Bob Backlund

[JerryvonKramer]

90 we have to write off because Warrior was champ for most of it and Hogan worked almost exclusively against Mr Perfect, Earthquake or Dino Bravo

 

1991

 

Supervillains:

 

Sgt. Slaughter, Flair, Heenan

 

Villains of the month:

 

Earthquake*, Dino Bravo*, The Undertaker

 

One-shots:

 

Col. Mustafa, The Warlord, Typhoon

 

Chumps:

 

none!

 

Let's stop there.

 

*Warrior was champ

[thebrainfollower]

89 Hogan had a one shot vs Honky on SNME.

[thebrainfollower]

By 91 I would argue Heenan's no longer a supervillain. He's done as a manager in May and his only feud prior to that was Bossman. The whole year seems set up to reduce his importance as a villain to get his transition to broadcast journalist ready.

[Loss]

I just wanted to post to let everyone know that there are individual threads now for all Bob Backlund set matches in the new Match Discussion Archive section of this board (previously the yearbooks section). No content there yet, but feel free to get it started.

[JerryvonKramer]

By 91 I would argue Heenan's no longer a supervillain. He's done as a manager in May and his only feud prior to that was Bossman. The whole year seems set up to reduce his importance as a villain to get his transition to broadcast journalist ready.

He's there almost exclusively for his role in Flair's run.

[Matt D]

I just wanted to post to let everyone know that there are individual threads now for all Bob Backlund set matches in the new Match Discussion Archive section of this board (previously the yearbooks section). No content there yet, but feel free to get it started.

Neither here nor there, but we'll have to make some call about double posting. Do we keep using the microscope threads as central repositories? Do we use the new EVERYTHING threads? Do we double post things?

[Loss]

Can you ask that question in the thread in the Announcements thread? I don't want to derail this one. Thanks.

[jdw]

More later but I want to say the Ted 87 stuff was before he debuted on tv. I'm on my phone so can't look it up but suspect they took place in Texas or Watts country.

Ted's first vignette aired on the 06/27/87 Superstars. He would be on tv all over the place for two months before his first match with Hogan on 08/23/87. His Hogan matches weren't limited to Watts country.

 

In one of the other posts, you're off on when the major storyline started. The 11/28/87 Superstars was when Ted said he was going to buy the belt. That came after they moved past the "test match" stage in Aug-Oct to working more regularly in November after the Hogan-Khan series ended (which as I listed above was the other half of Hogan matches in their first half of the Hogan-OMG series going around the horn).

 

John

[jdw]

Looking at your classifications of various wrestlers, I'm not sure if there's anything terribly productive in weighing in line by line other than to say that I don't agree with a lot of it. Just brief examples:

 

* I don't see a great deal of different between SuperVillan Orndorff in 1984 and 1985 with Villain of the Month Savage in 1986

 

* I don't think 1986/87 Kamala is terribly analogous with 1987 Race, certainly not 1987 Herc, and 1987 Khan is questionable

 

* "perennial threat, a live and present force of evil in the company, a top heel who will keep coming back for more" is a bit of a problem when describing Muraco in 1985, failing to describe Savage in 1986, kind of a problem for Orndorff in 1986 since he never came back after that, Bundy's run with Hogan was surprisingly less than any of us would think and he never amounted to much after that... etc.

 

They're challengers. Some got huge pushes like Paul in 1986. Some did a hell of a lot more box office than anyone would have thought like Kamala. Some are kind of "WTF?", like all those challenges Savage got in 1987 after droping the IC Title and not really having a serious build up towards Hogan. Some were "favorite opponents" like Studd, always a safe opponent to run out if there wasn't a major storyline going on. Etc.

 

John

[shoe]

Also when classifying people as villain, super villain etc. I don't think you're giving enough credit to say the Managers who would more fit the super villain role. I mean in the 70's you had the 3 wisemen. Then 84 till I guess 92ish you had Heenan, Hart, Slick etc. Their are exceptions like Ted, but he had Virgil on the outside .

[JerryvonKramer]

Looking at your classifications of various wrestlers, I'm not sure if there's anything terribly productive in weighing in line by line other than to say that I don't agree with a lot of it. Just brief examples:

 

* I don't see a great deal of different between SuperVillan Orndorff in 1984 and 1985 with Villain of the Month Savage in 1986

 

* I don't think 1986/87 Kamala is terribly analogous with 1987 Race, certainly not 1987 Herc, and 1987 Khan is questionable

 

* "perennial threat, a live and present force of evil in the company, a top heel who will keep coming back for more" is a bit of a problem when describing Muraco in 1985, failing to describe Savage in 1986, kind of a problem for Orndorff in 1986 since he never came back after that, Bundy's run with Hogan was surprisingly less than any of us would think and he never amounted to much after that... etc.

