|
|
Post by eudypfohl on May 12, 2022 17:37:18 GMT -5
I understand that this was a completely different era in wrestling, one that's totally alien to the one we're in now. It was also Vince Sr's WWF, but still it just seems so unusual that they kept the belt on Backlund for something like 6 consecutive years. And even back then, in the 70s and 80s, that Howdy Doody stuff did come across as a bit boring and milquetoast.
He was a great, consistant, reliable worker. Can't take that away from Backlund, but keeping the World Title on him year after year...did it not get boring very fast? Or were fans more conditioned back then and they actually expected and were fine with him just holding onto it indefinitely
By 1980 or so...were there grumblings of getting the belt off of Backlund and onto somebody new? How did staleness not set in. It just seemed like by 80...81, why not have him drop it and chase for a while?
Am I wrong and was Backlund a great draw? Did the WWF's core audience just flat out not tire of him. As much as I like and respect the guy, squeezing a 6 year reign out of him seems like you'd really be limiting yourself as a company and testing the patience of your fans
|
|
|
|
Post by Big BosskMan on May 12, 2022 17:55:35 GMT -5
I think a lot of it had to do with Vince Sr.'s preference for wrestlers with legit athletic credentials because at the time, wrestling was still considered real by many and Backlund was at a time when superstars/entertainers were a bit far away on the horizon.
Backlund had supporters like Arnold Skaaland, who had influence with Vince Sr. He did try to break away from his All-American persona by changing his hair and ring gear towards the end of his reign.
I was maybe 9-10 during the height of Backlund's run and used to watch wrestling with my Dad, who saw it as a shoot. I don't remember him saying anything bad about Backlund.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,068
|
Post by Mozenrath on May 12, 2022 18:00:22 GMT -5
Bruno didn't want the belt anymore and Vince Sr. felt the Puerto Rican fans that Pedro Morales attracted were poorly behaved, so he wanted someone with a wholesome, American (read: white) appeal, plus Bob was an absolute beast if he wanted to be. Short of the most elite of elite wrestlers, maybe, no one was going to shoot on Bob and not get absolutely humiliated in the ring trying it.  He's, uhh, a lot stronger than he looked. He did the move to Hogan before, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on May 12, 2022 18:27:00 GMT -5
Bruno didn't want the belt anymore and Vince Sr. felt the Puerto Rican fans that Pedro Morales attracted were poorly behaved, so he wanted someone with a wholesome, American (read: white) appeal, plus Bob was an absolute beast if he wanted to be. Short of the most elite of elite wrestlers, maybe, no one was going to shoot on Bob and not get absolutely humiliated in the ring trying it. He's, uhh, a lot stronger than he looked. He did the move to Hogan before, too. My GOD that's impressive |
|
|
|
Post by Feyrhausen on May 12, 2022 18:33:43 GMT -5
From what I read in one of Tim Horners books at this point in time Vince Sr was, at least publicly, toying with the idea of rejoining the NWA as a full member. So they may have wanted a champ that was more the NWA style in the hope that their guy could be champ.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on May 12, 2022 18:44:06 GMT -5
They were waiting for VEER to take birth, debut and dethrone him, even back then.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,068
|
Post by Mozenrath on May 12, 2022 18:56:07 GMT -5
Bruno didn't want the belt anymore and Vince Sr. felt the Puerto Rican fans that Pedro Morales attracted were poorly behaved, so he wanted someone with a wholesome, American (read: white) appeal, plus Bob was an absolute beast if he wanted to be. Short of the most elite of elite wrestlers, maybe, no one was going to shoot on Bob and not get absolutely humiliated in the ring trying it. He's, uhh, a lot stronger than he looked. He did the move to Hogan before, too. My GOD that's impressive Jack Brisco apparently called him the strongest man he'd ever been in the ring with, and I remember Nash had some story of wrestling Backlund, who called, "piledriver" in the ring. Nash apparently had barely processed it when Backlund already had him upside down with hardly any input from Nash himself. |
|
Squirrel Master
Hank Scorpio
"Then the Squirrel Master came out of left field and told me I'm his bitch!"
