Could Bryan be booked like Bob Backlund?

[JerryvonKramer]

Listening to the WM preview show and Dylan brought up how they can't keep doing the whole underdog schtick forever with Bryan. So the question becomes about how to book him as champ.

 

Some hot faces historically have lost their fizzle when the chase is over. Dusty, for example, never really had a run with the title. Sting only ever excelled as the plucky underdog challenger, and despite crowds that were very hot for him failed spectacularly when he was given the strap and made the company ace. Ultimate Warrior likewise, fizzled.

 

Dylan mentioned how they can't really book him like he's Bruno Sammartino, because of his size. But I wonder ... why can't they book him like Bob Backlund?

 

For those unfamilar with how Backlund tended to be booked: he was plucky, courageous, never-say-die, etc., but booked STRONG. He'd work on top a lot. Backlund wasn't really an underdog despite being a goofy-looking kind of everyman. Looking at Bryan's moveset, his look, his TYPE of charisma, and the aggressive way he works, my thought is that he could be a Backlund for the mid-2010s.

 

What would this involve in practice? Well, lots of fairly dominant wins for him, occasionally punctuated by count out or DQ losses instigated by heel shenanigans. Is there any reason why in the current product he couldn't be booked a little bit like this?

 

Example:

 

Week 1: title defense vs. Mark Henry. Goes over strong.

 

Week 2: title defense vs. Booker T. Goes over strong.

 

Week 3: title defense vs. Big Show. Count out finish.

 

Week 4: title defense rematch vs. Big Show. Goes over strong.

 

Week 5: title defense vs. Great Khali. Goes over strong.

 

Week 6: title defense vs. Kane. Goes over strong.

 

etc. etc.

 

until

 

Major PPV: title defense vs. Brock Lesnar. Epic struggle. Goes over clean.

 

rinse repeat for 6 years.

[ohtani's jacket]

6 years? It's difficult to imagine Daniel Bryan being some kind of dynastic babyface champion.

[Loss]

The cool thing about Bryan is that he is only an underdog because of all the booking obstacles thrown his way. But his in-ring style is pretty aggressive. Put him in a fair fight and he can hold his own against anyone. The issue is that his enemies know this and try to avoid a fair fight at all costs. His wrestling style would work either as a major underdog or an asskicker. Any changes would be in the booking, but they would be minimal in what he actually does bell to bell.

[Steenalized]

I think it cna work, though 6 years and a lot of your chosen challengers would have to change. I agree with Loss that they've booked Bryan to be as tough as anyone. Going back the last year now, he had a big showing against Ryback when Ryback was building up to Cena. In June/July he made Orton tap out in a street fight. His losses have been from interference, screw jobs, or other shenanigans. Basically, cut out the Authority screwing with him and costing him matches, let him run with some wins, and then I think it could work.

[Superstar Sleeze]

Six years!?!?!??!?!?! I will be surprised if we get six months.

It is surprising you bring this up, Parv because I was getting ready to make the statement that Bryan wrestles a lot like Backlund, but wanted to watch a couple more matches from 2013 before I said that. In the ring, there are rarely extended heat segments in his matches. He is always struggling. He is always hitting hope spots. He sells, but it is not really his forte. He will occasionally drop selling so he can hit his moves. He wrestles a lot of the match on top. It is very reminiscent of Backlund's scrappiness. The HHH match was the first match in a long time that I remember him taking a lot of offense at once from an opponent and even then it was still a very even match. I think it just standard smart wrestling booking to put the finish in doubt. You have a monster face like Cena or Hogan you have him take heat a lot because it runs counter to their character (during the Wyatt six man tag on RAW, is when I really noticed how much better Cena was at selling than Bryan). If you have a plucky underdog face, you have him work on top to counter the "stigma" that he does not belong. I am more interested in comparing their in-ring work. I actually think John Cena is the Modern Day Bob Backlund in terms of character work even though their in-ring work is night and day. So I do want to expound on this at some point once I have watched more matches.

[Matt D]

I know a big jvk talking point is that Backlund took a lot of his matches in order to compensate for his size/look/etc. I think Bryan over the last 2-3 months has been doing that for good or ill. It's probably the right decision.

