SCF Tournament, Round of 32 - Steve Austin vs. Bob Backlund

[Slyfox696]

The following match is scheduled for one fall. The match is held in San Antonio, TX and is a Round of 32 matchup. All seeds represent overall tournament seeding.



https://steelcageforums.com/tourney/pics/steveaustin.jpg

https://steelcageforums.com/tourney/pics/bobbacklund.jpg


#1 "Stone Cold" Steve Austin
vs.
Mr. Bob Backlund





The discussion period will last for two days, followed by two days for voting. You may vote for whomever you feel deserves to win this match. Please post your reasons below if you wish.

[Fallout]

I'm glad Backlund got into the tournament as he's often remembered more for being eccentric comedic relief than an exceptionally credible wrestler in his era, having the second-longest run with the WWF belt behind Sammartino's legendary reign.

But as good as Backlund was, Austin lead the charge in providing a renaissance for professional wrestling in general and while the Monday Night Wars are often romanticised as almost putting the WWF out of business, it was a huge deal for the company and wrestling in general. While I wouldn't say Austin is the all-time best, he's definitely in my top 5, if not, top 3, and I can totally respect the opinion that he is the greatest of all-time, and would put Backlund down in an admittedly closer match than the seeding might have you expect.

[Echelon]

The match is certainly closer than one would think, especially with a good grasp on Backlund's career. Bob Backlund is the John Cena of his era. Not just because he was so polarizing with the fans, but he was portrayed as this All-American, vanilla, goody-two shoes act. Those that were high off the flashiness of Billy Graham really didn't take kindly to Howdy Doody replacing him. The fact is that Backlund was a bigger drawing card than Billy Graham. He was a bigger drawing card than Dusty Rhodes. Nick Bockwinkel and Harley Race too. From 1978 to 1982, Bob was THE man. In fact, in 1982 he broke Rogers record for drawing the most big gates over a one year period. At that time, Vince Sr. had rejoined the NWA, so the WWE was no longer seen as an independent league like it was during the 8 years of Bruno's first run. It was a territory again. However, it was the largest and most profitable territory of the time. And Bob spent 6 years as a headliner there. Drawing more money than anyone else.

The reason why I place Austin above Rock, Triple H, and Cena is because of his profound impact of the WWE's landscape at the time. And also because of his monstrous drawing power - he drew more big gates in 1999 than Backlund did in 1982 - and his marketability as a merchandise machine. Take Austin out of the WWE landscape in 1996 and what happens? It's not so easy to say that Taker, Rock, or Triple H would replace him. It's arguable that those guys became as popular as they did because they had Austin to bounce off of. Rock especially. Who was Austin's main rival in the ring. The Mr. McMahon character was created specifically as a foil for Austin. Imagine if that character hadn't of existed? Would WWE have even won the Monday Night Wars? I think 50 years from now, when historians are studying the time period, Austin's name is going to stick out the most.

Now take Backlund out of the WWE landscape in 1978. Or 1980 even. Backlund is injured and is forced to retire; who replaces him? WWE was the largest and most profitable territory in the wrestling world at the time, and had access to all the NWA's resources too. Vince Sr. could have thrown a bunch of money at Billy Graham to retake the title. Dusty Rhodes was quite popular in the Northeast. Harley Race, after his second NWA title reign had finished, might have been an option. Ernie Ladd, who was a popular territorial wrestler at the time, and a former foe of Bruno's, might have been able to fill the void. There were many options for immediate replacements there, and I don't think it would have hurt the WWE's future too much.

I'm willing to believe that Austin's absence would have a more negative impact on WWE's history than Backlund's would, in both the short and long terms, and as such I'm letting that influence my vote. Austin it is.

[Gazprom]

Backlund was a champion for a very long time, and the fact that he came back a couple of times demonstrates his talent, but ultimately, despite holding the title for so long, he was very much a caretaker. The WWF didn't expand in his reign, and the company wasn't setting the world on fire. Austin rode the crest of a wave that saw the WWF head towards its best ratings ever. It has to be Austin.