Bigger Draw: Bob Backlund or Kurt Angle

[PsychoBlack]

Both of these guys were on the top of the company until a younger, larger, and stronger, wrestler with more drawing power came along to take over from them. The argument can be made that these are two of the most technically sound WWE champions ever. But in the wrestling business none of that matters if you can't make money and I want to know which of these guys made more of it.

 

[warchildrex]

i'd say angle, if for no other reason than the era. backlund reigned before the rock n wrestling takeover, and missed the majority of that era. by the time he came back to the wwf, he was an elder statesman, and wasn't really "over" anymore (i know he won the belt from bret, but he dropped way back down the card after diesel pinned him a few days later).

angle, on the other hand, came in when wrestling was hitting it's biggest peak...even larger than hogan's era. so, between merchandise, advertising revenue, and house show attendance, i'd say kurt definitely drew more money.

an interesting question though...the business was soooo different between the eras, that i really had to put some thought into my reply...

 

[Shakin' Abe]

Backlund didn't draw squat. Bruno, Superstar Graham, Ivan Putski, Andre ect. ran the WWWF. When they did put the strap on Bob, he had no charisma hence no drawing power. Later in his career, he was nothing more than a joke for Vince. Angle has a knack for making "entertainment" real. From his days in WWE to now in TNA, Kurt Angle is a true star.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Backlund didn't draw squat. Bruno, Superstar Graham, Ivan Putski, Andre ect. ran the WWWF. When they did put the strap on Bob, he had no charisma hence no drawing power. Later in his career, he was nothing more than a joke for Vince. Angle has a knack for making "entertainment" real. From his days in WWE to now in TNA, Kurt Angle is a true star.

If Bob had no charisma and drawing power, why did they put and keep the belt on for him for so long defending the titles against the likes of Race, Piper, Hansen, and Hogan having lots of great matches?

You claim he didn't draw squat because of who ran the WWWF. Angle had HHH, Rock, Austin, and the Undertaker running the WWF at the time so don't act like he was a huge draw. WM 19 had the worst buyrate this decade and who was in the main event- Kurt Angle. I can't think of one time when Angle was a draw in the WWE. Maybe against HBK at WM 21, but it was all Cena and Batista's first title reigns rather than Angle.

 

[Joey B.]

Incredibly difficult question to answer since the heydays of both men took place in different eras, and they were both incredibly successful in their respective times. But I strongly disagree with the assertion that Backlund "didn't draw squat." The man was WWF Champ for almost 6 years, and I highly doubt that a company would keep their main belt on a man who drew "squat" for that amount of time. Just look up the list of men he defended against, including title vs. title matches against Harley Race, Ric Flair, and Nick Bockwinkle. If you didn't like Backlund, found him boring, didn't like his ring work, whatever your complaint with him, then fine, just say it. But don't drop the "he didn't draw" tag on him...that's just ludicrous.

 

[Midnite Express 2009]

I want to say Bob Backlund. Kurt Angle, by himself, was not a big draw initially in his career because he had to contend with such stars at HHH, The Rock, Steve Austin, Eddie Gurrerro, The Undertaker, Brock Lesner & so on. Kurt Angle was a spook in the WWE wheel, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but he just so happened to be a portion which was apart of the bigger picture.

Bob Backlund on the other hand was pretty much by himself. Back during Backlund's reign, there was a distinct difference between good guy/bad guy, and Bob was certainly the top face of the company. He drew, however, due to the heels that were fed to him. Men such as Jimmy Sunka, Sgt. Slaughter, Greg Valentine and so on. Bob Backlund drew big money because most of this matches were hosted in Madison Square Garden, Boston Gardens and the old Phildadelphia Spectrum, during a time when house shows and big cards pretty much meant that either a feud was ending or a new one was beginning. People got a chance to miss Bob Backlund because the advent of cable networks hadn't really come around yet.

