WWE Royal Rumble 2017: 5 Reasons Goldberg Should Not Win
By Carl Gac
We take a look at 5 reasons why Goldberg should not win the WWE Royal Rumble.
Bill Goldberg is without doubt one of the biggest stars of the late 1990’s wrestling boom. He ran roughshod over WCW, building himself probably the biggest (kayfabe) winning streak of 173-0, before losing to Kevin Nash via taser-related shenanigans.
When WWE bought out WCW, Goldberg wasn’t one of the names associated with the “Invasion” storyline, instead sitting out his contract and eventually making his mark in WWE in 2003 and becoming one of the top men in the company. His time in WWE ended following a match with Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania 20, one that won’t go down in the history books as a classic.
Fast forward 12 years and Goldberg made a dramatic return to WWE, at a time when WWE was giving their all to sell the latest installment of the WWE2K video game series. Clashing with Brock Lesnar, the now 50-year-old Goldberg, made a massive statement with a win in less than 90 seconds in their match at Survivor Series.
Immediately following that match it was announced that both Goldberg and Lesnar would be entrants in the Royal Rumble, with them both immediately being installed as favorites for the match. Both men are massive draws, so neither of them particularly needs to get the win in one of the most important multi-man matches that WWE puts on every year.
If anything, Goldberg needs the win even less than Lesnar. Follow along with us as we present you 5 reasons that Goldberg doesn’t need to win the Royal Rumble.