Winners and Losers
Another gem almost lost when we closed the old forum. New members can add their opinions whilst the original contributors may like to add more.
Andy
I have often wondered about whose idea it was to have a wrestler have either 'unbeaten' records or long winning runs. Kendo, for example - would this have been the promoters building him up? Or Kendo refusing to lose? On tv at least he did not lose very often, like Mick McManus. The tv bouts Les Kellett had, or at least the ones I have seen, usually resulted in Kellett wins { i am not knocking him by the way}.Other guys such as Sid Cooper {one of the great workers for me} often lost, especially to the new, younger guys such as Danny Collins.
I would love to know of any stories where a wrestler would refuse to lose to certain opponents{ i know about the Pallo/ McManus feud}. Cooper often seemed to lose when I saw him wrestle live. Also, how did certain guys like Brian Maxine hold a title for so long? Again, is this the promoters or the wrestler? Marty Jones traded titles regularly with Rocco and Dave Finlay. I admire all these guys, I am just curious as to how it was all worked out?
There were also young title holders such as Dynamite Kid and Danny Collins. How would the seasoned pros have felt about this? Guys such as Peter Kaye who i don't recall ever holding a title{ although i could be wrong} yet he would be one of the regular opponents for these guys to beat.
Anglo Italian
Nice new topic, at the very heart of pro wrestling.There will be lots of answers and examples but there is no set rule how it all happened as there were so many different circumstances.The aged bill-toppers had to win regularly otherwise they would look over the hill. Masked men had to win, well, not lose, otherwise they unmasked and their run was over.
Basically, the decisions were made in accordance with what was best for the business. I think the most striking winning streaks were of precious imported talent in the shape of Ricki Starr and Billy Two Rivers. But yes, Andy, the winners were rather obvious, what about all those losers, Often wrestlers who could actually win. You mention Sid Cooper, he always came across to me as an over-the-top villain, not 100% believable, and a very very light worker, ie didn't hit or hold hard. But when he was on the BBC documentary training with Rip, he was a different kettle of fish and hit very hard. But he always seemed to lose in the years I went wrestling, even to the likes of Bily Torontos.Just goes to show that we fans may still be intrigued by some results but to seasoned pros, these didn't really matter much, it was all about regular and safe paid work with as little travelling to worry about as possible.
Finally, I can't help smiling at this new myth that seems to have taken on widespread belief since Timeshift, based on a not quite accurate comment from someone on the show and the visual evidence of a great scrap, that the McManus v Pallo bout or bouts were not pre-arranged. That this idea has gained widespread belief in the last fortnight is just further credit to wrestling as a whole and those two wrestlers in particular.
Hack
Yabadabadoo!
What a question.
You do realise, Andy, that if anyone answers your questions Wrestling Heritage would just disappear in a puff of smoke because all of wrestling's great mysteries would have been solved in one go.
I think the one thing we can say with some certainty is that unbeaten runs were at the whim of the promoter. Certainly, where Joint Promotions were concerned they had a tight control over every aspect of the business. Wrestlers won or lost at their discretion. If a wrestler didn't comply they didn't work for them - even the likes of Bert Assirati and Billy Robinson were not indispensible.That, of course, does not start to answer the complexity of the question you have posed.
Nagasaki, for instance. Evidence suggests Nagasaki was a very skilfull, hard wrestler who deserved the recognition and status he received. But why was he nominated for stardom right from his 1964 debut? A novice youngster given a push from the start. Jim Hussey, Francis Sullivan, Yuri Borienko, Earl Maynard, Bruno Elrington; all going down to him within the first six weeks of his career.
Why?
Maybe he did display all the signs of a money maker for the promoters right from day 1, and they saw him as a sure fire investment. But then they could have put a mask and an odd costume on someone already proven who they knew they could trust. It was certainly the promoters decision; the mystery is why?Then there is the question of the unbeaten run. Why would hardened, veteran professionals go down to a youngster night after night?
Just because they were veteran professionals no doubt.
You'll have gathered by now Andy I'm in no position to actually answer your question. McManus we can see as a different kettle of fish (help for those whose English is not their first language). McManus paid his dues over many years, was a dedicated company professional who worked his way up to become a Director of the company. He was the man who made the matches, and the man who decided the result (except where Peter Preston was concerned).
