WWE Survivor Series 2016: Brock Lesnar vs. Goldberg II could justify WWE’s revisionist history

Sunday’s Survivor Series is a throwback, for better or worse.

WWE is using “Fantasy Warfare” to describe their Brock Lesnar versus Goldberg main event. A fantasy matchup bout typically poses two opponents that have no logistical avenue to fulfill this. Can the 1995-96 Bulls take on the 2015-16 Golden State Warriors? I don’t know. And we won’t know because those two parties are from different eras, but that’s what hypothetical matchups all are about. Let’s leave it to the collective imagination to play out all the possible scenarios. There will be no consensus.

But WWE’s use of the phrase is perplexing, if not expected of them. Lesnar and Goldberg have fought before. The two faced off as both superstars were on their way out of the company. Goldberg’s year-long WWE tenure became more of a victory lap to celebrate his WCW accolades. Lesnar, in his 20s with arguably the brightest future out of anyone on that roster, put his wrestling career on hold to give the NFL a shot.

Just like in 2004, this match is free from all the narrative of brand loyalty that is emphasized in every match of this year’s Survivor Series. At the risk of falling too much into WWE’s narrative, this is a fight instead of a match. Its origins want you to believe that, too, as the feud initially began seemingly out of nowhere during an ESPN interview in which Goldberg promoted WWE 2K17.

And in a time where WWE wants fans to watch up to 10 hours of original content a week in order to give the illusion that they are their own competition, Goldberg’s interview distanced himself from that.

He was Bill Goldberg, the father and husband, explaining the impact of Goldberg, the character. In that respect, Bill Goldberg challenged Brock Lesnar, the part-time UFC fighter and sports entertainer, instead of the “Beast Incarnate.”

But if you go back and watch WrestleMania XX, their match was bad. And don’t forget that. The fans, aware that the two were leaving, diluted any tension by chanting. “You sold out,” and “This match sucks” filled Madison Square Garden as Lesnar and Goldberg attempted to forge a feud that all but eroded by the time the two stepped into the ring.

Lesnar was the WWE Undisputed Champion a month before and lost to the late Eddie Guerrero, in part because Goldberg interfered. Losing the company’s top title due to interference is an exemplary way to begin a big-match fight, one where the thought of annihilating your opponent would isolate anything else.

But that didn’t happen! Brock Lesnar picked a fight with Stone Cold Steve Austin, who later became the special referee for the match. Austin became the vehicle through which WWE would be declared the moral winner.

The WrestleMania match dragged on. The first half of it featured both wrestlers staring each other down and occasionally looking at Stone Cold for a cue. They were also waiting for the crowd’s jeers to stop, which didn’t work. Lesnar and Goldberg spent the rest of the fight in holds that resembled tug-of-war.

A Goldberg spear and Jackhammer would mark the end of the match. Brock Lesnar got up with ease after, only to give the middle finger to both Austin and the fans at MSG. That’s when Austin, already retired as evident by the knee braces that enveloped his entire legs, hit the Stunner on Lesnar and ended his short career. Goldberg thought he could celebrate with Stone Cold, but he was wrong and got the Stone Cold Stunner, as well.

Wrestling rules dictate that a departing wrestler has to go out on his back to emphasize the importance their opponent. But with both superstars leaving, Austin and the veil of the Attitude Era — which was over by then — only remained.

With the end of that match, WWE inadvertently set the standard that it views itself in. It’s self-aggrandizing and nostalgic which is tantamount to how it promotes its bigger fights and the WWE Network. What happened at WrestleMania XX was a live revision of history.

And revisionist history is where WWE excels. One of their cornerstone programs on the Network when it first aired was the Monday Night Wars, that repeated the phrase “a king to be crowned” and showed Vince McMahon basking in spoils of war, overlooking the various contributions that WCW and ECW gave to wrestling. Through that, they have every means to paint Lesnar-Goldberg as a battle between pro wrestling mammoths going to war, but very little of that will be true.

But despite all of that, the rematch — if you’d even like to call it that — has the potential to be the main event its hyped up to be. The last time we saw Brock Lesnar compete in a WWE ring, he pummeled Randy Orton so badly that he was gushing blood. That was also main event described as a fight between two superstars whose shared origins began in the early 2000s. The end was as real as professional wrestling gets.

Goldberg can either be the indomitable force he was in WCW or a dad who only wants to relive his heyday for his son. In his way is Brock Lesnar, who doesn’t care and will continue wrecking people in his way. Whether he continues that or WWE opts for a win that appeals to nostalgia, remains to be seen.

“This is about finality,” announcer Jim Ross exclaimed at WrestleMania as a tongue-in-cheek way to let viewers know that the two superstars were on their way out. As a fan watching live at the time I believed it. Neither wrestler was coming back. But in professional wrestling, finality is a foreign concept when the right money and the desire to relive wrestling’s glory days is always on the table.