 

They're challengers. Some got huge pushes like Paul in 1986. Some did a hell of a lot more box office than anyone would have thought like Kamala. Some are kind of "WTF?", like all those challenges Savage got in 1987 after droping the IC Title and not really having a serious build up towards Hogan. Some were "favorite opponents" like Studd, always a safe opponent to run out if there wasn't a major storyline going on. Etc.

 

John

I think there are loads of areas in which you might quibble with one or the other. There were lots of margin calls. The difficulty is that often the "super villains" weren't facing the champ but doing their own shit elsewhere on the card. Savage in 86 is an example. DiBiase for most of his run.

 

So you get situations where your de facto "number 1 heel" is not tied up in a feud with the champ who is facing the likes of Studd or Kamala or whoever instead.

 

I still think that's generally how the promotion ran.

[JerryvonKramer]

Also when classifying people as villain, super villain etc. I don't think you're giving enough credit to say the Managers who would more fit the super villain role. I mean in the 70's you had the 3 wisemen. Then 84 till I guess 92ish you had Heenan, Hart, Slick etc. Their are exceptions like Ted, but he had Virgil on the outside .

I think the Three Wise Men had more parity than Heenan, Hart and Slick where Heenan was always clearly number #1 and Hart was number #2 with Fuji / Slick bringing in shittier challenges.

 

Arguably Slick was approaching top manager status during the Twin Towers stuff and possibly Hart during the Earthquake run in 90. We did this in another thread somewhere but generally:

 

Wizard = Heenan

Albano = Hart

Blassie = Slick / Fuji

 

But I don't think you could say Wizard was clear #1 out of the three wise men.

[jdw]

I think there are loads of areas in which you might quibble with one or the other. There were lots of margin calls. The difficulty is that often the "super villains" weren't facing the champ but doing their own shit elsewhere on the card. Savage in 86 is an example. DiBiase for most of his run.

I think that was one of the items I mentioned:

 

* I don't see a great deal of different between SuperVillan Orndorff in 1984 and 1985 with Villain of the Month Savage in 1986

In your 1986 post, you have Savage as a Villian of the Month rather than a SV. Late-1985/1986 Savage relative to Hogan wasn't terribly different than 1984/85 Orndorff that you have listed in those years as a Super Villian. Relative to the promotion, Late-1985/1986 Savage was different - he had more stuff going on outside of Hogan, while Orndorff didn't really until going face and having the big feud with Piper.

 

It's a reason why I have problems with Buckets. 1986 Savage is somewhat similar to 1984-85 heel Orndorff relative to his program with Hogan but quite different in terms of his other programs, while in turn not remotely similar to 1986 Orndorff's program with Hogan.

 

 

So you get situations where your de facto "number 1 heel" is not tied up in a feud with the champ who is facing the likes of Studd or Kamala or whoever instead.

I don't even worry too much about concepts like Number 1 Heel with the WWF in that period. Orndorff was the #1 heel for six months, then it was over and he never was terribly relevant in the company again. Savage had stretches where you'd point to him as the #1 heel, some because he was up to something massive (Mega Powers break up), and other times because no one else really was a clear #1 and Savage just happened to be sustaining his years long push (kinda sorta post 1987 Mania where no one really was heated up Huge for Hogan).

 

I don't know how terribly useful the trying to cram folks into round holes and square holes is. Example:

 

Was Kamala a Super Villan or a Villan of the Month?

 

I don't know, and I'm not sure how relevant it is. More interesting, and important to know, is that his feud with Hogan drew big money, in some cities breaking the records just set by Hogan-Orndorff.

 

When pondering that, trying to analyze why and give it some though, does it matter whether he's a SV or a VotM or some such other thing?

 

Not really. It's probably much more important to consider:

 

* the WWF was really hot at that moment

* the Hogan-Orndorff feud had been white hot

* Hogan was white hot coming off the Orndorff feud

* the WWF was in a stretch of getting over Hogan's primary opponents very well:

- Savage then Bundy (for a short period) then Orndorff then Kamala then Andre

* the WWF was a little less successful post-Mania in all of that (i.e. things didn't draw as strongly, and opponents weren't as strongly over)

 

So if we're going to ponder why Kamala drew, the SV and VotM doesn't really matter a great deal. That the product was hot and over, and that they were on a good role of getting people hot and over, and that Hogan was so over that things were through the roof... that really is the more important thing to consider.

 

Dittos the #1 heel thing. One looks at 1987 and it doesn't really matter or come into consideration other than (i) Andre leading into Mania, (ii) Andre at Survivor, and (iii) the churning after Survivor of Ted and the belt. But that's like 4-5 months of the year.