Championships were another matter. Until the 1970s champions were credible, and seemingly the best men in the division. Stories that Eric Taylor held his title for so long because he wouldn't let anyone else have it, or Marino because others respected him so much, seem feasible. It does seem a bit more than just believable that following a long period of inactivity Ernie Riley's light heavyweight belt was allowed only around the waist of the previously retired Billy Joyce because that was the only way Riley would bring his belt out of mothballs. As good professionals, of course, Jack Dempsey and Billy Joyce did loan their belts from time to time. I was a fan of Maxine, but how he became a double champion mystified me at the time, and still does. To me his longevity as a champion says more about the standard of challengers, and weakness of 1980s promoters, than the quality of Maxine as a champion.
Talking of champions. What about George Kidd? Why was he champion for so long? Skilfull? Definiteley. Unique? Yes. But was he only as good as his opponent allowed? I reckon so. Maybe it would have been professional suicide to have destroyed George's myth.
Kellett's an interesting one. A great friend of Norman Morrell. Brought up in northern rings. In later years an adopted southerner of Dale Martin land. And we all know about the animosity between Morrell's and Dales. Another example of how business ruled politics in wrestling.
See what you've got started Andy.
Andy
Thanks guys for your responses. Yes, I see what you mean about wrestlings mysteries!
I find it interesting that in the 70s Kendo beat both Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks { how many others can say that in solo matches?} I know Kendo was a strong man in his own right but interesting that both big guys had to go down to him. Sid Cooper was a regular on the bills I saw live in the late 70s and early 80s and although I saw him wrestle other greats such as Steve Grey, John Naylor, Ironfist ...I also saw him lose to then newcomers such as Danny Collins, Ian McGregor and Greg Valentine. So maybe this just shows Sid as a great worker, giving a leg up the ladder to new talent. I have always suspected that some seasoned pros must have hated doing this and maybe even refused, although I have no proof of this.
I certainly dont remember Kendo losing to newcomers in this fashion.
Slighty off topic, one week at my local venue, the main event was Kendo vs Haystacks. This was billed as the FIRST EVER MEETING!!! Clearly a lie. Anyway, a packed house witnessed Kendo come to the ring accompanied by Blondie Barratt while Haystacks came alone. Kendo had mistakenly thought it was a tag match and refused to face Haystacks alone, so an unknown young wrestler came to partner Haystacks {I think his name was Eddie something} Needless to say, he recieved quite a battering and this was the ONLY time I ever heard the fans cheer for Haystacks { although Kendo didn't stay in the ring with him for long}. Was this a common ploy by the promoters? I didn't see the sense in it as the venue was packed anyway in anticipation of a solo bout between the two, so why change it? Was it maybe just to build their feud at that time?
David Mantell
"Wrestlers won or lost at their discretion. If a wrestler didn't comply they didn't work for them - even the likes of Bert Assirati and Billy Robinson were not indispensible."
Not true - a lot of the Wigan guys as well as others such as George Kidd would flatly refuse to job to anyone who couldn't beat them in a shoot, and in the case of the Wigan crowd would have resorted to cripplingly hooking any non-shooter they were ordered to lay down for. To do otherwise would feel to them like taking a dive. They had a lot of sympathy in the business for this - even Jackie Pallo wrote of George Kidd's refusal to job for inferior legit wrestlers with admiration as a mark of Kidd's integrity.
People like this would however sometimes put over a promising kid whom they thought would make the grade in due course - Billy Robinson and Kendo Nagasaki were thus both put over by their respective mentors Billy Joyce and Count Bartelli.
Anglo Italian
Great topic at the very heart of what fascinates me about professional wrestling.
David, are you saying that Bartelli and B Joyce could have prevented Nagasaki's and Robinson's rise in the early days?
Hack, I don't agree that "unbeaten runs were at the whim of the promoter." These wre important decisions and the Joint Promotions promoters had to decide upon them at their fornightly meetings. Every unbeaten run entailed an equivalent list of perhaps unwilling or unlikely losers, which I believe is what Andy is getting at.
I do think that the various members of JP each had their own individual clout with their own limited power to have absolute control on individual issues. Each had "their own men" who were nominated to have some kind of status throughout the JP network.