Posts: 6,642 
|
Post by Squirrel Master on May 12, 2022 19:05:34 GMT -5
From what I remember as a young boy that no one (except Ken Patera) could match Backlund’s strength. WWWF had Bob as their strong as an ox baby face, and Patera as the slimy heel; they were polar opposites.
It’s power moves like that seen in the .gif a few posts back, that kept Backlund as Champion.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxbaker on May 12, 2022 19:07:12 GMT -5
I understand that this was a completely different era in wrestling, one that's totally alien to the one we're in now. It was also Vince Sr's WWF, but still it just seems so unusual that they kept the belt on Backlund for something like 6 consecutive years. And even back then, in the 70s and 80s, that Howdy Doody stuff did come across as a bit boring and milquetoast. He was a great, consistant, reliable worker. Can't take that away from Backlund, but keeping the World Title on him year after year...did it not get boring very fast? Or were fans more conditioned back then and they actually expected and were fine with him just holding onto it indefinitely By 1980 or so...were there grumblings of getting the belt off of Backlund and onto somebody new? How did staleness not set in. It just seemed like by 80...81, why not have him drop it and chase for a while? Am I wrong and was Backlund a great draw? Did the WWF's core audience just flat out not tire of him. As much as I like and respect the guy, squeezing a 6 year reign out of him seems like you'd really be limiting yourself as a company and testing the patience of your fans There’s a difference in time that matters a lot here. First of all, you’re not going to tire of a wrestler who only comes to your town a few times a year, if that. And he’s not doing a lot of TV matches (back then, although I didn’t have access to that territory, it was more the champ did a promo and they built up a feud — MAYBE he’d do a squash every once in a while) but mostly he was there to get you to buy a ticket to see him live. And he was presented, in that area, as the top wrestler in the world. The flashier, over-the-top character era hadn’t really arrived. They weren’t living comic book super heroes or cartoons. If you saw him live as a *wrestler* thinking it was an athletic competition, you were probably sold that he could out-wrestle anyone he faced. When Hogan got on the scene and he had held it long enough, the fans did begin to tire of him enough that VKM, having taken over his father’s company, transitioned the strap to Hogan. The other thing I’ll point out is that we are in a different age as far as attention span. You can do a bit on TV three weeks in a row advancing a storyline, less than 15 minutes total, and people will grow tired of it. In those days, you had to wait for a meal to be cooked to eat — now if you’re in line at the drive thru for 15 minutes you’re probably complaining. People in those days weren’t being bombarded with information, entertainment, clips, etc., constantly around the clock. So if a guy like Backlund came to your town you probably anticipated it for weeks and savored seeing such a master with your own eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by sungod2020 on May 15, 2022 11:25:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Celexa Bliss 54 on May 15, 2022 17:51:01 GMT -5
The WWWF (and the WWF as well until the 2000's) was a babyface company. The guy wearing the belt was almost always a fan favorite, while rulebreakers were usually transitional Champs who only held the belt for a few weeks at most (Superstar Graham and later Yokozuna being the only exceptions to that rule prior to 1996/1997). The babyface chosen to carry the company's flag was always on top for years. Bruno held it for a few months shy of eight years. Pedro had it for nearly three years, then Bruno got it for another three years and change. Backlund holding it for almost six years (*wink wink Antonio Inoki) was right along the lines of how most WWWF title reigns went. Even Hogan had it for over four years before dropping it. Savage had it for a year, then dropped it back to Hogan after turning heel. Even when the reigns got much shorter in the 90's, faces were more likely to get a long run with the title than heels were. Backlund fit the mold of what Vince Sr. looked for in a World Champion. He had real wrestling skill, plus he was deceptively strong, as shown above. The reason his reign is looked down upon is because sensibilities were changing. It was becoming cool to be bad. Piper would come along in a few years and become that heel you loved to hate but secretly wanted to love. Flair was sort of already that for JCP. Hogan got cheered because he was larger than life. Backlund was definitely not.
