Rock Region, Seattle SubRegion, Second Round: (5) Brock Lesnar vs. (12) Bob Backlund

[MrMojoRisin]

Whether it's different eras or not, Brock's opponents are more decorated. I'm not trying to deminish their legacies, I know how popular they all were

Unfortunately, none of that is coming through when you write.

And I'm sorry, but you cannot state that a guy from this era is 'more decorated' than guys from a completely different era, without first acknowledging the vast differences in those eras.

There are just far too many examples of guys who've competed during or since the Monday Night Wars who had cups of coffee as World Champions, who quickly moved back to the mid card or even lower.

, but to be fair, you're doing the same exact thing to the modern era guys. You're basically saying that their reigns as champs were meaningless and not as important as the older reigns because they're shorter. You're saying that the modern era guys don't draw and you're using WM as the basis for that argument which is ridiculous considering that WM sells itself every year. The majority of WM tickets are sold way before the build to the show even begins.

Not really. Acknowledgement of the vast differences in eras and how the business operated is not denigrating anyone. That's simply being honest.

The length of a title reign does not necessarily mean it's a great one, or a poor one.

CM Punk for example, had a record modern day title reign in length... but for the bulk of it, wasn't even a focal point of any of the programming. He'd typically be the "B" story behind whatever story Cena was doing at the time, and only really became a part of the "A" story once he got involved with Cena.

That's not a great reign. That's just a long one.

But the Miz has more WWE title reigns than Jimmy Snuka. Jack Swagger has more than Bob Orton. Zach Ryder has more IC title reigns than Ted Dibiase. Do any of those things make them greater wrestlers, who have had greater careers? After all, by virtue of those accomplishments, they're all more 'decorated'.

Just a few examples for you there.

And I just used Wrestlemania because it was the most recent example, and you kind of made my point for me with your response. It's the brand that sells an event like that. It's the brand that sets attendance records for a show so poor as that. The wrestlers were not drawing those extra fans to create the attendance record. They could have stuck you and me in the middle of a ring for that show and still set that record.

But look at B PPVs and house shows. You're going to tell me that Lesnar's impact on shows like Night of Champions isn't felt because that show sells itself? Please. You can't bring up the different eras argument and then completely discount the modern era and then say I'm dismissing legacies. Btw, if you really think I don't like the old school, look at my arguments for other older guys over modern guys. I vote for who I think will win based on everything and that's Lesnar this time.

Yes, Lesnar in my opinion is a draw. That does not mean that everyone he faces is as well, and that fans are picking and choosing what shows to watch on the Network based on who's on the card... which is what happened in the 'old school' days.

If you think Lesnar would win this, that's fine. Like I said, I was up in the air about that too until I started reading too much of this thread.

Don't preach to me about tearing down the old school when you're doing the same to make your point. Just because you don't like my opinion that Brock has faced more celebrated and decorated champions doesn't mean I'm tearing the old school down. It's just my opinion and its true, Brock has faced more champions, with more legacy, and more drawing power. So if I've made your mind up for you and that's led you to vote for Backlund then either you misunderstood my arguments, read them out of context, or you've intentionally misconstrued my comments because you were leaning towards Backlund all along.

No you're tearing them down by casually dismissing how good they were, what type of impact they had on the business, and how big they were in their own time based on the fact that some didn't get voted into this tournament?

And again, all I've done is talk about the differences in eras. You don't seem to get that.

And his opponents do not have 'more legacy' and 'more drawing power' than Backlunds. More champions, yes. But again, understand the differences and why that is.

Here's a list of Lesnar's opponents since the start of 2015:

John Cena and Seth Rollins
Seth Rollins and Roman Reigns
Kofi Kingston
Seth Rollins
The Undertaker
Big Show
The Undertaker
Alberto Del Rio
Sheamus
Sheamus
Rusev
Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose
Bray Wyatt and Luke Harper
Bray Wyatt and Luke Harper
Dean Ambrose


Out of that entire list, Cena and the Undertaker are the only two you can honestly say have strong legacies and are proven draws.

