Exile on Badstreet #10 (The Battles of Backlund)

[KrisZ]

 

Kris is joined by Graham Cawthon (The History of WWE) & Parv (Titans of Wrestling) to discuss the Battles of Bob Backlund from 1980-83 where we go over his opponents in depth. We discuss the good, the bad, and the really ugly of the motley crew of opponents he was given and in the end we discuss who we thought should've been the one to defeat him for the title!!!


http://placetobenation.com/exile-on-badstreet-10-the-battles-of-backlund/

[WingedEagle]

That photo makes me want to hear about KILLAH KHAN

[KrisZ]

He is a featured player on the show

[WingedEagle]

Good stuff. Looking forward to downloading when I get home after the weekend.

[KrisZ]

So for those of you that have listened to the show.....I'm curious to hear who you thought should've been the one to take the title off of Backlund

[SomethingSavage]

I'm only about an hour in so far, as I'll have to listen in separate sessions around my hectic work schedule this week. But I will say that I'm digging the show, and I love that Parv already touched on the Dory/Brisco aspect. Also loved the talk about them switching up TV to cater to each specific market & the feuds taking place therein.

 

Some good discussion about Hogan and Sarge already. So here's hoping there's at least a LITTLE gushing over two of my other faves - Snuka and Eadie.

I'm a huge mark for Masked Superstar on the mic, and I'm extra curious to see what Parv's opinions are of him - especially after hearing how much he dug the Assassin in Georgia and just general "masked guys in suits" types. Eadie fits that bill, being an intelligent plotter & thinker.

 

I'll try and remember to come back and give my thoughts on with who & when exactly a title change would have worked best - but I want to digest the rest of the podcast and see what thoughts you guys provide first.

[Matt D]

2:20:00 in and I'm enjoying it a lot. I love how it feels like a quiz show as much as Brainbuster. It actually feels more like Grad School. The professor calls on you and you better know the answer.

[KrisZ]

I have taken Mike Tenay's gimmick

[JerryvonKramer]

Forgot to post this:

 

 

Basically a MUST WATCH segment for wrestling fans of any sort. For a variety of reasons ...

[JAC]

This is a tricky question because the answer depends on when you take the title off of Backlund and what the longer term plans are. It seems like 1981 or 1982 would be an appropriate time to make the switch, before shine comes completely off Backlund in 1983. I would think that the goal is to have Backlund lose to a credible intermediary who will then, as some point, drop the title to whomever becomes the next anointed babyface megastar.

 

What about Billy Robinson as a potential successor? He fought Backlund in Montreal on August 11, 1982 (based on their respective Wikipedia pages, I believe this match was a time limit draw, although the History of WWE website doesn't give a result). Backlund v. Robinson is something of a dream match for me, as Robinson could play to Backlund's strengths in the ring. Robinson would have been a bit long in the tooth by 1982 (he turned 44 that year), but Nick Bockwinkel was 47 at the time and still AWA champion, so I don't think Robinson's age was an insurmountable obstacle. I figure that Robinson would be good for a 3-6 month reign before putting Backlund's successor over.

 

It might be fun to see Robinson come in as a babyface and "international star". He can initially wrestle Backlund in a scientific babyface match-up ending in a time-limit draw. WWF President Hisashi Shinma can then order a rematch in which the competitor's tempers flare, leading to a double DQ or double countout finish, but with Backlund and Robinson shaking hands afterwards and affirming their friendship as sportsmen. Nonetheless, a steel cage match is ordered to decide who is the better wrestler (and who shall be the champion). The wrestlers attempt to keep things civil, but civility quickly breaks down in the cage. At one point, Robinson gets caught in the ropes. Backlund, seeing an opportunity to win, starts to exit the cage. However, in the interest of fair play, he turns around and helps Robinson get unhooked from the ropes so they can finish the match squarely. Backlund begins to dominate before accidentally getting himself tangled up in the ropes--think Jumbo Tsuruta at the end of his August 1987 match with Genichiro Tenryu. Robinson moves as if he's about to help untangle Backlund, returning the earlier favour, then thinks better of it and exits the cage, taking the championship and turning heel in the process.

 

Ultimately, though, if the person who beats Backlund is only to be a transitional champion (which I think was likely to occur, and is what ultimately did occur when the Iron Sheik took the title), the most important questions are who is to succeed Backlund in the long term, and how long do you want the transitional champion to hold the belt? I personally prefer the notion of a transitional champion who holds the title for a number of months, not unlike Billy Graham, as opposed to a footnote title reign like those of Ivan Koloff or Stan Stasiak.

 

EDIT: I forgot to mention the obvious--I thoroughly enjoyed the podcast. Great work!