For example, Bartelli and then Nagasaki were Atherton men and probably fed back to Jack on goings on in the rings of other JP s.
Other obvious ones were Ken Joyce for Devereux. Mick McManus for Dale Martin. I think the Maxine thing created a champ in McManus's own image but he was selected primarily for those essential qualities of reliability, willingness to travel, defender of the game's integrity and would do what he was told. But he wasn't an administrator at all. Morrell had quite a team around him. Kellett was obviously a cornerstone until his defection. Just how close Peter Preston was to Morrell remains a a key mystery.
Geo. Kidd ran a nice safe show and accommodation when the lads went to Scotland.
When these wrestlers then travelled to other JP turf their reputations and unbeatability were defended 100% thanks to the national agreement.
David has been on a successful search for Joint Promotions dates. As usual, dates and figures interest me far less than content. It is the fly on the wall records of those meetings which fascinate me and which we try to piece together here with theory and evidence.
An extension of this is to visiting talent. I mentioned Two Rivers and Starr and the national approach was 100% visible in terms of their results. The handling of some others is far more intriguing, and the lack of sharing southwards of some such as Los Halcones Dorados still intrigues me now.
And how was Devereux allowed not to play the sharing game by hogging, I believe 100%, the Executioner of Bethune on his various tours and about 100 UK bouts?
But another shining example of unity was the handling of Jean Ferre on this three tours. In the first tour he won virtually everything, also on tv, and a high-profile Albert Hall debut. But fascinating results, shared a few years ago by Heritage Wryton, revealed that, in his successive visits, he lost most times, meaning that many UK heavweights could and can claim victories over the subsequently immovable André the Giant.
Jean Ferre wrestled across the various JP borders and there was a very visible party line on the outcome of his matches.
The route this party line took to be communicated and obeyed remains of interest here, and remains unclear. Without a party line, fragmented promotions, also called independants, created results that sometimes lacked logic and harmed wrestling's integrity. Those who want to raise the profile of modern day wrestling should, IMHO, first and foremost create a national structure, regarding results and many other issues.
Bernard Hughes
Hi Andy. You said " Kendo had mistakenly thought that it was a tag match" etc.
I don't know what sort of date that you were talking about but this really is not likely. I think that it would more likely be a ploy by the promoter to build up amimosity for say, a series of matches, and to build up interest for a future event.
David. I think that quite a few of us would be interested to know how you could prove a statement like "A lot of the Wigan guys as well as others" .... "would not job" etc. I can't say that it is wrong and it certainly has been repeated quite a few times on this site.
Is it all hearsay?. Would anyone on this site who did wrestle give us a hint to just say ,"Yes or No" whether this actually happened.
As I understood it, certainly in the earlier days in Morrell promotions the wrestlers would do as they were told or not get to work for him again.
I know it all helps the the perceived logic that wrestlers won or lost on their ability, but I believe that isn't true either.
I think that it had a lot to do with popularity,drawing power and how the booker and promoter saw the future for a particular wrestler. Obviously a youngster being built up to have a future in the game,would not lose too many and so we have as quoted, perfectly able people like Sid Cooper often losing matches that logic and ability tell you that they should have won.
Anglo Italian
Reference Wigan, I also don't like the inevitable implication that any wrestler who wasn't Wigan-trained wasn't up to much.
David Mantell
Pallo talks about this a bit in his book, esp re Assirati and Kidd.
I'm sure the masters were perfectly capable of beating the students, but they weren't going to because Naggers and Robinson were respectively Bartelli's & Joyce's prize students and they wanted to give their protegés a break. So Billy J jobbed his Heavyweight double crown to Billy R (in two stages a year apart!), and the Count lost his mask to Kendo, and so two torches were passed.
Riley's and Charnock's were the last two hooking/ripping schools left on the face of the Earth by then.
SaxonWolf
Some interesting stuff here, hopefully Andy is starting to get the information he needs. I think Bernard hits the nail on the head, in the long run, it all came down to "bums on seats", or "drawing power". Let's remember this was a business, with halls and venues booked long in advance, the promoters needed to ensure that the halls were full, so it made sense to have results that ensured the audience would be waiting with baited breath for the re-match or to see a local hero take on a national big name villain.