|
|
|
|
Post by jason1980s on May 15, 2022 18:45:40 GMT -5
Probably the ultimate answer is because Vince Sr. loved him and wanted him around as champ so long. Just like Vince Jr. keeps a belt on his guys for as long as he loves them (unless they lose their smile and give it up). Like father like son, most likely.
|
|
|
|
Post by dangerousdanpotato on May 16, 2022 5:08:01 GMT -5
This is mostly irrelevant to the main point of discussion as to why they had Backlund on top for so long, but I can't help but refute the "uninterrupted" nature of the championship run.
I remember clearly looking at WWE's own online title history around 2002 and Backlund was acknowledged as having three runs at this time (plus the 1994 reign). Maybe this done in error and they had never previously recognised these reigns, or did they retcon it later?
Anyway, I believe he lost it in a match against Greg Valentine, where the title was held up. He then won the subsequent rematch. He also lost it to Antonio Inoki, but recaptured it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sungod2020 on May 16, 2022 6:50:33 GMT -5
This is mostly irrelevant to the main point of discussion as to why they had Backlund on top for so long, but I can't help but refute the "uninterrupted" nature of the championship run. I remember clearly looking at WWE's own online title history around 2002 and Backlund was acknowledged as having three runs at this time (plus the 1994 reign). Maybe this done in error and they had never previously recognised these reigns, or did they retcon it later? Anyway, I believe he lost it in a match against Greg Valentine, where the title was held up. He then won the subsequent rematch. He also lost it to Antonio Inoki, but recaptured it. I believe this is the kayfabe reason why Inoki's reign is not recognized, according to wikipedia... "In 1979, the World Wide Wrestling Federation (WWWF) became the World Wrestling Federation (WWF). On November 30, 1979, NWF Heavyweight champion Antonio Inoki defeated Backlund in Tokushima, Japan to win the WWF title. Backlund then won a rematch on December 6. However, WWF president Hisashi Shinma declared the re-match a no contest due to interference from Tiger Jeet Singh, and Inoki remained champion. Inoki refused the title on the same day, and it was declared vacant. Backlund later defeated Bobby Duncum in a Texas death match to regain the title on December 17. Inoki's reign is not recognized by WWE in its WWF/WWE title history." As for Greg Valentine.... "Backlund's WWF Heavyweight Championship was held up after a match in New York City against Greg "the Hammer" Valentine on October 19, 1981, after a dazed referee "accidentally" gave the championship belt to Valentine as part of the storyline,[15] it constituted an interruption of Backlund's title reign. However, Backlund was billed as the WWF Heavyweight champion in other cities in the days following the controversy.[16] In the early part of the 1980s, when no promotion held nationally televised events, it was not uncommon practice to "hold up" the title in one area (to build interest in a rematch the "former" champion would win) while ignoring the situation in other parts of the territory. On November 23, Backlund pinned Valentine for the "vacant in New York only" WWF Heavyweight Championship.[17] A rematch for the title, held inside a steel cage at the Philadelphia Spectrum in January 1982, also saw Backlund emerge the winner, securing the victory when he hit a piledriver on Valentine onto the mat." Personally, I think it's easier to count it as one interrupted reign given the screwy finishes. I just wish they did that with Jeff Jarrett's and Goldust's first two IC title runs. Fabulous Moolah OTOH legitimately lost her Women's championship several times between the course of 1956 and 1984, though during that time, she went a combined amount of 41 days without the belt, and it wasn't an officially a WWF championship(it was owned by the NWA) until May 19, 1984, when Moolah sold the rights to the championship to the World Wrestling Federation (WWF, now WWE) and the title was renamed to WWF Women's Championship, so I can see how it's easier (and more impressive) to say she held the belt for 28 years. |
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on May 16, 2022 6:57:29 GMT -5
Super long reigns were just how business was done back then. Even Hogan got like 3 years on his first one.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Blowfish on May 16, 2022 9:46:13 GMT -5
That was how it was done back then. They didn't have three shows a week that broadcasted across the country or the world. You were actually going to shows to see wrestling instead of watching it on TV. You didn't see the champion as much which added value and prestige to the title. Unlike today if the champion isn't on every week, people complain. Then people complain when he is on every week.