Here's a sample list of Backlunds opponents just using the year 1982

Tatsumi Fujinami
Greg Valentine
Adrian Adonis
Jesse Ventura
Bob Orton Jr.
Blackjack Mulligan
Jimmy Snuka
Haku (King Tonga)
Superstar Billy Graham
Ray Stevens
Don Muraco

There were more, but I left the guys off who you likely wouldn't have heard of, like Swede Hansen, Buddy Rose, ect.

That is just a list of HOFers, and guys many fans still remember fondly 34 years later. I think that's a good start for the legacy aspect. As for the drawing aspect? The fact that many, if not all of them are in the HOF (WWE and others), should help their arguments that they could all draw, and in all cases, without a globally recognized brand helping to bring the fans in for them.

I guess at the end of the day, the point here is Backlund was champ for almost 6 years. Only one guy in WWE history was ever trusted with the belt longer than him. As the champ, he fought the absolute best of his era, and he came out on top against every single one of them. He is more than a match for Lesnar. His career was far better than he's been given credit for here. And if we were to actually stack this up prime versus prime, then considering Backlund did not lose in his prime (6 years as champ would probably help illustrate that point)... he's abso-fucking-lutely someone that can win here. Because also Lesnar does lose in his prime.

 

[#tamale]

That is just a list of HOFers, and guys many fans still remember fondly 34 years later. I think that's a good start for the legacy aspect. As for the drawing aspect? The fact that many, if not all of them are in the HOF (WWE and others), should help their arguments that they could all draw, and in all cases, without a globally recognized brand helping to bring the fans in for them.

This makes no sense.

HOF ≠ A draw

Koko B. Ware is in the HoF and he damn sure is not a draw. You can argue which opponents you found more entertaining for each contestant, but trying to pass off being in the Hall of Fame as them being a draw is a fallacy.

I guess at the end of the day, the point here is Backlund was champ for almost 6 years. Only one guy in WWE history was ever trusted with the belt longer than him.

Yeah, only reason that happened was because Vince Sr. fired Hulk after the Rocky III situation. Hulkamania would have happened sooner and Backlund would not have had that 6 year title reign if Vince Sr. had the same vision as Vince Jr..

 

[NSL]

Wait...the argument was made that Backlund could make Lesnar tap to the chickenwing? Lesnar tapped once, to a leg hold, to the heavyweight champion.

I doubt an arm hold would take him out here, considering the size of his arms and upper body. And Lesnar has enough amateur experience, that if Backlund stayed close for too long, he'd be able to defend himself. I know Backlund has an amateur background as well, but that doesn't change the fact that Lesnar could defend himself and make it go back and forth long enough to avoid a submission maneuver.

 

[AhSpicyDrop]

Wait...the argument was made that Backlund could make Lesnar tap to the chickenwing? Lesnar tapped once, to a leg hold, to the heavyweight champion.

I doubt an arm hold would take him out here, considering the size of his arms and upper body. And Lesnar has enough amateur experience, that if Backlund stayed close for too long, he'd be able to defend himself. I know Backlund has an amateur background as well, but that doesn't change the fact that Lesnar could defend himself and make it go back and forth long enough to avoid a submission maneuver.

He tapped to Angle, lost by submission/loss of consciousness to Undertaker.. and if we're going by the legit roots, was tapped in the UFC by a very juvenile and poorly applied knee-bar...(And yes, I know he beat Frank Mir in the rematch, I'm a much bigger fan of MMA than I am pro-wrestling)

This is pretty much in the books already based on the voting... But it's not outside the realms of Lesnar to lose a match by submission; especially to a stretcher of Backlund's pedigree. Lesnar panics whenever he's in an uncomfortable situation, hence why he tapped to Frank Mir before the knee-bar was even fully applied. Lesnar is unstoppable when he's hammering the nail... but if you get him flustered he makes tons of mistakes and leaves openings.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

This makes no sense.

