Thanks for humouring me, Fallout. I only argue in favour of Roode, because the guy deserves it. Maybe not the win, but definitely the argument. I may not even vote for him.
What's the difference between those fights, and say a random tag match on Impact? Those matches were nearly always defences. Wrestling wasn't a weekly TV show like it was back then, it was at least monthly so that the events would draw. That's how booking was those days.
Absolutely. Boking was a whole different beast in that day. I think its a little unfair to Roode to say his wrestling week in a week out is equal to the nice refreshing month off Sammartino had after each defence. Whats 4040 days when you only work one each month? Less than 200 days actively wrestling as champion. The era Roode wrestles in is not only booked differently, but a lot tougher on the body and especially on champions.
And Bruno defended his title far more times than Roode ever did against opponents far more important to the wrestling industry than Roode.
Roode defended his title against the most important guys he could. Should he be a victim to his era? Through the men who forged wrestling into what it is today being retired? This is a neutral point as far as I'm concerned. Nothing means as much in wrestling now as it once did, or as it one day might.
Let's not forget that Roode never won the title at Bound for Glory, he won it a few weeks later on Impact. Instead of giving him the big win on a PPV, they wasted it on Impact. Bruno meanwhile beat Buddy Rogers in 48 seconds to win his title.
TNA is a foul beast indeed. I think its fair to note, however, that Buddy Rogers suffered a heart attack a week before his defence against Sammartino. A testament to Rogers strength that he would even compete, but if we are to talk clean wins later...? Also, taking the belt of Rogers was, because of the heart attack, a necessity. Sammartino did a fine job, but how much a part did luck play?
You're implying that the TNA Championship and the TNA Tag Team Championship means more than the longest run with the most prestigious title around today, and possibly ever.
I wasn't hoping to imply such as thing. However, I would like to attest an equality among these world titles for the sake of a fair tournament. Let us remember than at the time the WWWF was a mere territorial ground, not (as the name would imply) an international institution. At the time of his winning it, the WWWF title was less than the NWA title, though I would concede equality between the two for the sake of fairer arguing. The mention of the tag titles is mostly to show how decorated Bobby Roode is.
Oh wow, tournaments where none of the competitors, Roode included are even close to the leagues of Sammartino. And tag team tournaments don't mean much at all, if anything.
Again, this is the fault of the times. To win a tournament of former world champions is nothing to be snorted at. Defeating Sting, James Storm and Samoa Joe in the same night doesn't have the buzz of some of the "classics" from Sammartino's time, but these are, in TNA's world, very tough opponents.
Killer Kowalski? Giant Baba? Gene Kiniski? Stan Hansen? Bruiser Brody? There was also talk of him going over Lou Thesz to merge the NWA and WWWF titles.
All journeymen of the system, and well remembered no doubt. But again I would argue they are products of the system in place that Roode, if around, could have taken part in. Imagine if all of these men were in one company? Name value greatly increases when every town you enter you are made to look like a big deal to get your champ over. Truth is, Giant Baba and Bruiser (for example) would never have been legitimate contenders for the title by the simple virtue that they were journeymen. They weren't staying in New York. Wrestling was real back then, so they looked like they could have been, but Sammartino's position was never in question the way a champion in this era's would have been.
Oh wow, 178 wins, the two biggest of which is against an out of prime Kurt Angle, who beat him at Bound for Glory, and an out of prime Sting who beat him on Impact.
Yes, two of the biggest against Former world champions. Who on the TNA roster would have been tougher challenges for Roode? He fought the best he could, and beat them.
I get you're a Roode fan, and you put together a better case than either PWF or enviousdominious could, but you can't compare these guys. Bruno trumps Roode.
He does. I'd be a bigger fan too if I ever watched TNA. But I'm fearful that Sammartino only wins because of the Era he came from.
I'm going to end this with a quote from KB, so credit goes to him.
A good idea.
"Lets take a quick look at Roodes title reign with the focus just on the PPV title defenses. We have: a cheating win over an injured AJ Styles, a draw against AJ Styles, a DQ loss to Jeff Hardy, a win after Sting hit Hardy with the title belt, a win over Sting after Sting knocked himself out, a win over Storm when Storm knocked Roode out of the cage, a win in a ladder match, a win after hitting Sting with a beer bottle but Sting winds up standing tall to end the show, and the loss to Austin Aries.
A win is a win. Is beating an injured AJ styles much worse than beating a guy who had a heart attack the week before? I see one DQ loss, and one Draw and then nothing but W till he loses the title? Have you looked at how many of Sammartino's defences were by count out and DQ? 18 DQ title defences and 25 count outs. Hardly a clean sheet either. Woring heel, Bobby was bound to win through underhanded methods, but win he did.
In other words, Roode defended the title nine times on PPV and won a total of one match either on his own or without cheating. I understand the idea of a heel cheating to win, but once in awhile he needs to do more than escape with the title. It made his reign look weak and made him look like a guy who was lucky rather than good. The same thing was said for the Honky Tonk Man during his Intercontinental Title reign and thats not something you want for the world champion."
Cheating, luck, looking weak... It's all part of the Heel gimmick. Find me a heel champion who didn't win by underhanded techniques every once in a while.
