Now it is always fun to "Monday Morning" quarterback old events and wondering how things would have changed if things had been booked differently. Normally a lot of fans look back at runs that talent had and if it was a flop how it could have been done better then it was. Until his return two years ago most fans looked at Goldberg's first run in the WWE as a massive flop due to the poor booking. One of the bigger causes for fans to believe that his run was a flop goes back to Summerslam 2003.
Looking at the card it was a decent show and actually would've been a good show without the featured main event. As I think that Kurt Angle vs Brock Lesnar would've been more than a capable main event for the show, but then the question becomes when they would've had the second Elimination Chamber. During the early days of the Ruthless Aggression era when Triple H was the top heel in the company and this edition of Summerslam was during the peak of Evolution. This meant that Triple H had a variety of possible opponents that he had a beef with. It didn't matter if it was the never ending feud between Triple H and Shawn Michaels, the developing feud between Hunter and Kevin Nash or the yet touched feud with Goldberg.
Overall it was a surreal moment seeing Goldberg debut in the company that many never really thought he would end up. Goldberg's debut was in the very early days of the post WrestleMania surprises and his was shocking because he was placed right into a feud with The Rock. Basically his momentum started high from the beginning and it continued to grow after beating Rock, Christian and Jericho pretty handily before getting into the feud with Triple H & Evolution. Now I know the question becomes how would I have done it differently to try and keep Goldberg building his momentum.
It's simple really because if you look at the latter half of the year with Kane moving up the card following the removal of his mask. In reality Kane was likely in the feud because they wanted someone to take the fall as oppose to making either Triple H or Goldberg. Well the one plus side of this match is that the Chamber shows the top contenders that could fight for the title. Counting backwards from WrestleMania where Goldberg would've fought the winner of the Royal Rumble which I still think Benoit was the right decision. But I think that Goldberg and Kane at the Royal Rumble would've been something fresh for faces to see especially if for the six months prior we had been building Kane up as a monster that nobody can defeat. Honestly I would've also went with Kane beating Triple H in a multi man match to get the shot as a way for him to get his win back on Hunter. Long story short I think that if the WWE had wanted to give Goldberg the run he "should've" gotten from his first title win as oppose to the one he did get things would have worked out differently. Also though he might have stayed for a little longer the first time around and we could have seen some more dream matches with Goldberg and talent that were more active back then like Undertaker for one.
Sharing my thoughts, opinion, and historical facts on everything WWE both past and present