Sid Cooper is mentioned in a few places as a cagey old pro who could actually wrestle, and was often put in the ring with any new wrestler wanting a try out, to see how good they were.
The Nagsaki "mystery" as to how he was booked to win against a lot of big names early in his career, not sure, I need to think about that one.
In the early days of Joint Promotions, all wrestlers (or nearly all) had to be able to wrestle, they were sent to YMCA's and wrestling clubs, and we know that many of the early promoters had links to legitimate free style wrestling, so would favour real wrestlers. Billy Robinson was a wrestling champion, with proven credentials, apart from his superlative submission skills, so he would be an obvious candidate.
At the end of the day, the promoters called the shots, and with the Joint Cartel in operation, you had to toe the line if you wanted to work.
David Mantell
Well there was definitely a confrontation with Assirati, but with other great rippers/hookers there seems to have been a policy of appeasement - A lot of the Wigan crowd and other important hookers got booked into titles long term. Robinson kept his double crown Brit/Euro Heavyweight titles up until he went off to the US. Two Wigan men Ernie Riley and Billy Joyce had a stranglehold on the British Light Heavyweight title for nearly a quarter of a century, Tommy "Jack Dempsey" Moore became a quadruple crown British/European/Commonwealth/World (unified Euro version) Welterweight champion and kept it all until his untimely 1966 retirement, Bartelli and George Gordienko got long Commonwealth Heavyweight title runs, Eric Taylor held the British HeavyMiddleweight title undefeated until his retirement. Etc Etc
(Meanwhile, a cynic might point out, McManus and Pallo got all the main events and the media attention.)
A footnote to this - "shooter politics" also existed in the US in earlier eras. Lou Thesz's trainer George Tragos back in the thirties refused to job to anyone who could not out-shoot him and was liable to injure opponents - he once said to Lou "You'll never be a champion unless you make up your mind to hurt these people!". Tragos once injured the arm of a hyped-up young kid he was supposed to job to that the arm had to be amputated.
Tragos had the exact same mentality as Assirati or Robinson and would have gotten along like brothers with either one. Yet Tragos was kept as bottom-of-the-card filler (as a sideline to his training work) whereas Assirati and Robinson were champions and stars. That to me illustrates the shooter-orientated character of traditional British Wrestling.
SaxonWolf
David, I know what you are saying, and in the early days of the Mount-Evans rules, I would imagine it was far safer to put the belt on someone who was respected by all the other wrestlers (reing that back in those days, all wrestlers had to be able to actually wrestle) and also someone who would not get caught out in a double cross situation. Hence legit shooters being weight-class champions.
It has often been said that years ago, and probably still today, there was always a chance of some bloke in a bar coming over to pick a fight with a famous wrestler, and the worst thing would be for the wrestler to end up on the front pages of the daily newspaper for losing to some drunken bar room brawler, bad for business, his tough-man credibility would be shot.
I think it was Dynamite Kid who said, in his book, that American wrestler Jake Roberts had chickened out of a fight outside a bar, when he was the Stampede Heavyweight Champion, which disgusted Stu Hart, so the belt had to be put on someone else.
Non-wrestlers in the US territiories (or non-shooters, to be accurate) who held titles, were usually provided with a body guard, who would be called upon to help him out if a sniff of a double cross arose, they were called "Policemen" and the famous, and respected, Ruffy Silverstein was always a low to mid card wrestler, not charismatic enough, but was always called into action as a Policeman for champs like Buddy Rogers, who could not actually shoot, but were good workers. Harley Race had to go to Japan, as Ric Flairs "manager" and sit at ringside when Flair faced (I think) Inoki. as the NWA feared that Inoki was going to shoot on Flair in a nationally televised bout and send Flair back to the USA minus the belt.
The fact that we kept the belts on real wrestlers (for the most part) is one of the things that I like about British wrestling, these were real sportsmen, real athletes, who could and would take on all comers behind closed doors.
There are, of course, anomolies, McManus being the obvious one, also Marino and Maxine, holding belts well into middle (or even old) age, no one can convince me that some tough young grappler could not win against an aging Maxine, unless the promoters told them they could not. As for Count Bartelli's belt, I think from memory he "bought" that, or at least suddenly reappeared claiming that he had won it while in Australia. Again, as good as he was, an ageing Count Bartelli would not have beaten all up and coming youngsters.