Also, people became very accustomed to Bob Backlund as champion and so his fans that he had when he was 1st champion was the same fans he had when he wad champion 5 years later. People weren't as fickle as they are now and they weren't easily distracted and turned off. Bob Backlund, for all the flack he catches and has caught was a great draw, someone the people believed in and rallied around. Kurt Angle, for everything great about him, was a great draw as well, but just under different circumstances.

 

[wushady]

It's really hard to compare the two in my opinion because the wrestling business was completely different in Baclkunds day. However I would think Baclund drew way more money. He was champion for almost six years which I would say proves he drew huge amounts of money. Angle was barley in WWE for six years. When Angle was in WWE he was in there with some of the biggest names of all time like Austin, The Rock, HBK, HHH, and Cena. Then Angle went to TNA, where he hasn't drawn huge numbers for them in the four years he's been there.

 

[I_Like_All_Wrestling]

Well if you're talking about money, then Angle certainly outdrew Backlund. Even if Backlund was the top guy and Angle was 3rd or 4th or 5th, I'm sure he brought in more money. As everyone mentioned here, it's the era. Angle headlining one PPV probably brough in more money than Backlund did a whole year. Hell, I'll bet if you add up receipts, Khali probably drew more money than Andre the Giant. Why? There's more fans, more reach, more merchandise, and more money. Not to mention higher prices and more shows. I know it makes no sense and isn't right, but that's the truth. Kind of like how bench warmers in the NBA today are making more money that Magic and Bird.

Now as a wrestler, that's another story. But I'll go with Angle here as well. I wasn't around for the heyday of Bob Backlund (when he wasn't treated as a joke), but I have to say that I've never been really impressed by anything I have seen of him in the ring (though I ma thoroughly impressed about the shape he keeps himself in). Angle however, is something truly special in the ring. Any style, any gimmick match, any opponent, Angle delivers.

 

[Joe 1965]

Hope this works well as a decent first post...

Different times, different eras...
For someone who was there through Backlund's reign and Angle's contributions to the Attitude Era, however, I'd have to say that Angle succeeds on both counts.
First, the dollars are incredibly larger today with national television contracts, pay per view, etc...than they were in 1978-83. So Angle has, by far, drawn more money.
But even if you take the differences in the business and the way it made money back in the old school era, Angle succeeds.

Backlund, on the other hand dare I say, was a failure that nearly destroyed Vince McMahon Sr's WWWF.
It took Jr. buying the company, taking the belt off Backlund and putting it on Hogan (along with every other notorious thing Jr did) to save the company. And saving the company was the obvious first step that needed to be taken before (or as part of) the national expansion of the WWF.

Now let me preclude this so that no one reading gets the wrong idea. Bob Backlund, in his prime, was an incredible performer. There were many nights I can remember sitting in Madison Square Garden finding myself in awe of some of the moves of this man.
He was athletic, versatile, limber and his strength was underrated as well. The man was incredibly strong.
But while the hotbed of MSG always enjoyed a big crowd back in the days before PPV, the business slowed to a crawl everywhere else. And, even with the reliable Garden crowd, Backlund always needed the sale of a 'special attraction' on the undercard which was either one of the umpteen returns of Bruno or Superstar, the latest feud of Andre, Superfly getting even with Albano, etc...and when the main 'attraction' was the Backlund match, it was by virtue of who his opponent was rather than Backlund himself.
It became clear within only a few months that Backlund didn't have the chops to carry the company the way Bruno did, or even the way interim champ Superstar Billy Graham did.

Case in point; the biggest show taking place during Backlund's reign as champion was Shea Stadium 1980. While it can be easily accepted that Bruno vs. Zbyszko in a cage would be a big match, Backlund didn't even get to defend his title in the semi-final. He was relegated to a mid-card match challenging for the tag titles with Pedro Morales.

The reason why Backlund, despite his lack of drawing power, remained champion for as long as he did was because Vince Sr. wouldn't back out of the handshake deal he made with Backlund to make him the company's champion.