[Big Rob]

Six year title run and you give away all those matches in the first six weeks?

[WingedEagle]

The cool thing about Bryan is that he is only an underdog because of all the booking obstacles thrown his way. But his in-ring style is pretty aggressive. Put him in a fair fight and he can hold his own against anyone. The issue is that his enemies know this and try to avoid a fair fight at all costs. His wrestling style would work either as a major underdog or an asskicker. Any changes would be in the booking, but they would be minimal in what he actually does bell to bell.

 

I think this is a key point here and why I'm not only optimistic about his opportunity at the top of the card, but also never dread his matches. He may sell and build heat in angles, but they've booked him very strongly in matches against any and all opponents. Between his series of kicks culminating with the wind up, the dives, top rope moves, yes lock and running knee, the guy is anything but impotent in the ring and rarely goes over weakly. Once the bell rings he's basically wrestling as his opponent's equal.

[Fantastic]

Bob Backlund?

 

This may sound odd, but I'm reminded of a young Kenta Kobashi when Daniel Bryan does his thing in the ring.

[dexstar]

The 6 years seems impossible, but the general concept doable I guess? Though I don't think Raw has had six world title matches on it in the past six months, let alone once a week.

[sporadic]

Bob Backlund?

 

This may sound odd, but I'm reminded of a young Kenta Kobashi when Daniel Bryan does his thing in the ring.

 

I think the Kobashi comparison works better too. Never giving up, putting everything out there, about as close to "Fighting Spirit" as WWE is going to get (save for Zayn).

 

My only concern is assuming Lesnar is the logical choice to take the title from Bryan. I'm more of the opinion that you build Cesaro and Reigns up so that either one of those gets the call up to be the top guy. I'm especially heavy on Cesaro being the one to get the nod based on ability and technique. That's not saying Lesnar couldn't be the one you go with but there are others I'd consider too.

[jdw]

Old Six Years = Current One Year

 

Similar to Punk's long reign.

 

One doubts they'll book Bryan that way. They'll likely want to play into his underdog status and put him back into that role.

 

Probably worth remembering that in Austin's prime babyface days of 1998-99, he held the title this long:

 

Reign #1 - 91 days
Reign #2 - 90 days
Reign #3 - 56 days
Reign #4 - 55 days

 

Not exactly recommending that they do that with Bryan. On the other hand, his storyline (rather than his character) has similarities to Austin's in that period.

[Loss]

I know a big jvk talking point is that Backlund took a lot of his matches in order to compensate for his size/look/etc. I think Bryan over the last 2-3 months has been doing that for good or ill. It's probably the right decision.

 

I suspect if we look back at the matches of Austin and Bret, we'll find the same thing. Cena is kind of a chameleon worker, so that's what we've been accustomed to seeing out of the top babyface for years now. But Bryan isn't really that much of a departure.

[shoe]

6 years is no way in Hell. Though I'd like a year run on top to a Wresttlemania with Brock or a Cena match where Cena turns heel. I'd eventually like to see him booked like a Jack Brisco type. Push Cesaro and we'd have a modern day Brisco vs Funk jr. rivalry that actually delivers kick ass matches. I'd focus the booking on commentary on his technical skills and striking ability as him growing out of the underdog role . Talk about how he's raising his game as champ.

[(BP)]

I think there will be at least one title change in between, but an end game of Cena/Bryan for the championship at next year's Mania makes sense.

[jdw]

Here's the other thing to keep in mind:

 

They need to book strong Summer Slam and Survivor Series to spike Network renewals and non-Mania cycle purchases.

 

So if Bryan actually has a rocket launcher strapped to his back with the fans right now, and this is their Austin moment with him, they need to figure out how best to book him to draw (i.e. Network subscriptions) at SummerSlam and Survivor Series.

 

Whether that's in a long run with the title like we just saw Punk have, or it's at least with one of those being placed in a position to challenge again against someone he has a major issue with... hard to tell.

[Loss]

I feel like Daniel Bryan vs Brock Lesnar is the biggest match they have in reserve now. But I'm also not sure that it makes sense for Brock to lose anytime soon considering that he just beat the Undertaker. Bryan vs Cena II will also be a big match.