Pro Wrestling is a businiess, more than it is any kind of sport.
Eddie Rose
Shooters meant men who wanted to fight regardless of opponents, halls, promoters or anything else. Some shooters wanted to fight every time out; others were more unpredictable.
A good shooter did not necessarily have to be "Riley Gym" stampmarked although that was a pretty good indicator.
Hans Streiger put the fear of God into many opponents and once uppercut Billy Robinson so hard it put Billy on his back. Billy gamely acknowedged it afterwards and said no one had ever hit him so hard in the ring. Skull Murphy was another who easily turned and decided he wanted a bruising encounter, ditto Keith Martinelli, Orig Williams, Jack Martin, Gordon Corbett. Martinelli apart, these were all former boxing booth performers and were well schooled in fisticuffs of all kinds.
There is a story that once Skull and Martinelli got into an argument on the Isle of Man ferry that developed into a punch up that lasted for virtually the whole passage. It was described to me by a very relaiable witness as like a John Wayne bar room brawl. And free for the punters.
Jackie Pallo is famous for giving Harvey Smith a black eye when their bout got out of control at Blackburn. OK nothing too brilliant about that perhaps, but he meted out the same treatment to a promoter who crossed him. That promoter had been a European Professional boxing champion and was the same age as Pallo.
I'm not disparaging Wigan in any way, they were wonderful wrestler (shooters); Riley, Dempsey, Foley, Riss, Joyce, probably the best around at their time but, as one or two other posters have already pointed out there were others on the scene with no Wigan connections.
Mad Mac
Eddie, I presume the promoter concerned is Peter Keenan? His (Keenan's) autobiography mentions an incident with the Pallos where Junior looked to be about to have a pop and was put on his rear end by Keenan.
David Mantell
Usually the term "shooter" is used to mean a pro wrestler who is legitimately proficient at Catch Wrestling,
(incuding the submissions and the technique which is more sophisticated than Olympic freestyle. It is, in short, the legit sport which worked pro wrestling purports to be. Thus a {straight-}shooter is someone who can genuinely play the sport of wrestling, as opposed to just perform a match.)
A "hooker" is a shooter who has mastered all aspects of the most crippling submission holds of Catch Wrestling.
A "ripper" is a hooker who goes onto the mat/ring working from a mindset/gameplan of aiming to maul and ultimately seriously injure an opponent.
At Riley's gym, wrestlers were trained to be Rippers. Nothing less.
grahambrook
During the ten years or so that I was involved in promoting I found that the attitudes of the various wrestlers to "winning" or "losing" varied enormously. I had no problems at all with "shooters" and although I used several of the Wigan men (Joe Critchley, Dave Newman and Melvyn Riss immediately come to mind), never was there any attempt to do other than provide an entertainment. Where I knew of enmities between wrestlers, I generally tried to avoid booking them on the same bill. I didn't know of the confrontation between Martinelli and Murphy but I did know that they were both extremely hard men. I was advised to avoid Martinelli so I did and, many years on, now regret it because, as a punter, I certainly enjoyed watching him. I was similarly advised regarding "Skull" Murphy or, in the days I booked him, "Bad Boy" Steve Young. He worked for me by default. A wrestler (I forget who) let me down for a show I was promoting at The Parr Hall, Warrington. I seem to recall that he had been given a week's work by Dixon since accepting my solitary booking against Jim Moser and, as it was his livelihood, felt that he had to take the week. Moser told me that he could fix up an opponent for himself and turned up with Young. In the dressing room I began laying out the bout with them and was stopped politely but firmly by Young who said, "We're used to working together. Just leave it to us lad, we know what we're doing." And indeed they did, producing a great bout. Admittedly, I was in my early twenties at the time and I think that Young regarded me as little more than a punter who had more money than sense. Famous altercations from my time included a particularly nasty fracas between Abe Ginsberg and John Lees (I believe Ginsberg came off better) and Woody Waldo and Frank Cullen. I was refereeing a morning show for Bobby Barron at Tower Beach Holiday Camp, Prestatyn, and Waldo had been booked to face Karl Mc.Grath. Both Waldo and Cullen were lodging in Rhyl at the time working for Orig Williams. Waldo