Bob Backlund

[JerryvonKramer]

It's certainly going to be something I'm going to keep an eye out for when we watch late-70s Bruno.

 

I IMAGINE there are Bruno vs. Ivan Koloff matches which are 80%+ Bruno because Ivan worked underneath alot and Bruno worked dominant. The Bruno we saw in 80 showed vulnerability like Bob hasn't shown at all yet, but maybe 75, 76, 77 Bruno is a different beast. Let's see.

[shoe]

It's certainly going to be something I'm going to keep an eye out for when we watch late-70s Bruno.

 

I IMAGINE there are Bruno vs. Ivan Koloff matches which are 80%+ Bruno because Ivan worked underneath alot and Bruno worked dominant. The Bruno we saw in 80 showed vulnerability like Bob hasn't shown at all yet, but maybe 75, 76, 77 Bruno is a different beast. Let's see.

 

Sometimes. He did guzzle Volkoff,took a lot of the Valentine match. He still took a lot of the Larry Z matches. I do see Bob selling in his matches, and we've clearly disagree on that.

[Ricky Jackson]

I already spoiled this on Titans several shows ago, but Bruno dominates Koloff and Hansen in MSG cage matches worse than Bob dominated Harley.

[jdw]

It's certainly going to be something I'm going to keep an eye out for when we watch late-70s Bruno.

 

I IMAGINE there are Bruno vs. Ivan Koloff matches which are 80%+ Bruno because Ivan worked underneath alot and Bruno worked dominant. The Bruno we saw in 80 showed vulnerability like Bob hasn't shown at all yet, but maybe 75, 76, 77 Bruno is a different beast. Let's see.

 

Sometimes. He did guzzle Volkoff,took a lot of the Valentine match. He still took a lot of the Larry Z matches. I do see Bob selling in his matches, and we've clearly disagree on that.

 

I listed the times for the draw with Muraco.

 

The only real "control" section of the first Backlund-Hansen is Stan's, which is seven minutes after a hot two and a half minutes going back and forth. Once Bob ends Stan's control section, they're pretty much picking things up and working towards the finish... for about 8 minutes with double juice, big spots, brawling and the ref checking the juice.

 

We could do this with a lot of matches. I suspect that if we pop in the Bob-Greg draw we'd find Greg having his control sections and Bob selling. They can't fill 60 without it, and I doubt people like Dylan would like it if it was just Bob eating Greg up. In fact, I don't like their return match that year, and it's largely because Greg didn't seem interested in the match, so his performance in the draw (which I saw years later) had to have struck me as a big positive if I dug it as much as I did. Of course since it's a 70s match rather than an 80s one, I didn't spend several thousand words writing it up.

 

Does Bob dominate some opponents? Sure. Does he sell? Yep, a good deal. Depends on the opponents and the match. But that's a pretty common thing in the WWF. It was a Face promotion.

 

John

[JerryvonKramer]

My problem with Bob isn't his lack of bumping or selling, it's his lack of vulnerability when doing either of those things.

[WingedEagle]

I actually just watched the Backlund-Valentine draw from '79 and rematch over the weekend. WW(W)F pre-mid 80s is a pretty big blind spot for me outside of some random selections here or there. Both matches were really, really different from what I'm used to and felt like ages ago. That's not a bad thing, just very different.

 

Headlocks may be a rest spot most of the time nowadays, and they may have been one here as well. But they worked them in the draw and there was a tangible struggle that made them matter beyond filling time. I didn't love the draw, but I did like it and thought they did a great job keeping things interesting and compelling. I'm not a fan of Valentine doing his best Flair taking face first bumps so frequently. Not sure the best way to describe this, but it was almost like after going years of watching incredible TV with special effects, characters, sets, plot twists and HD, here was a basic, simple script that told a story. Not an amazing, classic story, but something very simple with a beginning, middle and end. Here's a 60 minute match with elbows, headlocks and maybe a vertical suplex and atomic drop as high spots that gets the job done.

 

Really looking forward to more of Backlund and this era.

[jdw]

My problem with Bob isn't his lack of bumping or selling, it's his lack of vulnerability when doing either of those things.

Odd. I thought Hulk was less vulnerable as Champ than Bob. It never matter how much Hulk sold, you know the shaking of the head, blocking the punch, wagging the finger & Hulking Up was going to eventually come.

 

With Bob, there were different paths and options. He sold the shit out of the chair by Muraco in their 1981 MSG TDM, and you could sense the fans were kind of wondering where things would go from there. Did he come back and win? Sure... it was an MSG blow off match, and Face Dynastic Champs lost those matches... well... never. On the flip, in the first Slaughter match in Philly in 1981, Sarge kind of kicks the crap out of Bob, Bob hits a big ass gusher and sells the shit out of things. Sarge actually gets the "win".