[jdw]

I think you want to run Brock-Bryan at SummerSlam. If the company senses that Brock is also red hot off beating Taker, then they need to get the belt on him at SummerSlam to set up three months of build for a rematch at Survivor Series. If the two of them are truly hot, they may have their pair of matches to spike those two and get their 1M before the end of the year.

 

Not totally sold that works... but it probably would be my Plan A to try to get a gauge of over the next month, then get a strong sense for it in say June before fully balls to the walls committing to it. Plan B is a bit trickier... but it depends on how desperate they end up in trying to spike those subscription numbers. That might be a Cena-Bryan feud, with Cena going heel. My guess is that they would rather save that for a Mania main event if Bryan ends up truly super over.

[S.L.L.]

I get what Parv is saying, and it makes sense to me, but I think "we need to book Bryan like previous ace X" is the wrong way to look at it. They need to book Daniel Bryan like Daniel Bryan, they just need to figure out how that works in a company ace context.

[NintendoLogic]

It seems to me that "he was plucky, courageous, never-say-die, etc., but booked STRONG" is a standard description of a company ace. If the question is whether Bryan can be booked like most top babyfaces, I suppose the answer is yes.

[RWOOD]

Havent glanced the thread yet but wanted to point out the first thing that popped into my head was 1994 crazy Backlund.

 

I chuckled.

 

Maybe it would work if he "had one too many concussions" and "joined the Authority"?

 

They shouldnt run that angle.

 

 

[Jmare007]

re: the underdog role. I heard Bryan talk in one of his radio interviews the day before Mania that he was fully aware that he might have to change some of the stuff he's doing now that he "achieved his dream" and as the Ace he didn't think he should be the ultimate underdog.

 

Now, that doesn't mean squat in the sense that if the company wants him in the role of the big underdog, he's gonna have to work with that. But it did made me think that he might change some of his in ring style. He did it like 3 or 4 times when he was in the indys, so it wouldn't shock me if he does it in WWE.

[DMJ]

The day after Mania, the art teacher at my school (I'm also a teacher) mentioned that he thought Bryan was a modern day Backlund and I'm not sure he's watched a single Bryan match in his life. I think he made the comparison based entirely on look and what I've told him about Bryan - that he's basically the top babyface based on wrestling merit alone and not because he's roided up or an anti-hero or "cool" in the Rock/Flair sense.

 

I definitely see Cena/Bryan and Lesnar/Bryan as major matches...but I think one could argue that we'll see HHH/Bryan on PPV again in 2014 first and possibly another triple threat or some sort of 4-way too.

[flyonthewall2983]

Havent glanced the thread yet but wanted to point out the first thing that popped into my head was 1994 crazy Backlund.

 

I chuckled.

 

Maybe it would work if he "had one too many concussions" and "joined the Authority"?

 

They shouldnt run that angle.

 

 

 

Oh but they should! In 16 years.

[JerryvonKramer]

It seems to me that "he was plucky, courageous, never-say-die, etc., but booked STRONG" is a standard description of a company ace. If the question is whether Bryan can be booked like most top babyfaces, I suppose the answer is yes.

I guess the point was a bit more nuanced than that.

 

Bruno's style of ace was that he'd just fucking deck heels for breakfast. You wouldn't describe Bruno as "plucky", you'd describe him as ... I, dunno, a dignified beast. A gentleman who just might happen to kick your head in if you cross him. I'm pretty sure that's what Dylan had in mind when he said that "Bryan couldn't play Bruno". The narrative arch of a Bruno match is "don't fuck with Bruno".

 

Hogan's style of ace was all about the superman comebacks. He was booked "strong" in terms of wins and losses, but WITHIN matches Hogan would sell a lot for opponents. As we all know. The Hogan formula has been replicated time and again in WWE main events, it's the most basic wrestling formula (shine - heat - comeback). The narrative arch of a Hogan match is "no matter the odds, Hogan will overcome them and win".

 

Backlund didn't work that formula. Not at all. Backlund matches are a totally different ball game, and that's really what I had in mind when I made this thread. The narrative arch of a Backlund match is "Backlund is the best wrestler around and he's the champ for a reason".

 

So this is as much about how Bryan could be booked to work individual matches as it is about character or week-to-week booking.