Was Diesel Squashing Bob Backlund The Right Decision? | Question Of The Day

Was Diesel Squashing Bob Backlund The Right Decision? | Question Of The Day
>> Click Here To Bet On Pro Wrestling and More! <<
Was Diesel Squashing Bob Backlund The Right Decision? | Question Of The Day

Welcome to another eWrestlingNews debate topic!

Let’s take a trip back in time to 30 years ago. At a house show in Madison Square Garden, “Big Daddy Cool” Diesel decimated Bob Backlund to win the WWF Championship. What makes this even more intriguing, Backlund had only just won the title from Bret Hart at Survivor Series 1994, a mere three days ago.

The swiftness of this title change, the abrupt change in champions, the venue for the match, and Diesel’s subsequent dominant reign for nearly a full year (358 days) created a flurry of surprise and excitement. But was this the optimal course of action?

Our question for you today is “Looking back, was it the optimal decision to have Diesel overpower Bob Backlund as he did and win the title at that house show, or should there have been a different outcome?”

We would love to hear your viewpoint on this in the comments section below.

My viewpoint…

As someone who experienced the transition from the Golden Era, to the New Generation, and then the Attitude Era, I viewed the WWE in what ways I could, but wasn’t able to watch the pay-per-view events. I remember being a huge fan of Diesel, who was one of my favorite wrestlers, along with others from the same era like Shawn Michaels, The Undertaker, Bret Hart (my top 3 all-time favorites), and Razor Ramon.

Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for Bob Backlund. His style of wrestling was not what I grew up with, and it is difficult for me to appreciate this type of wrestling in the present day. I’ve always been someone who values quality over nostalgia, much like in cinema where a good film is not necessarily the best just because it is old. Similarly, you will not hear me advocating for older wrestlers like Bruno Sammartino over modern faces from the 80s onwards.

I can understand why some might find Diesel’s demolition of one of the longest-reigning champions quite disrespectful. However, I believe WWE made this decision to propel Diesel as a prominent figure in the wrestling world, hinting at him becoming “the next Hulk Hogan”. The objective at hand was to illustrate Diesel’s dominance and mark a new beginning, deviating from the past.

Did this strategy pay off? Not exactly. Diesel did, indeed, have one of the longest reigns in history, but his run witnessed a chaotic 1995. although he became a multi-time world champion and remained a prominent figure for many years, his most successful periods were more in WCW with the nWo, and not in WWF. In the end, Bret Hart reclaimed the championship a year later.

Even if Diesel had defeated Bret, I doubt it would have changed much. When he trounced Backlund, fans had a reason to cheer. The fact that it took place at a house show injected a sense of unpredictability, implying that “anything can happen at any time”. This served as a promotional strategy which I stand behind, indicating that, in general, the right decision was made. From a business perspective, keeping Backlund as champion may not have been as financially successful or palatable for the audience. It is a speculative thought to consider how the WWE landscape would have been if Backlund continued to retain the title, but it could have resulted in a more turbulent year for the company in 1995.

What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments section below!