 

Vulnerable in losing the belt?

 

By the end of Bob's reign, the average reign of a Dynastic WWF Champ was 4.9 years. How long is that? Hulk didn't even get to that number in his first reign, which sure is heck wasn't short.

 

WWF Fans didn't really go to matches worrying their heads off a lot about the Champ losing the title. Well, unless they were very dumb and couldn't do math and couldn't remember what happened in the past.

 

The WWF didn't sell Vulnerable in their Champs. They sold their Champs fighting the latest Heel to come into town calling out the Champ, and the Champ beating them.

[shoe]

My problem with Bob isn't his lack of bumping or selling, it's his lack of vulnerability when doing either of those things.

.

 

The WWF didn't sell Vulnerable in their Champs. They sold their Champs fighting the latest Heel to come into town calling out the Champ, and the Champ beating them.

 

 

Exactly. This how the territory worked.

[JerryvonKramer]

And so my conclusion is that I don't like how the WWF booked their champ. Not a style I care for at all.

 

I think Hogan showed shit tons more sympathy during heel beatdown sections than Bob Backlund though.

[shoe]

And so my conclusion is that I don't like how the WWF booked their champ. Not a style I care for at all.

 

I think Hogan showed shit tons more sympathy during heel beatdown sections than Bob Backlund though.

 

We've known that for months. Your Hogan point might be on point. I think Hogan had more charisma so it seemed like he showed more sympathy. I think he just connected to the crowd better.

[JerryvonKramer]

Steamboat as US champ (70s) would be an interesting person to compare Bob to. He can show vulnerability and make OTHER PEOPLE look good while maintaining his popularity and position as champ and getting over the idea of him as a world-class wrestler. Bob was solely in the business of making Bob look good.

[shoe]

Steamboat as US champ (70s) would be an interesting person to compare Bob to. He can show vulnerability and make OTHER PEOPLE look good while maintaining his popularity and position as champ and getting over the idea of him as a world-class wrestler. Bob was solely in the business of making Bob look good.

 

Steamboat as US champ (70s) would be an interesting person to compare the WWF champ to. He can show vulnerability and make OTHER PEOPLE look good while maintaining his popularity and position as champ and getting over the idea of him as a world-class wrestler. The WWF champ was solely in the business of making The WWF Champ look good.

[JerryvonKramer]

Steamboat as US champ (70s) would be an interesting person to compare Bob to. He can show vulnerability and make OTHER PEOPLE look good while maintaining his popularity and position as champ and getting over the idea of him as a world-class wrestler. Bob was solely in the business of making Bob look good.

 

Steamboat as US champ (70s) would be an interesting person to compare the WWF champ to. He can show vulnerability and make OTHER PEOPLE look good while maintaining his popularity and position as champ and getting over the idea of him as a world-class wrestler. The WWF champ was solely in the business of making The WWF Champ look good.

 

No I'm not having that because Hogan made his opponents look good and I've not seen Bruno as champ. And Bruno made Larry look good in that feud.

 

I'd take Hogan as a worker over Bob at this moment in time.

[shoe]

I haven't watched Hogan 80's in a while So I'll wait to make that claim. Though I will say Bob>Hogan.

[Dylan Waco]

I could see a real argument for Hogan over Bob

[goodhelmet]

I will wait until the 1980s set is finished before making that judgment. I think Bob has more high end matches than Hogan and both have annoying traits. However, I have really enjoyed 1984-1986 Hogan alot but alot of the things that Parv is complaining about with Backlund I don't think are a problem at all.

[shoe]

I could see a real argument for Hogan over Bob

 

To me it boils down to what style of working you like better. Like I said I need to revisit Hogan. I think Bob will have more high end stuff. I think Hogan's formula is more consistant. It also lends itself well to bad workers in the sense if they don't screw it up they'll have a decent match. While a good worker can mess with the formula a bit a make it better. Of course their are exceptions.

[shoe]

alot but alot of the things that Parv is complaining about with Backlund I don't think are a problem at all.

 

100% agree.

[jdw]

Backlund-Hogan is interesting.

 

I've liked Hogan's matches far more than I expected to when rewatching/watching WWF 80s stuff. To the point of taking some grief for pushing the notion that Hogan was a very "effective" worker at a time when he was still getting shit on.

 

In turn, liked Backlund match far more than I ever expected when watching them, to the point that I was one of the early ones point out that he was actually a "good" worker, and took a lot of grief for it.

