Getting over in the mid-card
Join Date: Jul 2011
Explain how Goldberg is still awesome and Ryback sucks?
Other than "he's a ripoff of Goldberg" because I could just as easily cite Ric Flair as an even bigger ripoff, or numerous other wrestlers, and kill that argument cold.
Seriously, what about Ryback is so logically different that he's terrible and Bill Goldberg is the fucking man? Many of you are the same people who thought Goldberg was the shit 10+ years ago, and now a guy with some similarities to him has appeared, and people are burying him and claiming he sucks. It's as if he "sucks" because a few people up here said it, and their opinions came to be your opinions, rather than you forming your own opinion.
I see Ryback in the ring, and I see a guy who is filling a very specific role - a big hulking tank like wrestler who is clearly a hevyweight, and a guy who fills the "Shit just got real" gap that WWE had since The Undertaker began working part time a few years ago. His in ring skills are not terrible. He's had a few botches, sure. Do some of you forget Bill Goldberg has more than a few botches as well? Ask Bret Hart.
Now, you can certainly make the argument that Goldberg may be a more talented in ring performer, or maybe you cannot, but I just don't see one or the other as vastly better. Goldberg was booked to the moon. He destroyed everyone, even moreso than Ryback has. He sold like shit often. His matches were short. His mic skills were decent, nothing spectacular.
How is Ryback so terrible and Goldberg so great? Do people have a view of Goldberg from their childhood that didn't really exist? What things made Goldberg that much more "epic" than Ryback? Multiple sentence answers would be preferred.