and Cullen had had a genuine backstage fight the previous evening and Waldo arrived the next morning to fight Mc.Grath but barely able to move. Professional to his fingertips, he worked the bout with Mc.Grath (in fact, two bouts, for Pontin's owned two camps in Prestatyn at the time and we would do one in the morning and the second in the afternoon) but it was avery different bout to the one initially envisaged with Waldo going villain which enabled him to move less, spend more time on his feet arguing with the punters and doing blindside punches. Incidentally, it was the first time Waldo had played such a role but he genuinely enjoyed it and I'm sure that this performance out of necessity led the way for his character as an out and out villain for Brian Dixon at Liverpool Stadium a couple of years later. I've got sidetracked on the subject of genuine wrestling feuds but really came on to say what a difference in attitude there was between wrestlers regarding their acceptance or otherwise of the result from workers like Pete Northey (Young) or Bob Bell who would take no instructions saying, "Leave it to us, kid, ", to workers such as Steve Haggetty or would say, "What do you want us to do?" I recall booking Steve Haggetty vs Mike Dallas the Civic Hall, Nantwich, and, following my experience with Steve Young at Warrington, saying, "It's up to you lads. Do whatever you want." Haggetty looked disgusted and said, "Come on, you're supposed to be a promoter. What do you want us to do?" Embarrassed, I murmered, "Six cats," and retreated.
Bernard Hughes
Great post Graham, giving us the inside knowledge on how bouts were arranged sometimes.
I am sorry David, but you cannot believe all that you read in newspapers , magazines or even the internet, as much as we would all like it to be true..
David Mantell
One thing that has to be said for shooters/hookers/rippers - if they HAD been succesfully double crossed, they would never have complained or whined about it - they would have had far too much respect for any opponent who could pull off such a thing!
It would have taken a very good youngster to beat Bartelli or Marino since knowledge of techniques is crucial to shooting. It's a bit like a poker game really - instead of what cards you have, it's what holds/counters/techniques you know. Strangler Lewis had a public shoot with a mate of Lou Thesz's in the late 30s and it went to a draw after something like 90-120 mins. Lou himself refused to job a title in Nick Gulas's territory until Gulas sorted him out for an unpaid debt - Thesz was safe in the knowledge that no-one else around could beat him (maybe Robinson, but that would be out of the frying pan into the fire for Gulas.)
McManus by all accounts was a good amateur rather than a Shooter. Pallo was an OK amateur - notably he only ever had one short interim title reign (British H-Mid for a couple of months in 1969.) A better example to build your case would have been Giant Haystacks's 1979 British Heavyweight title reign. Haystacks was VERY vulnerable to any shooter who meant business. Looking at his old TV solo bouts, a lot of opponents make the point of succesfully legdiving him and having him dangling on the ropes before they let him do his squashing routine.
David Mantell
An added point about "shooter politics" - one particularly obvious manifestation of it was Dues-Paying - the early period in which apprentice pro wrestlers would be kept out of kayfabe and partake in what they would be led to believe was a shoot (although in practice their more experienced opponent would be carrying them to a decent length of bout- a true competition shoot under these circumstances would end in a few seconds) during the course of which the novice would be thoroughly streched, battered and stiffed by the veteran.
A lot has been written by the likes of Fin Martin of Powerslam about how the veterans were being 'nasty evil bullies' by doing this, but one of the main reasons for dues-paying was that a predominantly shooting talent pool would not accept working with a new wrestler until he (or she) had proven that he/she could pose any sort of reasonable challenge as an opponent whatsoever in a legitimate competitive situation. Once a novice has made the league of his/her peer group, then and only then would experienced wrestlers work with him/her, as they would accept someone once they had proven they *did* stand at least a cat in Hell's chance in a real match situation.
Thanks for the replies, very interesting stuff. Norfolk Snake - wow, that is good to know. I could not say if it was your friend as really cannot remember his name but yes, the guy was shortish - although next to Haystacks, who wasn't?!!!
