Talk:Bob Backlund

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games work group (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Professional wrestling (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Bob Backlund is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 04:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WWF championship[edit]

Bob is a two time champion. Backed up by the fact that the company who created, owns and runs the belt said so. [1] Halbared 10:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He is a 3-time champion, he lost it for 2 weeks to Antonio Inoki in Japan, but that is not recognized by WWE but is recognized by the wrestling media including the prestigious Pro Wrestling Illustrated.
It could be recognised by anyone, if it's not recognised by the company itself, it doesn't mattr, that is how belts work, champs can be stripped or given them after the fact, like Hulk Hogan and the AWA.Halbared 10:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are enough weird things in wrestling history that it is smart to pick an unbiased governing body for things like this. This is why many fans use PWI as a standard. AWA isn't even the same company and Hogan retroactively becoming AWA Champion is a publicity stunt joke to this Hogan fan. In Backlund's case, WWE does not recognize his loss to Inoki at this time. They had a short lived WWF Title Histories website around 2000 that did list Inoki as a former champion. And I have read where the incident with Greg Valentine was orchestrated so the WWF at the time could list Backlund as a 2 time Champion without recognizing Inoki, making his win over Hart his 3rd Title. So in the goofy world of a made up sport, it really just depends on who you believe. --Talison 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, given WWE's fondness for revising parts of its own history, I'd prefer to go with a reliable, unbiased third-party source for things like this. For instance, the WWE doesn't list any of the pre-TAKA Light Heavyweight champions. Does this mean that suddenly, none of the people who held the belt from 1981-1997 [2] were ever champions? Of course not. -- SHODAN 14:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, if the WWE didn't book the title change, then it isn't official, like New Japan's IWGP Jr. Heavyweight title changing hands in WCW, these were booking decisions that WCW made, unauthorized by New Japan, thus New Japan does not recognize them, and shouldn't be noted in official title reigns pages and such, this is probably why the WWE does not recognize the Pre-TAKA Light Heavyweight title reigns, if they didn't book it, not official in their eyes. TonyFreakinAlmeida 18:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not report that WWE credits him with two, yet Pro Wrestling Illustrated cites two and explain the circumstances? Burntsauce 16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain Mr. Backlund's entry does not include ANY of his work with the WWF? He has an extensive history -- including multiple championships -- and I do not understand why it has been omitted. Austinmayor 14:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been omitted because BS is a blanking maniac. Darrenhusted 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What the heck...[edit]

What happened to this article? When I last time checked out, it had lots of information about Backlunds pro wrestling career, but now its gone! 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


See the above edit by I have reverted their edit to the last good version by User:Burntsauce because no concensus was gained on the readding of unsourced information.++Funksterjig 02:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

BULLSHIT.Saltforkgunman 05:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ready for sourcing[edit]

Ready for sourcing, of course this is lot easier to do if the article isn't reduced to a stub then protected. Darrenhusted 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The WP:BLP policy applies to talk pages as well, please do not add unsourced information here. Burntsauce 18:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Burnt, you keep showing that you do not understand BLP at all. BLP says to remove contentious material, not to blank an entire article. The worst part is that when you do this you don't even let anyone know at WP:PW. TJ Spyke 19:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce, if you're so shit hot on policy why don't you try reading the talk page guidelines, specifically the section marked Others' comments

It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. In general, editing others' comments is not allowed.

You do not have my permission to edit my comments, and this section does not fall under "Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details", or "Removing personal attacks and incivility." This is simply the easiest way to edit this article, you were then one who reduced it to a stub, you were the one who had the article protected. We want to edit and source the article, you don't. So why don't you move on to another article and continue your blanking, we will continue to do the editing and sourcing. And do not blank these comments, do what you want on your own talk page but do not violate policy on this page. Darrenhusted 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If this page is indexable by Google, then it should be held to the exact same publishing standards. I will defer to an administrator with more expertise on this, but I do believe that WP:BLP equally applies to talk pages. My suggestion is to place a link prior to stub conversion and back-source from that diff. Burntsauce 21:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP clearly states it applies to talk pages, therefore if a page has been protected by an administrator due to WP:BLP posting the article onto a talk page is a very bad idea. You should actually be thanking Burntsauce. One Night In Hackney303 01:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanking Burntsauce! I did the same thing at Stacy Carter and all that happened was the sources were put, then the page was copied back into the article. BLP says "contentious", Burntsauce misapplies BLP to blank entire pages, without discussing them with anyone, deletes discussion on his own talk page and has stubs protected making it difficult to source anything, and what's worse is that admins back him up. Thanking him, One Night in Hackney!! Darrenhusted 10:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

New Sourced version ready[edit]

{{editprotected}} Could someone please edit in a fully sourced version? Fully Sourced here and maybe we can get on with everything? Thank you MPJ-DK 10:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is clearly controversial. Per Template:editprotected: "Consider posting a request at WP:RPP as well, particularly if the edit is controversial or significantly changes the page content." Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Request posted, I hadn't realized the procedure so thank you - the controversy is over sourcing the article, not so much the actual content - seems that no one took the time to source it just re-added it in an edit war. I took the calm, productive approach and hopes that it'll lead to a resolution of all this so we can all focus on improving wiki instead of editwarring. Peace MPJ-DK 19:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Request granted, thank you for doing the work to get this article up to snuff.  ALKIVAR 00:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Bob Backlund is not retired! He is schedualed to face Alex Shelley next week at TNA's Slammiversary event.

