Unfortunately, none of that is coming through when you write. And I'm sorry, but you cannot state that a guy from this era is 'more decorated' than guys from a completely different era, without first acknowledging the vast differences in those eras. There are just far too many examples of guys who've competed during or since the Monday Night Wars who had cups of coffee as World Champions, who quickly moved back to the mid card or even lower. Not really. Acknowledgement of the vast differences in eras and how the business operated is not denigrating anyone. That's simply being honest. The length of a title reign does not necessarily mean it's a great one, or a poor one. CM Punk for example, had a record modern day title reign in length... but for the bulk of it, wasn't even a focal point of any of the programming. He'd typically be the "B" story behind whatever story Cena was doing at the time, and only really became a part of the "A" story once he got involved with Cena. That's not a great reign. That's just a long one. But the Miz has more WWE title reigns than Jimmy Snuka. Jack Swagger has more than Bob Orton. Zach Ryder has more IC title reigns than Ted Dibiase. Do any of those things make them greater wrestlers, who have had greater careers? After all, by virtue of those accomplishments, they're all more 'decorated'. Just a few examples for you there. And I just used Wrestlemania because it was the most recent example, and you kind of made my point for me with your response. It's the brand that sells an event like that. It's the brand that sets attendance records for a show so poor as that. The wrestlers were not drawing those extra fans to create the attendance record. They could have stuck you and me in the middle of a ring for that show and still set that record. Yes, Lesnar in my opinion is a draw. That does not mean that everyone he faces is as well, and that fans are picking and choosing what shows to watch on the Network based on who's on the card... which is what happened in the 'old school' days. If you think Lesnar would win this, that's fine. Like I said, I was up in the air about that too until I started reading too much of this thread. No you're tearing them down by casually dismissing how good they were, what type of impact they had on the business, and how big they were in their own time based on the fact that some didn't get voted into this tournament? And again, all I've done is talk about the differences in eras. You don't seem to get that. And his opponents do not have 'more legacy' and 'more drawing power' than Backlunds. More champions, yes. But again, understand the differences and why that is. Here's a list of Lesnar's opponents since the start of 2015: John Cena and Seth Rollins Seth Rollins and Roman Reigns Kofi Kingston Seth Rollins The Undertaker Big Show The Undertaker Alberto Del Rio Sheamus Sheamus Rusev Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose Bray Wyatt and Luke Harper Bray Wyatt and Luke Harper Dean Ambrose Out of that entire list, Cena and the Undertaker are the only two you can honestly say have strong legacies and are proven draws. Here's a sample list of Backlunds opponents just using the year 1982 Tatsumi Fujinami Greg Valentine Adrian Adonis Jesse Ventura Bob Orton Jr. Blackjack Mulligan Jimmy Snuka Haku (King Tonga) Superstar Billy Graham Ray Stevens Don Muraco There were more, but I left the guys off who you likely wouldn't have heard of, like Swede Hansen, Buddy Rose, ect. That is just a list of HOFers, and guys many fans still remember fondly 34 years later. I think that's a good start for the legacy aspect. As for the drawing aspect? The fact that many, if not all of them are in the HOF (WWE and others), should help their arguments that they could all draw, and in all cases, without a globally recognized brand helping to bring the fans in for them. I guess at the end of the day, the point here is Backlund was champ for almost 6 years. Only one guy in WWE history was ever trusted with the belt longer than him. As the champ, he fought the absolute best of his era, and he came out on top against every single one of them. He is more than a match for Lesnar. His career was far better than he's been given credit for here. And if we were to actually stack this up prime versus prime, then considering Backlund did not lose in his prime (6 years as champ would probably help illustrate that point)... he's abso-fucking-lutely someone that can win here. Because also Lesnar does lose in his prime.