WWE has conditioned so many fans into believing the titles are just props, but they used to mean something to the audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by dangerousdanpotato on May 16, 2022 9:55:50 GMT -5
This is mostly irrelevant to the main point of discussion as to why they had Backlund on top for so long, but I can't help but refute the "uninterrupted" nature of the championship run. I remember clearly looking at WWE's own online title history around 2002 and Backlund was acknowledged as having three runs at this time (plus the 1994 reign). Maybe this done in error and they had never previously recognised these reigns, or did they retcon it later? Anyway, I believe he lost it in a match against Greg Valentine, where the title was held up. He then won the subsequent rematch. He also lost it to Antonio Inoki, but recaptured it. I believe this is the kayfabe reason why Inoki's reign is not recognized, according to wikipedia... "In 1979, the World Wide Wrestling Federation (WWWF) became the World Wrestling Federation (WWF). On November 30, 1979, NWF Heavyweight champion Antonio Inoki defeated Backlund in Tokushima, Japan to win the WWF title. Backlund then won a rematch on December 6. However, WWF president Hisashi Shinma declared the re-match a no contest due to interference from Tiger Jeet Singh, and Inoki remained champion. Inoki refused the title on the same day, and it was declared vacant. Backlund later defeated Bobby Duncum in a Texas death match to regain the title on December 17. Inoki's reign is not recognized by WWE in its WWF/WWE title history." As for Greg Valentine.... "Backlund's WWF Heavyweight Championship was held up after a match in New York City against Greg "the Hammer" Valentine on October 19, 1981, after a dazed referee "accidentally" gave the championship belt to Valentine as part of the storyline,[15] it constituted an interruption of Backlund's title reign. However, Backlund was billed as the WWF Heavyweight champion in other cities in the days following the controversy.[16] In the early part of the 1980s, when no promotion held nationally televised events, it was not uncommon practice to "hold up" the title in one area (to build interest in a rematch the "former" champion would win) while ignoring the situation in other parts of the territory. On November 23, Backlund pinned Valentine for the "vacant in New York only" WWF Heavyweight Championship.[17] A rematch for the title, held inside a steel cage at the Philadelphia Spectrum in January 1982, also saw Backlund emerge the winner, securing the victory when he hit a piledriver on Valentine onto the mat." Personally, I think it's easier to count it as one interrupted reign given the screwy finishes. I just wish they did that with Jeff Jarrett's and Goldust's first two IC title runs. Fabulous Moolah OTOH legitimately lost her Women's championship several times between the course of 1956 and 1984, though during that time, she went a combined amount of 41 days without the belt, and it wasn't an officially a WWF championship(it was owned by the NWA) until May 19, 1984, when Moolah sold the rights to the championship to the World Wrestling Federation (WWF, now WWE) and the title was renamed to WWF Women's Championship, so I can see how it's easier (and more impressive) to say she held the belt for 28 years. Thanks! So they were essentially phantom switches that weren't acknowledged on TV (like Rockers' Tag title victory). I do wonder why they included them in their WWE.com title history, but I guess that was the early days of trying to develop more content on the site and some poor junior staffer probably just cribbed the title history from a fan site or something! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2022 10:16:46 GMT -5
That was how it was done back then. They didn't have three shows a week that broadcasted across the country or the world. You were actually going to shows to see wrestling instead of watching it on TV. You didn't see the champion as much which added value and prestige to the title. Unlike today if the champion isn't on every week, people complain. Then people complain when he is on every week. WWE has conditioned so many fans into believing the titles are just props, but they used to mean something to the audience. Even though I think every old-timer overblows the importance of Kayfabe, I absolutely believe that the world champ of your promotion had to be near the top of the list of best shooters just to avoid someone in the NWA trying to act in bad faith. So, yeah, once upon a time, the world title meant a LOT, even if it was a prop. It meant you were the man, it meant you were probably the highest paid, and it probably meant that you really were legit the baddest man in the territory. |