  1. stop SHOUTING
  2. you mean "scheduled"
  3. find a source before adding anything, this page has been ripped apart for lack of sourcing
  4. he's still retired even is he has one match, there are a slew of retired wrestlers who do one off matches, doesn't bring them out of retirement. Darrenhusted 23:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 07:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


For a time in the 1990s, Backlund coached high school wrestling in Connecticut, as discussed in this Hartford Courant article. The article should probably mention this. Yilloslime TC 23:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a bit saying where he coached, but couldn't tell when from that source. It doesn't say '80s or '90s, just after his WWF exit and before the return. Unless I'm missing something. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Were Fans tired or Did Backlund Become a Stranger?[edit]

I challenge the notion that fans were "tired" of Backlund. Videos from as late as the summer of 1983 showed that Backlund still received loud "pops" (Cheers\enthusiastic reactions) from the crowds. However, what happened in the fall was that Backlund's "look" changed. He started wearing a "crewcut"(which did indeed make him resemble Howdy Doody) and Olympic style wrestling tights. Additionally, he seemed to lose muscular definition which was unappealing compared to the physiques of Jimmy Snuka, Hulk Hogan and the Von Erichs who were rising in popularity at the time. The Backlund who lost the title just barely resembled the young man who won it. I don't have a "source" other than my memories and reactions from that period.[MARK VENTURE[Special:Contributions/|]] (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The article says fans had grown "seemingly weary" of "Howdy Doody", which implies the problem was with the gimmick change you mention, not the wrestler. It notes Hogan was more muscular and charismatic, suggesting this was why Backlund was no longer seen as championship material. The character change and the fan reaction are related, not either/or. Happens with a lot of wrestlers. How would you suggest rewording this? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:52, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't take much. Just a notation that a change in his appearance did take place and that change was inferior in comparison to not only Hogan, but the younger Backlund himself. It wasn't that fans hated "The All American Boy" but what he had morphed into. This "new" Backlund wasn't popular anywhere else. Superstar Graham's mustache and "karate-man" gimmick didn't work either for the same reason: it made him unrecognizable.MARK VENTURE (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I've changed it suitably. Let me know. I liked "Karate Man" Graham, by the way. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:57, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Backlund's brief return in... 1999ish?[edit]

If I recall correctly, I think Backlund was one of three wrestlers who helped Mick Foley train for his WWF Championship match against The Rock in early '99 (at the St. Valentine's Day Massacre event), alongside The Iron Sheik and Dominic DeNucci. I don't think this has been mentioned in Backlund's article, though. ekedolphin (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hogan's Popularity Rise[edit]

I was a regular reader of wrestling magazines in the 1980s and fans in the AWA didn't fall in love with Hogan by accident, his rise in popularity skyrocketed after his appearance in ROCKY 3. His name rose in the Most Popular rankings after the summer of 1982, when that movie was released. In fact, early in his WWF tenure as champion, his original entrance music was Eye Of The Tiger, the theme song from that film.MARK VENTURE (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not that you're wrong, it's just that Wikipedia has rules about this sort of thing. You can't compare one thing (the movie) against another (the rankings) and come to a conclusion about causation over correlation. That's for reliable sources to do, ones readers can check to verify, rather than rely on some guy from the Internet's memory. If we let everyone post their own conclusions in this encyclopedia, it'd get weird. We could say chasing the titles contributed to Hart, Guerrero and Benoit's deaths. Or how virtually any segment "affected" Nielsen ratings.
That aside, this is Bob Backlund's article, not Hogan's. It seems like a tangent here. The relevant thing to Backlund is that Hogan was popular, not why. It's a fair discussion, whether movies made him popular, or his popularity got him casted, in a chicken or the egg way, but it should probably take place on his talk page. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

I can understand Wikipedia has its standards but in this case there's not much dispute. Hogan may have been popular in Japan but he was still just another big man in the United States. Unless Sylvester Stallone himself chimes in and answers specifically why he or his casting office chose Hogan we won't know for certain. Superstar Graham may not have been available for various reasons (Thunderlips was very Graham-esque); Hogan might have had the right "look" they wanted (Hogan and not Andre the Giant, Brusier Brody or Stan Hansen?) or he may have been the least expensive. But the fact remains that his popularity in the AWA did skyrocket after Rocky 3 came out and in late 1983 he was still in the Most Popular Wrestler category with stars such as Jimmy Snuka and Andre The Giant, who were already working for the WWF. The reason why I thought it was relevant to the Backlund page (and it is relevant to the Hogan one as well) is because Backlund's popularity was in decline for the reasons stated in the article; and Hogan wasn't chosen to follow Bob because he was merely more charismatic but because Hogan was hot at the time and it would have been foolhardy for Vince McMahon Jr. not to take advantage of that.MARK VENTURE (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, didn't see that on my watchlist. I think you're underestimating or misunderstanding charisma. It's not a "mere" attribute, it's the basis of why popular people are popular, and seem more attractive (as champions or movie stars). I think it's enough to say Hogan was more charismatic, and that one word gets across the general idea of why he'd make a better champ in a promoter's eye. I would laugh so hard to see a Bob Backlund lunchbox. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
As for why Andre, Hansen and Brody didn't have the look (not to be confused with "The Look" of Queen Sherri's day), probably because Conan the Barbarian and He-Man weren't hairy or flabby. That stuff still worked in some wrasslin' markets, but it wasn't what the world was watching in the '80s. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:06, September 4, 2014 (UTC)

While he was popular in Japan, in an interview on Ric Flair's Woo Nation podcast, Hogan finally admitted in public that Rocky 3 helped his career in the U.S.!MARK VENTURE (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC) While

Kevin Dunn as Louie Gianfriddo was the victim of Bob Backlund's Crossface Chickenwing[edit]

Compare and Why? Because the guy in white in the second picture is clearly the same person as in the first picture and would mean that a young Kevin Dunn was the victim of Bob Backlund's Crossface Chickenwing. - (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)