Guest Report post Posted April 4, 2002 I was shocked to see the results of the best WWF champion of all time. As far as I could tell, the vast majority voted for Backlund over Sammartino. I was just wondering why that is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RetroRob215 Report post Posted April 4, 2002 It' pretty simple actually. Bruno was a horrible wrestler, but he did save the WWF from going bankrupt. Backlund on the other hand was a great wrestler from the 70's and 80's, who was able to still put on great matches in 1994. Bruno main offense was a fucking bearhug... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest swan Report post Posted April 4, 2002 It' pretty simple actually. Bruno was a horrible wrestler, but he did save the WWF from going bankrupt. Backlund on the other hand was a great wrestler from the 70's and 80's, who was able to still put on great matches in 1994. Bruno main offense was a fucking bearhug... Two different era's, you can't base it on wrestling ability alone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RetroRob215 Report post Posted April 4, 2002 Two different era's, you can't base it on wrestling ability alone. Tha'ts true, but when it comes to who was the best, IMO you have to go with the better worker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest dreamer420 Report post Posted April 4, 2002 sammartino was a brawler whereas backlund was a technician and also a two time champ, winning the title while being over 40 from bret hart. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted April 5, 2002 sammartino was a brawler whereas backlund was a technician and also a two time champ, winning the title while being over 40 from bret hart. >>> Well, to be technical, Backlund is a three-time champ (lost the belt to Inoki in 1979, won it back when he returned to the states in a match with Bobby Duncum) -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted April 5, 2002 sammartino was a brawler whereas backlund was a technician and also a two time champ, winning the title while being over 40 from bret hart. >>> Well, to be technical, Backlund is a three-time champ (lost the belt to Inoki in 1979, won it back when he returned to the states in a match with Bobby Duncum) -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest J*ingus Report post Posted April 5, 2002 Sammartino drew MUCH more money than Backlund could've ever hoped too, over a longer period of time. Backlund was a fiscal failure as a champion, and was being actively booed by the crowds in the last couple of years of his reign. That being said, I enjoy watching Backlund's mat wrestling much more than Sammartino's punching and stomping, but ah well, smarks are a minority after all. And Mike, Backlund won the title back from a rematch with Inoki a week later, where'd you hear the Duncum story? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest EI Cubano Report post Posted April 5, 2002 Moved to Oldschool Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ravenbomb Report post Posted April 5, 2002 Doesn't matter, Lou Thesz was better than both of them put together Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JHawk Report post Posted April 5, 2002 And Mike, Backlund won the title back from a rematch with Inoki a week later, where'd you hear the Duncum story? Well, both of you are right in this case. Backlund regained the title from Inoki, but for some reason the decision was reversed and Inoki was still champion. Inoki refused to accept the title, and Backlund beat Duncum for the vacant title at MSG on 12/17/1979. Most MSG fans were unaware of the switch or vacancy. I have the Backlund-Duncum match on tape, and it's interesting to see the WWF president holding the belt because it was vacant, no mention of it being vacant, and Finkel never mentioning the title as being on the line. But my question about that would be this. Of course, the WWF had already announced the Backlund-Duncum and Inoki-Hussein Arab matches on TV, but why not just acknowledge the double switch and have Inoki-Backlund face off at MSG in a final blowoff? Only Vince Sr. knows for sure, and he ain't talking. To get this on topic though, my vote's for Sammartino. Backlund was by far the better wrestler, but Sammartino's longevity has to give him the nod here. Bruno was outpopping everybody except Hogan in 1985 and he never had the long layoffs Hogan had since he'd still done a lot of commentary. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted April 5, 2002 Two different era's, you can't base it on wrestling ability alone. Tha'ts true, but when it comes to who was the best, IMO you have to go with the better worker. I don't think the issue should concern who the better worker was. The question is who's the better champion, not who's the better worker. I don't think anyone would disagree if I said Hogan was a better champ than Backlund. Sammartino was definitely more important to the WWF in his first run as champ than Backlund was during his first run. I'll go with Sammartino as the better champion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted April 5, 2002 sammartino was a brawler whereas backlund was a technician and also a two time champ, winning the title while being over 40 from bret hart. But Sammartino was a two time champ too, and the second run was three years, not just a transition deal like Backlunds win in 1994. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