|
|
|
Post by oxbaker on May 16, 2022 11:55:07 GMT -5
I believe this is the kayfabe reason why Inoki's reign is not recognized, according to wikipedia... "In 1979, the World Wide Wrestling Federation (WWWF) became the World Wrestling Federation (WWF). On November 30, 1979, NWF Heavyweight champion Antonio Inoki defeated Backlund in Tokushima, Japan to win the WWF title. Backlund then won a rematch on December 6. However, WWF president Hisashi Shinma declared the re-match a no contest due to interference from Tiger Jeet Singh, and Inoki remained champion. Inoki refused the title on the same day, and it was declared vacant. Backlund later defeated Bobby Duncum in a Texas death match to regain the title on December 17. Inoki's reign is not recognized by WWE in its WWF/WWE title history." As for Greg Valentine.... "Backlund's WWF Heavyweight Championship was held up after a match in New York City against Greg "the Hammer" Valentine on October 19, 1981, after a dazed referee "accidentally" gave the championship belt to Valentine as part of the storyline,[15] it constituted an interruption of Backlund's title reign. However, Backlund was billed as the WWF Heavyweight champion in other cities in the days following the controversy.[16] In the early part of the 1980s, when no promotion held nationally televised events, it was not uncommon practice to "hold up" the title in one area (to build interest in a rematch the "former" champion would win) while ignoring the situation in other parts of the territory. On November 23, Backlund pinned Valentine for the "vacant in New York only" WWF Heavyweight Championship.[17] A rematch for the title, held inside a steel cage at the Philadelphia Spectrum in January 1982, also saw Backlund emerge the winner, securing the victory when he hit a piledriver on Valentine onto the mat." Personally, I think it's easier to count it as one interrupted reign given the screwy finishes. I just wish they did that with Jeff Jarrett's and Goldust's first two IC title runs. Fabulous Moolah OTOH legitimately lost her Women's championship several times between the course of 1956 and 1984, though during that time, she went a combined amount of 41 days without the belt, and it wasn't an officially a WWF championship(it was owned by the NWA) until May 19, 1984, when Moolah sold the rights to the championship to the World Wrestling Federation (WWF, now WWE) and the title was renamed to WWF Women's Championship, so I can see how it's easier (and more impressive) to say she held the belt for 28 years. Thanks! So they were essentially phantom switches that weren't acknowledged on TV (like Rockers' Tag title victory). I do wonder why they included them in their WWE.com title history, but I guess that was the early days of trying to develop more content on the site and some poor junior staffer probably just cribbed the title history from a fan site or something! IIRC the NWA had some of those too — like Flair or Harley would go to Australia or New Zealand and drop the strap in their first match and chase the guy who beat them throughout the tour and win it back on the last night … but the NWA never acknowledged it. In Flair’s book he talks about some match in some country where the local guy was super over and everybody thought it was all real and the arena is packed and there are armed soldiers around the ring. He was about to pin the guy cheating (as planned) and some of the soldiers took their rifles off their shoulders and he rolled the guy on top of him and took the pin and let him take the belt out of the ring because he thought best-case there would be a riot and worst-case he might not make it out alive, haha. (Also unrecognized title change.) |
|
|
|
Post by sportatorium on May 16, 2022 13:17:17 GMT -5
He was extremely popular for most of his reign, and Vince's philosophy was to have a babyface champion. Getting the belt to him from Superstar Billy Graham was a monumental feud which had the crowd solidly behind Backlund throughout. He defeated pretty much every top heel they threw at him and had fan support until the early eighties.
|
|