A marathon thread that is hugely enjoyable. After I returned to the U.K. in 1970 (returned to Aus in '77) it didn't take too long before I did get a little fed-up with Maxine and Nagasaki. Seeing either of them standing in a corner waiting to be introduced, guaranteed a good bout that would inevitably end in their victory. In the '60s being a youngster I always thought bouts could go either way. I knew, or was it sensed, better, as I grew older. A few years ago I watched a Maxine v Steve Wright match (re-watched a few months ago) and even though Steve was a skinny rookie, if someone looked at the match today not knowing either man, they would be hard pushed to decide who the ultimate winner would end up being. The willingness of Brian to allow Steve to shine, whilst still 'getting in' his own good work, made me realise what a good professional he was.
A couple of years ago Ed Lock told me that while I was away (either in the 70s or mid to late 80s) Buddy Austin had been put over Billy Robinson to the tune of 2-0. This coming from a guy (Austin) who on his first tour of Aus (mid 60s) had been a mid-carder. If I had been eating toast I would have choked on it!
Although there were perennial winners such as Tibor, Veidor, McManus, Logan, Kellett, Howes, etc. there was always that possibility that some of those mentioned could be disqualified and others named would win, but on disqualification. I think guys like Robinson, Taylor, Kidd ,Dempsey, Mann, Joyce, etc. had earned the respect of the promoters and putting a younger man over would probably be a question of 'not this time, maybe next time'. If a young guy wanted to commit suicide in a business sense, by trying to beat one of the above and earning the wrath of the promoter, well, he could probably guess his fate. On the other hand, shooting or just trying to sneak an advantageous win against those mentioned would have been probable suicide!
So Andy, I can shed some light on 'Eddie' - Eddie McCracken was his name - I worked with him as a printer in Fakenham, Norfolk in the early 90s. He started to come to watch the wrestling at Norwich and King's Lynn with me and I eventually persuaded him to start training at Norwich Corn Hall with me and Ivan Trevors and Tony Barron and it was not long before he started wrestling for local Norwich promoter Trevor Denny. We had some great bouts together for Trevor on the camps and local Norfolk halls - because we were good mates we would hit and kick each other hard, without any fear of upsetting each other if that makes sense. After I finished wrestling, Eddie carried on and got some good sub jobs at Yarmouth and Norwich. I think he wrestled Barry Douglas, Sid Cooper amongst others. Eddie was quite short in height (5ft 5 ish?) so must have been a very odd sight when he tagged with Haystacks against Kendo and Blondie....wish I'd have seen it !
Norfolk Snake - yes it was!
I am intrigued - the match Andy refers to between Haystacks and 'Eddie' against Kendo and Blondie - was that at Yarmouth ?
That story came from the great Adrian Street, in his books, not sure I have heard it from anyone else who would be "in the know".
Wasn't there a plan to have Spiros Arion drop his world heavweight title to Shirley, but he refused, hence why he lost it to Wayne Bridges?
It would have pushed credibility beyond its limits to have him as any kind of champion in his later years despite full venues
Peter.....No offence intended,but I referred to Big Daddy,not Shirley Crabtree,who was supposed to be the British Champion until Bert got upset.
The "great" Big Daddy was never a champion,but he filled the halls for a few years
Unless he won the belly butt championship?
I meant why was Walsh a champion for so long.
Was he the best wrestler in that division?
To my mind probably.
After Jim Anderson went, Mancelli and Marino did not beat him in a title fight in the North.
Allan and Portz were not yet well known.
He did not live in the Leeds /Bradford area ,so was not on call. He moved further South later.
To my knowledge he did not help to train any Morrell youngsters. He helped train later and told Morrell about the boys that shone at St Lukes.
Morrell obviously saw something that he liked and pushed him.
That's the answer- to hold a belt for a long time you need the promoter's backing,not only wrestling ability.
I wonder if Norman's car accident had a more prolonged effect on him.
And another thing!, we were debating some time back (as evidenced in the above thread) why Maxine and Marino kept hold of belts and titles for so long, which we are still debating to this day!
Another thing, reading the old thread above, the thought that Count Bartelli was a real wrestler who passed the torch to Kendo Nagasaki, when Peter Thornley states (in his book, which we probably never thought would be written back then) that Bartelli was a show wrestler who local toughs would challenge, and Bartelli said something like "if you can beat this young lad, I will take you on" and Kendo gave the challenger a beating.