 

Anyway, going back to the original question / thoughts... I'm still saying that the booking around Hogan was pretty stew-ish for much 1987 rather than super clear and focused. The clarity of Orndorff --> Kamala --> Andre washed out fast, and to a degree we were back in the foggy nature of 1984-85 again.

 

 

I still think that's generally how the promotion ran.

I don't really think Vince & Co. thought on those terms. :/

[Dwide Schrude]

I really liked Maria Mennounos introduction speech for Backlund at last year's HOF. I had no idea she was that close with Backlund and knew so much about his career. It was very touching and came from the heart and she talked about some things I hadn't known about Backlund prior.

 

Much better in contrast to Captain Kirk giving a rehearsed speech about Jerry Lawler that was centered around a forgettable segment of Raw where Lawler put him over.

[goodhelmet]

The tragic thing about that Lawler segment was that Lawler wanted the great Lance Russell to induct him.

[claw64]

Re: Backlund vs Roop

 

I've probably posted this on another board possibly KKKlassics. Backlund faced Roop many, many times in tag team matches. The most important one from a title standpoint was

 

6/29/76 Tampa, FL @ Fort Homer Hesterly Armory
Uvalde Slim beat Southern Champion The Assassin dq
King Curtis & Ray Candy beat Pak Song & Missouri Mauler
Jack Brisco beat Bob Orton Jr
Steve Keirn & Bob Backlund beat Bob Roop & Bob Orton Sr to win Florida Tag Title
Ray Stevens beat Greg Valentine dq
Mike Graham beat Alex Perez
Raul Mata beat Jim Dalton

 

Keirn and Backlund as partners feuding with Roop, Orton Sr. and sometimes Orton Jr. Keirn and Backlund evntually lost the FTT to the Hollywood Blondes Buddy Roberts and Jerry Brown.

 

Here's one Roop vs Backlund singles match I found.

 

10/25/76 West Palm Beach, FL @ Auditorium
Steel Cage Match
Jack Brisco & Jerry Brisco beat Bob Orton Sr & Bob Orton Jr
Bob Backlund beat Bob Roop
Oki Shikina vs Ray Candy
George McCreary vs Hiro Matsuda
Jim Dalton vs Don Serrano
Winston vs Sonny Myers

[claw64]

Backlund even wrestled Billy Robinson early in his 1976 Florida run. The first Backlund match I remember seeing as a youngster was this one.

 

1/3/76 Moline TV
Pampero Firpo beat Paul Perschmann
Bobby Duncum beat Peter Lee
Larry Hennig beat Jos Leduc
Nick Bockwinkel beat Frank Hill
Greg Gagne & Jim Brunzell beat Dick Reynolds & Bob Backlund

 

Jim Melby does not have this card listed in his Minneapolis/St. Paul record book but it likely aired in the Twin Cities two or three weeks earlier. The Moline TV card comes from the results collection of Joyce Paustian aka vcawdia from Kayfabe Memories.

 

Backlund did not impress me at all during that time period. He was the typical boring amateur wrestler type guy Verne liked to use. Another guy from the same time period that was just as boring was Khosrow Vaziri. Bland personality. No charisma. Decent in ring work. I was shocked when I later read in the mags that Backlund won the Missouri State Title and even more shocked when Bob won the WWWF Title from SBG. I was hard for me to conceive boring Bob actually could win a title. I was unaware of his runs in Amarillo,Florida and Georgia at the time. I eventually accepted Backlund as the WWWF Champion due to the fact he held the title so long and beat so many big name heels.

 

I loved The Mister Bob Backlund gimmick from a character standpoint. Hated his AWA/PWUSA run post W(WWF).

[rainmakerrtv]

Hey, Buddy Rose! Was that before or after he gave the AWA title to Nick Bockwinkel?

[claw64]

Hey, Buddy Rose! Was that before or after he gave the AWA title to Nick Bockwinkel?

 

After.

 

11/8/75 St Paul, MN @ Civic Center

Referee Paul Perschmann

Nick Bockwinkel beat Verne Gagne to win the AWA Title after Bobby Duncum interfered

Pampero Firpo no contest Baron Von Raschke

Billy Robinson beat Kim Duk dq

Greg Gagne & Jim Brunzell beat Bobby Duncum & Buddy Wolff

Jos Leduc beat Don Wade

Att: 6,322

[funkdoc]

seeing jerry's posts about backlund and not liking his kind of selling makes me think he's missing important elements of his appeal at the time. i'm a big american sports guy, so i think i can explain this...

 

first off, when you look at wrestling in this era, i think it's far more productive to compare it to sports than to cartoons or comic books since it presented itself as a sport before hulkamania. even when fans knew it was fake, they were still looking for the same kinds of stories and moral lessons you would get from sports.