While it doesn't sound like the smartest business strategy, Sr was willing to let his company suffer rather than renege on his agreement.

The gimmick they saddled Backlund with early on, "The All-American Boy", probably didn't help. Nor did the WWWF's seeming unwillingness to change, update, or alter that gimmick...which always left the poor guy looking like a man-child despite his incredible in-ring performance.

Perhaps they could have allowed him to change, or allowed the gimmick to "mature", and it would have salvaged things. But they never did...and business suffered.

In retrospect, from the perspective of WWWF 'business' strategy, Superstar Billy Graham had what would probably have been the best idea at the time...to have turned babyface and held the belt for another couple of years.
Seeing how it all went down, my guess is that had this idea come to fruition, Backlund would only be a blip in the memory of those of us who were fans at the time; someone who had a few decent matches on the mid-card; and never would have become champion.

 

[MisterRob]

People overrate Kurt Angle all the time and this thread is proof of it. Angle's a phenomenal wrestler, but that doesn't make him a draw. I definitely wasn't a major draw in the WWE and he hasn't drawn jack in TNA. Bob Backlund was champion for years and WAS a draw, so its really not comparable. Backlund wins easily over Kurt Angle.

 

[Dyno Kid]

Yeah this is Backlund easily for me ! When exactly has Kurt ever been a draw ? Back when Bob was champ the title meant something, unlike today where the belt changes hands so often that you can't keep track and when it does it's no big deal.

I remember when Bob lost the title to the Iron Sheik it made the sports report during the evening news that night. Bob was a major draw up and down the East coast when the WWF was the most lucrative territory in the business. I like Kurt but Bob wins this easily in my opinion.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Well if you're talking about money, then Angle certainly outdrew Backlund.

Probably true, because WWF was just a regional promotion when Backlund was champion. They didn't draw from anywhere else but the Northeast U.S., as opposed to Angle's era in which they drew from the whole world. Plus, they didn't have pay-per-view. But Backlund helped sell out Madison Square Garden every month (19,000) and I believe his comparative drawing power far exceeded Angle's.

In addition to all that, a large number of the folks who went to wrestling shows back then could probably be considered fans of wrestling. Today, you watch how many people at ringside aren't even looking at the match and realize that many are in attendance because they want to be doing what everyone else is doing; it doesn't matter too much what's going on in front of them as long as there's a crowd of people around them. To me, this is what made the Attitude Era a phenomenal time for ratings: the audience was huge but many of them weren't necessarily interested in wrestling...... they were interested in being part of a mass movement.

In other words, actual wrestling fans loved to see Backlund because he could wrestle; not because of any gimmick. In my book, that puts him ahead of Angle when it comes to drawing power.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Its Bob Backlund and its not even close. Backlund was WWWF Champion for 5 years and a huge draw in the territory system even before that. Kurt was never the top guy. Even when he main evented Mania it could be said that Brock Lesnar was the bigger star of the two. I think he was the face of TNA for a period of one or two years but still I do not think that being the top face in TNA can compare to Backlund's achievement of holding on to the World title of a global promotion( WWWF was close to going global at that point and I think they went global by the end of Backlund's reign) for 5 years.

People forget that Backlund had a huge part to play in turning Hulk Hogan face and eventually becoming as big as he did. Hulk was a heel managed by Fred Blassie and he turned face by saving Backlund from a three way assault. Backlund went on to say this about Hogan:

"He's changed his ways. He's a great man. He's told me he's not gonna have Blassie around".

This was the symbolic passing of the torch in my opinion. The face of one generation proclaiming that the face of the next generation had arrived. Hogan eventually got bigger by his victories over Iron Sheik and his feud with Andre but it would be ******ed to say that Backlund did not play a part.

Also as I mentioned before Backlund was the face of a generation. Kurt Angle was not. Case closed.