Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 16:41:46 GMT -5
Has anyone ever offered up a good kayfabe reason for Bruno's or Backlund's (8 and 6 year respectively) WWF title reigns? I'm curious what it would be. Granted, a heel could assert that they were a big fish in a small pond, that the level of competition was not up to present day standards, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 16:44:38 GMT -5
their "heart" or whatever
|
|
Spider2024
Patti Mayonnaise
Dedicated 6,666th post to Irontyger
I believe in Joe Hendry.
Posts: 39,198
|
Post by Spider2024 on Apr 18, 2019 16:55:57 GMT -5
Maybe not a totally 100% kayfabe reason, but the lack of elaborate storylines in the pre-1984 era. Basically since the second golden age of wrestling dawned when Hogan's first reign sparked Hulkamania, even title feuds had to be more than about 'the challenger wants the champion's belt' which Sammartino, Backlund and all the other champs before the 80's could get away with.
Basically, the combination of more notable storylines, and the advent of weekly TV & monthly PPVs & expanding to national coverage and then worldwide coverage of a wrestling company, meant that one given champ couldn't win as many feuds consecutively as the champs before them could. Bruno could just mow down a challenger for 1-2 months straight of wrestling shows, then move on to the next challenger. The same Bruno in the modern era, even with the same high amount of popularity and fan-support, couldn't keep a world title for 7 straight years plus.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Apr 18, 2019 17:14:54 GMT -5
They were so tough, no one could beat them.
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Apr 18, 2019 18:18:33 GMT -5
They were so tough, no one could beat them. This. It keeps it simple and people believed it. Don't get complicated if there isn't a reason for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 19:30:47 GMT -5
They were so tough, no one could beat them. This. It keeps it simple and people believed it. Don't get complicated if there isn't a reason for it. That's fine, but I can't see this being a good kayfabe rationalization, since it would mean either that Bruno/Backlund were so much stronger/tougher/better than any champion we've had since OR that the quality of Bruno/Backlund's challengers was not nearly as good during their reigns.
|
|
|
Post by OVO 40 hunched over like he 80 on Apr 18, 2019 19:45:00 GMT -5
His heart or some other bullshit.
|
|
thecrusherwi
El Dandy
the Financially Responsible Man
Brawl For All
Posts: 7,648
|
Post by thecrusherwi on Apr 18, 2019 19:50:13 GMT -5
What’s the kayfabe reason for the Patriots playing in half of the last 18 Super Bowls?
|
|
|
Post by toodarkmark on Apr 18, 2019 19:51:53 GMT -5
Bruno was stronger then his opponents. Backlund was a better wrestler.
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Apr 18, 2019 19:57:06 GMT -5
Didn't Punk bring this up once in a promo late in his 400+ day title run? Something about how with his schedule he'd already defended the belt more often than Bruno ever did in his 8+ year reign.
|
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Apr 18, 2019 19:58:20 GMT -5
He was the toughest and best wrestler.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 20:00:49 GMT -5
Same Reason Floyd is undefeated, same reason GSP owned the welterweight division for years.
When you're good, you're good. If the competition can't beat you, that's on them, not you.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,037
|
Post by Mozenrath on Apr 18, 2019 20:01:49 GMT -5
Didn't Punk bring this up once in a promo late in his 400+ day title run? Something about how with his schedule he'd already defended the belt more often than Bruno ever did in his 8+ year reign. Sounds about right, and I mean, it is a plausible enough reason if one is needed. It's not like there were monthly pay-per-views or anything like that back then.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Apr 18, 2019 20:05:38 GMT -5
I mean...the business was different and there weren’t as many shows where Bruno was champ and shown all the time so people weren’t sick of them as quickly so I don’t really get the reasoning for the question as much?
Also, as someone said, he was the best. That’s the story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 21:49:18 GMT -5
Those of you answering "he was better/tougher/stronger, etc." are not really understanding the question. I'll blame myself for not elaborating enough, though some of you understood me without further elaboration.
I'll buy the Punk reasoning that Bruno didn't defend his belt as much, if that's actually true. They didn't have PPV's back then but they did have the big monthly Garden shows.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Apr 18, 2019 23:35:49 GMT -5
Didn't Punk bring this up once in a promo late in his 400+ day title run? Something about how with his schedule he'd already defended the belt more often than Bruno ever did in his 8+ year reign. Sounds about right, and I mean, it is a plausible enough reason if one is needed. It's not like there were monthly pay-per-views or anything like that back then. it's also entirely false. He didn't defend it on Television but he was running house shows pretty much daily. and there is no "kayfabe" reason why they held them that long... or explanation of why compared ot modern days being as short as they are. The only real Kayfabe bit is... because Bruno was superhuman... that's about it.
|
|
|
Post by BRAINFADE on Apr 19, 2019 0:41:37 GMT -5
The same reason that any dynasty run happens in any sport, a team or an individual is simply better than the competition. Kayfabe was super protected back then, and Bruno and Backlund were simply portrayed as being better than whoever came up against them.
And that's it. No other reason.
|
|
|
Post by David-Arquette was in WCW 2000 on Apr 19, 2019 1:03:59 GMT -5
This. It keeps it simple and people believed it. Don't get complicated if there isn't a reason for it. That's fine, but I can't see this being a good kayfabe rationalization, since it would mean either that Bruno/Backlund were so much stronger/tougher/better than any champion we've had since OR that the quality of Bruno/Backlund's challengers was not nearly as good during their reigns. The level of competition stepping up, along with the pressures of being a Champion in the modern era.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,019
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Apr 19, 2019 4:50:25 GMT -5
Those of you answering "he was better/tougher/stronger, etc." are not really understanding the question. I'll blame myself for not elaborating enough, though some of you understood me without further elaboration. I'll buy the Punk reasoning that Bruno didn't defend his belt as much, if that's actually true. They didn't have PPV's back then but they did have the big monthly Garden shows. But then there's the "real life" argument for that, Floyd Mayweather has been undefeated since 1996, Rocky Marciano and Joe Calzaghe retired undefeated, because they were all just that good. If you want one, you could say that because wrestling was more territorial, Bruno was the best in New York, but didn't face a lot of potential challengers as they were in other areas. The increased globalisation of wrestling has made it harder for any one guy to be champion because he'll have to face competitors from around the world, not just anyone who happens to be in the North East at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Feyrhausen on Apr 19, 2019 5:05:23 GMT -5
Those of you answering "he was better/tougher/stronger, etc." are not really understanding the question. I'll blame myself for not elaborating enough, though some of you understood me without further elaboration. I'll buy the Punk reasoning that Bruno didn't defend his belt as much, if that's actually true. They didn't have PPV's back then but they did have the big monthly Garden shows. But then there's the "real life" argument for that, Floyd Mayweather has been undefeated since 1996, Rocky Marciano and Joe Calzaghe retired undefeated, because they were all just that good. If you want one, you could say that because wrestling was more territorial, Bruno was the best in New York, but didn't face a lot of potential challengers as they were in other areas. The increased globalisation of wrestling has made it harder for any one guy to be champion because he'll have to face competitors from around the world, not just anyone who happens to be in the North East at the time. Perfect answer. Back in the day there were a lot of companies so the best guys were all split up. Bruno had to face some of the best now and then and won because he was also one of the best. The rest of the time he was facing less than the best meaning he was rested for when he got truly challenged. When WWE became 1 of few more top guys became concentrated meaning whoever was champion got challenged more and had shorter reigns. Also a good reason why Bruno had such a long title reign vs guys like Lou Thesz and Harley Race. They traveled around facing the best everywhere while Bruno stayed in his territory and waited for them to come to him.
|
|