[JerryvonKramer]

JAC, since doing this episode of Titans, recorded after we did this show, I can now pinpoint the exact date of Bob Backlund's peak overness -- not just as a wrestler but in life in general:

 

The 11/23/81 MSG match where he "re-wins" the title vs. Valentine. Watch that match and you'll see one of the most over guys in the history of the Garden, it's a wonderful moment and as I say on that show, it could only be downhill from there. So the time to pull the trigger EXACTLY would have been early 1982 shortly after that moment.

[JAC]

Here's the clip of that moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0IGgNtuW-4. What nuclear heat that is!

 

That was pretty much why I suggested 1981 or 1982. I had forgotten that the Backlund v. Valentine held-up title situation happened so late in the year, otherwise I would have just said 1982. One wouldn't want to miss that moment. Of course, at the time, VJM might not have realized that he had just watched the peak of his champion's reign. I wonder when it set it that Backlund's time had passed.

[KrisZ]

Robinson is an interesting choice because that was the time period when WWF & Montreal became real comfy together.

[BigBadMick]

Another great one - kudos, guys.

 

Kinda cool listening to Parv recap almost 2 years worth of Titans talk for the first half, then previewing the next 2 years in the second.

[Beast]

Great show. Held off on listening for a while because of low interest in the topic, but like always I found it fascinating.

 

I wish the TV was better at the time, because these feuds and challengers sound awesome. I'm just not a big fan for matches for matches sake. Need storytelling and angles, that type of stuff involved.

[Matt D]

I wouldn't want Kris to call on me and not know the answer.

 

Graham, unsurprisingly, did great here. I'd never heard him on a podcast before but I've used his site for years (obviously). And he was really cool when I was doing the Demolition stuff years ago, down to hosting reviews on the site, which made me very happy at the time. He more than held his own. Parv was also extremely even-handed.

[bradhindsight]

If making a change, I'd probably wait until post Valentine '81 also and then work Slaughter in to take the belt and really heat up Snuka for a huge win.

[KrisZ]

Great show. Held off on listening for a while because of low interest in the topic, but like always I found it fascinating.

 

I wish the TV was better at the time, because these feuds and challengers sound awesome. I'm just not a big fan for matches for matches sake. Need storytelling and angles, that type of stuff involved.

 

Think about this....the WWF TV from 1980-82 is world's better than 1983....I think Vince was tanking on purpose for when he expanded the TV would look like a whirlbeater.

 

One of my main goals of the podcast is to get people who have trepidations about a topic to take a chance and listen to us talk about it then it would pique their interest to learning more about it.

[JerryvonKramer]

Beast - when Vince Sr did storylines he really pulled them off and they are among the best feuds I've ever seen. Just that WWF Title ususally wasn't involved in them.

 

1980 had Bruno vs. Larry, which is must-watch

 

1980 also had Grand Wizard double-crossing Patterson and bringing in Patera.

 

1981 had Sgt. Slaughter Cobra Clutch challenge going into Slaughter vs. Patterson, which is must-watch

 

1981 also had the legendary Andre-Killer Khan angle.

 

Typically there'd only be ONE big storyline going at a time but in each case they are either super high end or all-time level.

 

Vince Sr seems to have booked it so that Backlund didn't really get a ton of angles until late 1981. The title getting held up at MSG was a sort of a storyline (NY only), then in 82 Graham busting the belt.

 

But it would be totally wrong to think that the period has no storylines, it has some of the very best.

[Beast]

That's right, I've gotta get on that Bruno-Larry stuff. Slaughter sounds amazing during this period too.

 

I also find it fascinating concerning who Vince brings in month after month. Senior was cherry picking the best non-Flair/Steamboat names to come in for the title. Every 10 minutes I'd be like "what the hell, Adrian Adonis? Bob Orton? Greg Valentine?"

 

Also, I think I did listen to part of a Titans episode way back when and enjoyed, but got side tracked and never went back. After this, I'm absolutely going back and listening from the beginning. Very interested in hearing more of this type of stuff.

[Ricky Jackson]

We always say you don't have to be a fan or knowledgeable of the era to appreciate Titans. It's basically a show about being a wrestling fan more than anything

 

PS. Skip episode 1☺

[Beast]

Not on-subject, but can anyone say why Hogan didn't wrestle at MSG as often as Backlund while champion? It seems like at most, he'd be at every other show. Was it to keep novelty up?

[JerryvonKramer]

According to Bruno and other detractors it's because he didn't always do great return business.

[SomethingSavage]

I'm still SLOWLY trying to make my way through the podcast. Really dug the Superfly/Sabu comparison from Graham, although it's kind of sad that Sabu is the most modern or "recent" occurrence of that character type. Lesnar is a special attraction in his own right, but the wrestling world needs another savage with that "must see" aura.

