[JimmyD]

Lol, I always thought Goldberg was better then he was shown to be in the ring. Batista just fucking sucks.

This.

Batista is so boring it's unbelievable.

 

[Montana]

Batista.
1- He works harder in the ring
2- Has more meaningful storylines and feuds
3- Worked well and had good matches (with Taker and HHH) not like Goldberg all his matches sucks ass.
4- Atleast Batista showed us that he can sleep with Melina... but Goldberg.. :shifty:
5- Goldberg was that asshole who doesnt give a shit about the fans eventhough he was tend to be a face! :/ fucked up shit right here.

I don't like either, But I'd have to agree with WS (as much as i didn't want to admit that, i just didn't want to type out why)


* I think WS hit the nail on the head, about backstage politics and attitutdes. Goldberg was only looking out for Goldberg. He was a big fish in a small pond in WCW. Batista often seems like more of a team player. Batista also cuts better promos, and actually lets his opponents get some offensive in, so its not a complete squash match, unlike goldberg.

 

[Airfixx]

Any pro-Goldberg peeps care to recommend one of his better matches?

(Seen very little of his WCW stuff so giving it the benefit of the doubt.)






Btw, seems to be a decent place to bring it up, but anyone shed some light on anything approaching the turth about the numerous claims from peeps like Nash, the crowds would actually chant "Goldberg Sucks"...

Was this just a Cena type of backlash or was Goldberg not actually as over as he was portrayed on TV?

 

[MikeRaw]

Any pro-Goldberg peeps care to recommend one of his better matches?

(Seen very little of his WCW stuff so giving it the benefit of the doubt.)






Btw, seems to be a decent place to bring it up, but anyone shed some light on anything approaching the turth about the numerous claims from peeps like Nash, the crowds would actually chant "Goldberg Sucks"...

Was this just a Cena type of backlash or was Goldberg not actually as over as he was portrayed on TV?

I don't think any of Goldberg's matches will stand the test of time as great matches. As a matter of fact, that's partly why I think Batista was better. Batista had the ability to have long, drawn out matches, with the likes of HBK, HHH, Taker, and Jericho, among others, and had actually had osme very good ones in his career. As much as I like Goldberg, it was more for the emotion of his matches, and his character, not really his matches. But if you want to see the crowd go nuts, and acually have apretty decent match, there's Hogan vs Goldberg, where Goldberg won the title. Crowd was crazy, and so was Goldberg. Elimination Chamber 2002 was also good.


As for your question...
To know that, I guess someone would've had to have been in the arena to know, and I doubt anyone here was. But I really doubt it. I really, really doubt it. The onyl time I remember huge hate on him was Wrestlemania 20. Both him and Lesnar were leaving after it, cause they didn't renew their contrats, so the crowd knew it was their last match, and it was one of the worst WM matches ever. They botched all kinds of shit, and the crowd booed both.