 

 

Stylistically they're different, and the type of matches they worked were wildly different... though there is a commonality to the work as well (as others have pointed out in how WWF Dynastic Face Champ works relative to heels). Makes a comp tough, though both were extremely effective in connecting with their fans during matches, and getting the crowd going.

 

John

[JerryvonKramer]

^ I agree with just about everything in the above post.

 

Also, I'm getting sick of debating Backlund so I'm going to try to be positive about him for two whole months and try to keep that going until we reach 1982.

[peachchaos]

Side-track: Roop vs. Backlund

 

Did the Battle of the Bobs ever go down?

 

Seems like an interesting amateur match-up (legit vs. gimmick).

[khawk20]

I always felt Backlund could drop the strap at anytime, to almost any challenger he was wrestling. All-American Boy Wonder vs. Super Monster Heel/Evil Wrestling Genius always left an element of "what could happen" on the ring apron, and Bob leading or dominating matches against his opponents never dispelled that vibe.

 

Hogan, on the other hand, I never felt could lose to anyone he was thrown in with. You had to learn to enjoy his matches for what they were and what was going to happen pretty quickly to make the match work in your head.

 

The better a heel challenger did against Hogan, even in defeat, was something that could elevate his status moving forward after the Hogan series. The Savage series in MSG is a good example.

 

No matter how well a heel challenger did against Bob, I don't think it ever helped them get over after the series was completed. Look at all of Greg Valentine's series' against Bob, where the title even got held up once in 1981. I don't think those matches did anything to elevate Greg after they were done in the eyes of the fans as he was just another failed challenger.

 

A lot of that is the ladder-style of booking during Bob's reign (climb to the top and challenge, lose, then climb back down and lose to Pedro, Putski, et al before leaving). The design was for the heel to be at his peak when he challenged Bob. Same thinking wasn't in effect so much with Hogan because nobody really expected a challenger to beat him. After the Hogan challenge, guys could still be strong against the level below Hulk.

 

Given that they were keeping everyone for long periods of time in the Hogan era, it was the only thing they could do. The Bob-Style ladder wasn't really feasible.

[jdw]

The post-challenge thing for Hogan Opponents and Backlund Opponents is an interesting one.

 

I think there's a lot of truth in the Backlund side, though (i) there are exceptions, and (ii) it might be an era thing.

 

On the exceptions, there aren't a ton but some come to mind.

 

Patera continued to be a strong heel through the rest of the year, with the Atlas feud (which sadly didn't get an MSG or Philly match) and the Bruno matches being pretty good. The Pedro feud was limited in terms of quality by Pedro, but it was over.

 

Muraco's first run was focused on Bob: he got the IC title from Pedro to build him up, and then dropped it back to Pedro when he'd run his course with Bob. On the other hand... the *started* his push in 1983 the same way: take the IC from Pedro to set him up for Bob. But once the Bob feud ran it's course, Muraco stayed pretty much the top heel in the WWF with the feuds against Rocky and Snuka. It didn't hurt him, and perhaps helped him as he really got over in 1983.

 

Patterson had life after Backlund, though a large part of that was going face against Patera. That's the interesting thing of some post-challenge guys: Patterson (1979 feud) turned face, Snuka (1982) turned face, Sarge (1983) turned face. Patterson got over very well, while Snuka and Sarge got over really well.

 

But those are a pair of exceptions, and a trio of turn-induced exceptions. If you look through the list of MSG and Philly challengers, it's not a lot of guys who carved out strong slots on cards after their run with Bob.

 

Which gets to the other side: a fair amount of this is the era.

 

Ivan came in, challenged, dropped down to a pair with others, had some renewal of the old feud with Bruno, and then moved to other territories. He came back, and the same thing happened.

 

Valentine came in to face Bob in 1979, moved down, had that feud with Strongbow, had some stuff with Bruno, then went back to the Carolinas. He came back in 1981, faced Bob, moved down to Pedro, farted around a bit, then went back to the Carolinas.

 

Slaughter came to the WWF in 1980, did some stuff with Bob, did some stuff with Pedro, worked with Andre, worked with Bruno, had the feud with Patterson and then went back to the Carolinas. He was pushed hard there, then came back for another run with Backlund in 1983... and by the time that run finished, the world changed.

 

A lot of challengers are just passing through, such as Blackwell, Brower, Great Hossien, Duncum, Hansen, Khan, Mosca, Adonis, etc. It very much was the territorial days vibe of being brought in, built up to draw on top, then moved down and out. There wasn't always the incentive to "sustain" a top heel past drawing with Bob. If they had a secondary feud like Valentine vs Strongbow, they'd give a reason to heat it up. If it was Valentine vs Dom or Valentine vs Garea, there really isn't the incentive to go balls out on it.