 

I was blown away by the huge gate that Hansen pulled in with Backlund, too. Didn't realize they were doing that kind of business. The matches left me a little underwhelmed by the end, but it kicked off to a hot start. Makes me wish they would have used Hansen towards the end to set up Bob's injured neck. Instead of bringing in Masked Superstar's swinging neckbreaker and establishing it with stretcher jobs, they could have easily returned to the Lariat, which had a built-in legacy via Bruno's broken neck.

 

Imagine the heat of Hansen doing to Backlund what he did to Sammartino years before. Then, once Hogan got the gold, Stan would have been a ready-made contender to go around the horn with Hulk.

 

As far as pulling the rug out from beneath Backlund before '83... I just don't know. I love the suggestion of Robinson, especially as it was explained in this thread. The concept of Backlund's own sense of sportsmanship and naive innocence costing him the belt seems brilliant. But something I think people are dismissing too easily is the big "foreign menace" factor. It was such a large component of setting things in place for Hogan to come in. Hulk loses a little of that impact without the "Real American / Made in the USA" aspect of his act.

 

Of course, I think Hulk-A-Mania would have taken off without any of that. But he still needed an absolutely irredeemable heel to defeat. The Iron Sheik was that sort of heel. I don't know if you get that same reaction with Slaughter, Hansen, or even a newly-turned-heel Robinson in that scenario. And you CERTAINLY don't get to Hogan from Snuka.

 

So yeah. I still have the last half of the podcast to get through, so I may be swayed or come to a separate conclusion altogether. But there are definitely a lot of interesting facets to consider when trying to choose a how & when to move the belt off Backlund.

 

Also, I think I did listen to part of a Titans episode way back when and enjoyed, but got side tracked and never went back. After this, I'm absolutely going back and listening from the beginning. Very interested in hearing more of this type of stuff.

 

Hell yeah. Highly recommended, man. The episode about the Shea Stadium Larry/Bruno blowoff is must listen material. Put it high on your priority list.

 

Pretty much every episode from 3 or 4 on is great listening though. It's more about the gang getting together & just shooting the shit. Tons of fun in-jokes and stuff that will hook you in.

 

It's among my favorite podcasts, for sure. And Snuka's on the horizon!

[JAC]

I was blown away by the huge gate that Hansen pulled in with Backlund, too. Didn't realize they were doing that kind of business. The matches left me a little underwhelmed by the end, but it kicked off to a hot start. Makes me wish they would have used Hansen towards the end to set up Bob's injured neck. Instead of bringing in Masked Superstar's swinging neckbreaker and establishing it with stretcher jobs, they could have easily returned to the Lariat, which had a built-in legacy via Bruno's broken neck.

 

Imagine the heat of Hansen doing to Backlund what he did to Sammartino years before. Then, once Hogan got the gold, Stan would have been a ready-made contender to go around the horn with Hulk.

 

As far as pulling the rug out from beneath Backlund before '83... I just don't know. I love the suggestion of Robinson, especially as it was explained in this thread. The concept of Backlund's own sense of sportsmanship and naive innocence costing him the belt seems brilliant. But something I think people are dismissing too easily is the big "foreign menace" factor. It was such a large component of setting things in place for Hogan to come in. Hulk loses a little of that impact without the "Real American / Made in the USA" aspect of his act.

 

Of course, I think Hulk-A-Mania would have taken off without any of that. But he still needed an absolutely irredeemable heel to defeat. The Iron Sheik was that sort of heel. I don't know if you get that same reaction with Slaughter, Hansen, or even a newly-turned-heel Robinson in that scenario. And you CERTAINLY don't get to Hogan from Snuka.

 

Great suggestion about using Hansen to injure Backlund, thereby laying the groundwork not only for Backlund's defeat but also for a series with future-champ Hogan. Cool idea!

 

With regard to the Robinson scenario, I wouldn't have seen him holding the title until Hogan arrives at the end of 1983. I would have had Robinson win the title in the spring of 1982 and hold it until the autumn, when you could have a strong babyface like Dusty Rhodes win the title (although I'm not sure what his availability would have been at the time). If you had Dusty, he could have had a one-year run with the belt before dropping it to the Iron Sheik. I would have liked to have seen the Iron Sheik have a slightly longer reign to build him up before being demolished by Hogan--three to six months, maybe. So have Dusty drop the belt in September. You still get to the same place--Hogan winning the title from the Iron Sheik in January 1984--but you cut out Backlund's decline and replace it with a Robinson transitional reign, a year with the charismatic Rhodes on top (possibly helping to raise the profile of the WWF in some of the markets that McMahon will soon want to expand into, thanks to Rhodes' notoriety) and a stronger transitional reign for the Iron Sheik to beat up some all-American babyface challengers, thereby making Hogan's title win more meaningful. Not that Hogan needed any additional help getting over.