 

see, people see sports as a tremendous influence on their kids, a morality play where wins and losses should serve the same purpose as aesop's fables. hard work should beat natural talent that doesn't work at it, a team that's friends with each other should beat a team where everyone hates each other, etc. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN is arguably the biggest reason everyone gets so up in arms over issues like steroids today.

 

so when you look at it from this angle, i don't think it should be hard to see why scrappiness is HUUUUUUUUUUGE in sports. it is one of the absolute most important qualities in the eyes of the fans, period, as always trying your hardest and never, ever giving up is supposed to get you ahead in society; in short, people want their kids to grow up to be scrappy-doo!

 

there's another interesting bit of context here regarding backlund...during the time he first became a major player in wrestling, pete rose was still one of the best players in major-league baseball. you probably know pete rose from his wrestlemania appearances at least, but he's far more famous for his all-time great baseball career. most relevantly to this discussion, pete rose was basically scrappy-doo IRL; his nickname was Charlie Hustle, as he would always run hard even when it was pointless and give maximum effort all around. i am not exaggerating when i say that pete rose may have received more gushing praise from sportswriters during his career than any athlete in history - in their eyes this was THE one guy in all of sports who Played The Right Way. this has been somewhat forgotten today since we learned he was hanging around drug dealers and gambling on his own team, but back then you would be hard-pressed to find a public figure people would rather have as their child's role model.

 

hell, pete rose once ran right over a catcher to score in a completely meaningless exhibition game. the catcher in question (ray fosse) suffered a nasty injury that singlehandedly ruined a potential hall of fame career. you think anyone cared? heck no, that was just how Charlie Hustle did things, gosh darnit! it's really hard to understand today but people ate this shit UP.

 

between all of this, and the wrestling-as-sport idea that dominated back then, i think it would be reasonable to argue that backlund came off to many as wrestling's Charlie Hustle and that this was an important part of his drawing power. what doesn't work in cartoons can go over huge in other contexts...

[Johnny Sorrow]

Well, no one liked Scrappy Doo and most people thought Pete Rose was an asshole for fucking up Ray Fosse in the All Star Game.

[funkdoc]

Well, no one liked Scrappy Doo and most people thought Pete Rose was an asshole for fucking up Ray Fosse in the All Star Game.

 

you are talking to a lifelong clevelander who only recently moved out of ohio. *we* definitely always thought rose was an asshole for it, but i don't recall the national media ever really caring much after the initial hype died down. by the time the big red machine came into being it was back to gushing over rose 24/7, and that never really stopped until the gambling stuff started coming out.

 

my point here was that sports fandom is a vastly different culture from cartoons/comic books/etc. and while nowadays it's largely the latter types who still watch wrestling as adults, a backlund type worked back then since it was much more of a sports kinda crowd who would appreciate that style.

 

thanks for all of this, btw. my favorite discussions happen when people go in depth on WHY they like or don't like a given wrestler...leads to a lot of interesting angles.

[shoe]

 

Well, no one liked Scrappy Doo and most people thought Pete Rose was an asshole for fucking up Ray Fosse in the All Star Game.

you are talking to a lifelong clevelander who only recently moved out of ohio. *we* definitely always thought rose was an asshole for it, but i don't recall the national media ever really caring much after the initial hype died down. by the time the big red machine came into being it was back to gushing over rose 24/7, and that never really stopped until the gambling stuff started coming out.

 

my point here was that sports fandom is a vastly different culture from cartoons/comic books/etc. and while nowadays it's largely the latter types who still watch wrestling as adults, a backlund type worked back then since it was much more of a sports kinda crowd who would appreciate that style.

 

thanks for all of this, btw. my favorite discussions happen when people go in depth on WHY they like or don't like a given wrestler...leads to a lot of interesting angles.

 

 

I like your take on this. As a guy who's argued with Parv about Backlund till we were both blue in the face I appreciate it.

[bradhindsight]

Funkdoc's take also plays back into the whole Harley Race MSG match debate where the home crowd goes nuts as their hero just dominates the other team's best player. Not a good wrestlig match, but from a "sports" story standpoint (I made this point earlier in the thread) it made sense.

[dexstar]

Not sure if this is the right thread for this question, so please delete or move if necessary ..

 

"Bob Backlund as WWF Champion" won "Most Disgusting Promotional Tactic" in the early Observer year-end awards. Now, I get that Bob wasn't super popular with that crowd at that time, but that seems really harsh. Was there a more sinister reason that Backlund as champ was "disgusting", or is it just because the readers thought he wasn't that good? The other award winners are stuff like exploiting Von Erich deaths, fake heart attacks, sleazy 900 line stuff - things I easily recognize as disgusting. Can anyone shed some more light on this, or is it just simply people in the newsletter crowd didn't think Bob was a good champion?