 

Hogan in the next one...

[jdw]

People coming off Hogan challenges was also a bit mixed.

 

Savage did really well, but he also was Savage. He was just one of those guys that no matter how many times Hogan beat him, it didn't seem to kill him until perhaps the Buster Douglas one. Even after that, Savage remained over, but his stuff like Savage-Flair and Savage-Jake didn't really draw well despite what we think were good/memorable angles/storylines.

 

You'd have Backland-esque examples like Big Bossman, who got "over" to a big degree with his Hogan feud, and stayed "over" with his face turn. I use quotes because we all know Bossman was an over and well remembered wrestler from the era, and of all the cartoon characters of the era, is one of the few that really overcame it. That said, he never drew again like he did with Hogan, and really didn't have any high on the card feuds/matches in that first run that stand out as being Big. The run with Hogan helped him, and the turn did as well. But Hogan was Hogan when it came to drawing, and he never got that same thing again.

 

In the other direction...

 

On Orndorff's first run, after the initial jobs to Hogan what got/kept him over to a degree was Piper: first with him, then the unending feud against him. He was spinning his wheels to a degree after that, but the company had The Turn in the works by June 1986. Orndorff was one of Hogan's best/strongest opponents in his 1986 run. He had nothing major after that.

 

Funk and Kamala had pretty much nothing after Hogan. Bundy was never really the same after Wrestlemania, and you almost get the sense that Vince knew something since that feud wasn't as big around the horn as you'd think. Race was something of a throwaway feud, so it's hard to rate. OMG didn't get anything out of the feud with Hogan, and quickly got repackaged into a comedy heel.

 

Then there are some oddballs...

 

Dibiase is tricky. He got elevated opposite Hogan, but the Screw Job + Buying The Title + Macho Feud had a storyline path that transitioned/sustained Ted past Hogan. He stuck around the WWF for years after the Macho feud, but he pretty much faded down the cards similar to a Backlund challenger. Since it was the post-territory days, they did more to keep him over as a wrestler/character, so he got feuds like with Dusty and Virgil, and got the Tag Titles. But his really strong main event run was 1987-88 against Hogan and then Savage, pretty much the title related stuff. They oddly didn't try to re-heat in a major way against Warrior in 1990 or against Bret in 1992/93. So... it's hard. The stuff with Hogan, especially The Double Hebners, made him a national star. But like Bossman, he dropped down and stuck around.

 

There were a number of "big men" like Studd who would bounce around between Hogan and Andre, and were to a degree kept strong due to that. When they ran their course, they were of next to no value to the company and faded (Bundy to a degree).

 

Piper... who knows what to make of him. Piper was pushed strongly as a heel before getting paired with Hogan, there was a ton invested in him rather than being brought in specifically to point towards Hogan. He had the Snuka thing, which went on forever even with Jimmy zoning in and out. The feud with Hogan was just odd as there never was that clear blow off with Hogan beating him. They also didn't face each other in singles as much we all think. But they did have the two big matches in 1985, and Piper then transitioned from that into the unending feud with Orndorff. Then the movies came. There really isn't an equiv for Backlund like that, unless it was Larry Z: a ton invested in the Bruno feud, an odd feud with Bob, and no real blow off to it. Larry and Piper were both quirky about their status, and left before we could see long term plans. Piper certainly wasn't hurt by his association with Hogan, and it was one of the things that made him iconic in the era along with The Pit.

 

Hogan looks a bit different from Backlund in this regard because (i) the era change made the WWF keep guys longer as "part of the show", and (ii) Savage. The company was invested to a degree in keeping guys, moving them around the 3 crews they ran, keeping them over at least as "part of the product" even if it was akin to them keeping Koko over.

[shoe]

Then there are some oddballs...

 

Dibiase is tricky. He got elevated opposite Hogan, but the Screw Job + Buying The Title + Macho Feud had a storyline path that transitioned/sustained Ted past Hogan. He stuck around the WWF for years after the Macho feud, but he pretty much faded down the cards similar to a Backlund challenger. Since it was the post-territory days, they did more to keep him over as a wrestler/character, so he got feuds like with Dusty and Virgil, and got the Tag Titles. But his really strong main event run was 1987-88 against Hogan and then Savage, pretty much the title related stuff. They oddly didn't try to re-heat in a major way against Warrior in 1990 or against Bret in 1992/93. So... it's hard. The stuff with Hogan, especially The Double Hebners, made him a national star. But like Bossman, he dropped down and stuck around.

 

With Dibiase their was always the story of this would be the gimmick Vince would use for himself if he was a wrestler. So Ted had that to keep him in the mix as opposed to a Terry Funk type of wrestler for the WWF.