HOF ≠ A draw

Koko B. Ware is in the HoF and he damn sure is not a draw. You can argue which opponents you found more entertaining for each contestant, but trying to pass off being in the Hall of Fame as them being a draw is a fallacy.

Are you trying to claim that every one of those guys I listed weren't draws?

Sorry, I really didn't feel like going deeper into that. I figured for most, the HOF argument would suffice. I guess I forgot about the dreaded Koko B. Ware conundrum.

Koko was actually pretty popular in Memphis though, and...

nah on second thought, let's save that for another day.

Let's just say that entire HOF wing that Backlund faced in just 1982 were all pretty damn popular in their day, and all put more than their share of asses into seats wherever they went.

Yeah, only reason that happened was because Vince Sr. fired Hulk after the Rocky III situation. Hulkamania would have happened sooner and Backlund would not have had that 6 year title reign if Vince Sr. had the same vision as Vince Jr..

That's a new one. Never heard once that Sr. had Hogan on tap to beat Backlund and cancelled it because of Rocky 3.

What I DID hear, was that Vince Sr. wanted to loan Hogan out to Crockett for a while since his run up North was pretty much done, and wasn't happy that Hogan signed up to film Rocky 3 instead during the time he would have been working for Crockett. Sr. was pretty old school, and didn't approve of his guys taking on outside projects, especially a high profile one like that. He told Hogan that if he did the movie, that he was cancelling the Crockett tour and firing him. (which I believe may be why he was originally scheduled to be on Starrcade '83, although I could be wrong about that). Hogan took the movie anyways, went to work for Gagne afterwards, and ironically enough, got hired back by Vince Jr. to be his mega-star partly because of the exposure from Rocky 3.

So no, unless you've got something that says differently, Hogan was not taking the belt off of Backlund at any point under Vince Sr. And even if somehow he was, Hogan was a heel back then, and would have only been used as a transitional champ to put the belt on the new babyface champ.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Wait...the argument was made that Backlund could make Lesnar tap to the chickenwing? Lesnar tapped once, to a leg hold, to the heavyweight champion.

I doubt an arm hold would take him out here, considering the size of his arms and upper body. And Lesnar has enough amateur experience, that if Backlund stayed close for too long, he'd be able to defend himself. I know Backlund has an amateur background as well, but that doesn't change the fact that Lesnar could defend himself and make it go back and forth long enough to avoid a submission maneuver.

Yeah I make that argument and I stand by it.

Could Backlund GET the chickenwing on Lesnar? That's an entirely different argument, and one that has merit. It would not be easy by any stretch for Backlund to get that move on someone like Lesnar.

If he did though, and regardless of what you may think, he was absolutely capable of doing it, then Lesnar would tap.

He was strong enough to hold it on him. I've already shown proof of how deceptively and freakishly strong Backlund was, and he was knowledgeable enough that if he did get it locked in, there would be no escape. Only pain the likes of which Lesnar has never experienced before.

It would be a challenge to get the hold on him. Maybe an impossible one. But it would be match over if he ever did.

 

[NSL]

If he did though, and regardless of what you may think, he was absolutely capable of doing it, then Lesnar would tap.

Backlund had this same hold on Bret, and couldn't get him to tap, so why would Brock?

I'm not denying the move's effectiveness, and I know firsthand it can hurt pretty bad, but Brock would be able to take a great deal of pain without tapping. I think the only wrestling match he ever tapped in, was against Taker...and that's Undertaker.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

Didn't Benoit make Lesnar tap on a Smackdown episode in 2003? I can't remember if that was how the match ended or if it was while the ref was down but I seem to recall this happening.

Edit - My bad, it looks like it was Survivor Series (from 23 seconds):