Wrestling Forum banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

NitroII

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,311 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
They put a great effort into making him WWF Champion again at Survivor Series 94, and a great buildup when he turned heel in the Summer of '94, only to have him lose 3 days later to Diesel. Shouldn't he have had some time with the belt?

Plus they made it so obvious he was going to lose to Diesel right off the bat.

Maybe if they had more buildup to it, it would have been better.


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2saqvn_post-wwf-survivor-series-1994-report_sport
 
Hi Bob, son of Bob, Bob's rep :smile2:
 
He was strictly a transitional champion at that point. He was still a great wrestler but they were not going to be able to sell out a Burger King men's room with him on top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: supernova
He wasn't gonna draw as champion, not in The New Generation Era. His title win was just to advance the story between Owen & Bret and so the "new Hulk Hogan" didn't have to beat another top babyface to win the belt, nothing more. Not everyone deserves to have longer reigns just for the hell of it.

Kinda poetic when you think about it. Backlund was the guy who lost the title to Iron Sheik who lost it to Hogan, then Backlund was the guy who lost the title to the guy who was supposed to be "next Hogan".
 
I would've liked to see a little longer reign of him 20 years ago. Definetily was entertaining.
The original lunatic for me, just like Owen was my original opportunist and Vader was my original monster.
 
I think Backlund's second reign was kind of a play on the first reign. He went from having the title only second to Bruno, to now losing it only a few days later.

Backlund might be a legit lunatic, but I'll give him some credit: he took one for the team. It ultimately helped in getting the belt on Diesel (even though it didn't "draw"), it kept Bret strong (albeit, due to shenanigans), and it gave the younger fans a history lesson.

Maybe it wasn't as effective as it should've been, but at least Bob did his job.
 
All due respect , in hindsight, or not even that. At the time it happened, I preferred and still would have preferred Owen winning the title instead of Backlund
 
To be totally honest about Bob Backland's run in the 90's I didn't go for it at all. At the time I remember thinking why did they bring this old dude back to feud with Bret Hart.

In retrospect in my older wiser age I think he was a great heel but didn't deserve a title reign at all.
 
I think part of the idea behind Backlund winning was to mimic George Foreman winning the heavyweight title.

They could've given Owen the shot or atleast give Backlund a month or two to build up more heat as a disliked heel champion.

It would've made Nash's title win bigger if he had won the title from a stronger heel than Backlund. Beating up an old man for the belt didn't really put Diesel over.
 
Owen Hart should have won the title at Survivor Series 94. He could have just dropped it to Diesel at like Royal Rumble 95 or something. Thought Owen's involvement in the Bret/Backlund match at Survivor Series was hilarious.
 
I'm not trying to hate on a past legend who reinvented himself into a very entertaining character. He only won the belt for 3 days and had one 1 major feud with Bret Hart before slipping back into obscurity. He was a transitional champ and he's not to blame for any slipups that occurred.

But it was bad for business, Diesel beating Backlund was worse for business and it's really the start to the worse year in professional wrestling.

I've always thought Hart vs. Luger should of headlined WrestleMania 11.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts