Title History

NCAA Amateur champion;
NWA (Georgia) Tag Team titles;
NWA (Missouri) Heavyweight title;
NWA (Florida) Tag Team title;
WWWF World Heavyweight title;
WWF Federation title (1994);

Career Highlights

1973: Bob Backlund debuted in the Minneappolis-based American Wrestling Association..
1975: Bob Backlund move onto the National Wrestling Alliance, were teamed with Jerry Brisco to win the NWA Georgia tag titles..
1976: Bob Backlund teamed with Steve Keirn and won the NWA Florida tag titles..
1976: Bob Backlund wrestled throughout the Midwestern United States held the NWA Missouri Heavyweight title..
1978: Bob Backlund entered the World Wide Wrestling Federation and was managed by Arnold Scaaland..
February 20, 1978: Bob Backlund defeated Billy Graham to win the WWWF World Heavyweight title..
1979: Bob Backlund travelled to Japan to defend the WWWF World title against the legendary Antonio Inoki..
~~~Inoki shocked the world by defeating Backlund for the title but refused to accept the championship..
July 4, 1982: WWF World Champion Bob Backlund battled NWA World Champion Ric Flair to a double DQ at the Omni in Atlanta..
December 26, 1983: Iron Sheik defeated Bob Backlund for the WWF title when Arnold Scaaland (Bob's manager) tossed in the towel..
January 1984: Bob Backlund left the World Wrestling Federation and disappeared from the spotlight..
1993: Bob Backlund made his inspirational return to the WWF as a mid-card babyface..
January 24, 1993 - Royal Rumble: Bob Backlund entered the Royal Rumble at #2 and lasted over an hour!
April 4, 1993 - Wrestlemania IX: Razor Ramon over Bob Backlund..
Bob Backlund challanged Bret Hart to a WWF title match, after Hart won, Backlund snapped and turned heel!
November 23, 1994 - Survivor Series: Bob Backlund defeated Bret Hart to win the WWF Heavyweight title..
~~~Backlund's cornerman, Owen Hart, tricked his own mother (also Bret's mother) to throw in the towel..
April 2, 1995 - Wrestlemania XI: Bret Hart defeated Bob Backlund in an "I Quit" match..
1996: Bob Backlund briefly returned as the co-manager of the Sultan (aka Rikishi)..
1999: Bob Backlund made a very brief return as a mentor to Kurt Angle, but that storyline was scrapped..
Royal Rumble 2000: Bob Backlund participated in the Royal Rumble match, mostly comedy..

No. I never liked Backlund as a professional. I don't think he would have done well in today's wrestling.

Not in today's wrestling. But for the late-70s, early 80s, yes.

You think someone like Bruno Sammartino would last today? May be, but unlikely. But then again, you could say that about most old school wrestlers.

Let's ignore the entire Antonio Inoki thing for a second...a title reign from:

February 20, 1978 to December 26, 1983.

Hm...let's see here...is he HoF material...?

Obviously I voted yes. Backlund was champion for four years, besides Bruno was the biggest draw in MSG history, and was successful in the UWFI in Japan in the early 90's as well. Backlund is one of the greatest WORLD champions in the history of wrestling and had amateur credentials as well.

The "wouldn't do well in today's wrestling" is a terrible argument anyway you cut it.

I am one of those who decides to acknowledge that Antonio Inoki held the WWWF Championship, even if it was short-lived, and that Backlund is a 3-time champion.

Even still, aside from that incident, Backlund is one of the longest reigning champions in history, and was a successful draw. It was also neat that he came back in the early 90's to win the championship again, even if it resulted in him being destroyed by Diesel.

Backlund gets a definite "yes" from me.

Go back and see my posts when we were voting on Bruno.

As far as long title reigns go, I can't count that towards hall of fame status. In a fixed sport ther are so many factors that can go in to who is the champ. For instance. Jeff Jarrett was the NWA champ for the better part of two years.

I don't think so. I'd like to think a guy with certain skills could be successful at any period.

That's not really fair, because wrestling evolved so much over time. If we took the current product back into the 1960's, the fans would probably shit all over it and vice versa.

I voted yes, and here are a few reasons...

1. Was a SUCCESSFUL World Champion for a 5 year reign (interrupted for 6 days by Inoki, which can or cannot be counted in some instances)

2. He was one of the best draws in Madison Square Garden.

3. Had a career revival in the WWF in 1993 and became 1 of the most hated heels in 1994 after being the All-American Goody-Two-Shoes for his entire career.

4. Could probably work circles around half the wrestlers in WWE today.

I'm not talking about the product in general, I'm talking about individuals carrying certain characteristics that would allow them to excel.

Horrible comparison. Sammartino and Backlund were the champions during a time where you HAD to be a draw to be champion. Jarrett was a champion of a second rate promotion who never has had more than 1,000 people at a show before.

Not the case. I guarantee you that Hogan wouldn't work today, neither would half the guys of the past. Times change, so do wrestlers. That's a total unfair way of thinking when it comes to people you would vote in the HOF.

Is it me, or do all of these old timer nominations turn into this argument...

Everyone vs. WMD

Hogan, Backlund, Sammartino... Jesus, I know I was a dick in the Bruiser Brody topic, but 8 or 9 other people voted "No" too.

I'm not vs. anyone. I'm stating my opinion and so is WMD. It's all good.......

I know, but it's the same patern, and I was just commenting the observation. No offense to anyone, and that's not trying to start an argument.

Yeah, I think you didn't mean "vs" as us actually having a fight where we get upset, but as in more "debate" terminology.

WMD is a good poster, I enjoy his debates... right now I just happen to disagree :)

Yeah, that's what I meant. If anyone hasn't noticed, I have a hard time wording things from time to time.

I don't like WMD's debates much, mainly because it's almost always against me, and he kicks my ass in them all the time... Just kidding, it spicens things up around here.

Also if you didn't notice, I suck at arguing too. Hell, I just suck.

We don't call you Scrooge McSuck for nothing :D

Hey, and at least I agree with you.

These Hall of Fame topics are probably the best on this board, since they almost always bring some interesting discussions, and punking outs. Good job Rowe-man, you deserve a Moderator raise. ;)

WMD makes a good point though. If this person is going to be a HoFer, that person has to be so good, that he could work in an era. It's an interesting thought.

Since you raise that point...

Hulk Hogan wrestled last month, and is still the most over wrestler despite having as limited of a moveset as you can have.

Backlund past his prime was a much better wrestler than Hogan, and if someone as limited as Hulk can still be this over, so could Bruno.

Right. That's what I'm saying. He at least did well 10 years ago and the 90s wrestling era was still different from the 70s.

Actually Scrooge your not putting enough thought into how the Hogan point you bring up is incorrect. Would Hogan get over and be the way we know him today if he was a rookie and was getting his initial push as we speak? I think you know that the answer to that is no. America in the state that it is in now would look at Hogan as a total phony as the superhero gimmick wouldn't get over nowadays.

That's why the "If he couldn't get over now I wouldn't vote for him to be in the HOF" is a horribly flawed sense of thinking.

Oh, you meant in a rookie sense. I thought just overall. My bad, but that kinda proves it's a pretty flawed argument. Like I always say...

Any time a comment consists of "What if...", I cannot argue with because how is anyone supposed to know something that never happend? I think in the movie 12 Angry Men (the remake at least), the comment is brought up that you can "suppose" anything you want.

I think Hogan would be successfull today. He showed during his NWO run that he could get over as a face or as a heel. No, his American Hero type gimmick wouldn't work, but he has the charisma that would get him over regardless.

Backlund on the other hand was a bland character, with a bad look, and a boring ring style. Other than being pushed to the moon in the old WWWF / WWF, I don't see what is so great about him.

Just so it doesn't seem I'm making senseless arguements, I'll point out that I voted yes for Hogan. Despite the fact that I hate watching him, I must admit that he's great in many ways. Maybe if Bruno and Backlund weren't two of the most boring guys ever I'd have voted for them too. It's certainly not an old school thing, as I favor old school guys over modern wrestlers hands down.

For the record, I don't think you're making a senseless argument.

How much Backlund have you actually seen? I actually like wrestling so I don't know/understand the boring thing with Backlund. Plus, I talked to you about the greatness of Jack Brisco and they are both cut from the same cloth.

I've seen a good bit of Backlund, and I would disagree with the Brisco comparison. Other than both having the strong amateur background, I don't really see a strong similarity.

I can understand disliking Bruno. How many times can you watch a guy punch and bearhug someone before you start going "meh" and hit the fast forward button?

But Backlund in his prime, was one of the more talented wrestlers the WWF employed with an Amatuer background, and carried over well enough in the early-mid 90's. Sure, wrestling has evolved even more since then with all of the wrestlers coming in from Mexico with the Lucha Libre style and Puro guys, but he could probably still go with some wrestlers like Christian or Edge who aren't exactly Mr. Awesome when it comes to ringwork, but aren't bad either.

Great, I'm rambling again.

I'm sure that he could hang with Edge or Christian. His matches just seem so slow and deliberate to me, whereas a guy like Brisco' were fast paced and exciting.

Yeah, but the fact that Backlund worked that style was generally because he was in there with guys WAY bigger than him. When Backlund was fighting smaller guys he wasn't as slowed down. Brisco's matches were fast paced because of his opponents generally, which is why I compared him to Backlund in that regard. They both work a slowed down more deliberate style against the bigger guys, also being a good reason why they worked face. The small face is always better than the bigger heel, simply because of wrestling ability concept.

Plus, Backlund looks like a young Mickey Rooney.

In another comparison, Bobby Heenan kept calling him Opie in 1993. Incase someone isn't familiar, Opie was Ron Howards character in The Andy Griffith Show.

Yeah, he does look sort of Richie Cunningham-ish.

Well, this had a good, yet short, debate. Backlund is in :)

I say take a few weeks off from an induction. I think it's burned everyone out by doing them every week.

I think we should keep as long as we have people lined-up each week.

I say keep going for the time being. At least until we get most guys that SHOULD be in.......inducted.