Good point Bernard, and I guess it was just the way the thread evolved. Norman Walsh must have been able to wrestle to get a belt in those days, and be capable of defending it, and (perhaps more importantly) loyal to Norman Morrell.
I'm sure no disrespect to Norman Bernard. We wouldn't dare within your hearing Bernard. Maybe Norman falls into a lost generation. Most readers here are a bit younger than me. I started watching in 1965. Norman was around, I was aware of him as a long standing champion. He had the crash, worked for the independents but I didn't see him. So, even for someone of my age he doesn't quickly come to mind. Less so for younger contributors. A lost generation?
This thread starts off naming quite a few wrestlers who held titles for lengthy periods .This especially happened under Norman Morrell. I am surprised that Norman Walsh was not mentioned.
Apart from his car accident ,I think that he would have held a title for even longer than he did.
Why?
Answers please.
SaxonWolf
A fast, strong youngster would have caused problems for Marino or Bartelli, both who wrestled into their 50's. But I am not just talking about young wrestlers David, my point actually was that one of the things that started to turn me off wrestling was when people like Maxine still held belts when they were over the hill, not sure why that was, and no one can convince me that no one in the country could beat them, but for some reason the promoters wanted to make us belive that. The last few Marino bouts I saw on TV he was slow, naturally. Anyone remember Ken Joyce making a comeback in his 50's? It was pretty bad.
McManus did learn amateur, but whether he was any good is open to debate, my memories of him were that he never did much real wrestling, same for Pallo.
David Mantell
It would have to be an extremely skilled fast strong youngster. Otherwise technical knowledge would trump raw athleticism.
matey dave
let us not forget steve logan (the original and best) got a championship belt late in his carreer. i be believe this was welcomed by lads in the locker room
Anglo Italian
Since I have been doing this, I have come to realise just how little most wrestlers knew about the national goings on. I think fans and historians, especially highly insightful ones like David, are to be respected enormously. Their research and analysis give them a breadth of knowledge shared by few "in the trade".
Anyway, most wrestlers even now remain too tight-lipped to open up about some of these subjects. To pigeon-hole fans' comments as in any way sub-standard on this fan forum will see our discussion shrivel.
David just states his opinions as 100% fact which is an accepted academic style that may shock some casual readers. I was also at odds with one of his opinions above and questioned it (ie that Nagasaki and Robinson would have been unable to beat Bartelli and B Joyce when they started). Let's face it, nobody will be able to prove anything at this point in time 50 years on, but at least David's opinions are crystal clear.
The fun here is chatting and disagreeing with people and having evidence to back up one's points.
Bernard Hughes
Hi Anglo. I accept your admonishment and sincerely apologise to David.
Hack
Some interesting comments here, but with the exception of Eddie they are all opinions; knowledgeable opinions but not facts however forcefully they are made. The original question was about who made the decision regarding wrestlers unbeaten runs. The answer must surely be the promoter. Champions were mostly legitimate wrestlers until the 1970s, but again that was at the discretion of the promoters. David uses the word appeasement. I'm not sure if that's the right word, but know what he means and think he's right. But the decision to strap the belt around a legitimate wrestler was that of the promoter.It was a strategic decision quite feasibly for the reasons given by Saxonwolf. They didn't need to appease Jack Dempsey, Eric Taylor etc because if they didn't want them as champions, and if they were unwilling to go down as required, they just wouldn't have used them. Nobody was indispensible. It does seem likely, though, that the likes of Norman Morrell and Jack Dale would have had enormous respect for Joyce, Dempsey, etc and would have valued the legitimacy they brought to the business.
David Mantell
Apology accepted.
As for "Dues-paying", there are quite a lot of pros who have told their stories on this and could do so on here - from both ends of the paying.
Bear in mind we're talkng about two students - in the youths of their careers - being able to defeat their respective teachers. Not that Bartelli and Joyce would have minded putting over their prize students, but in a shoot it would have both been different stories.
Hack
I do agree with you on this point David, that both Joyce and Bartelli would have been superior to their students in the early days. I do think there was a difference in that Robinson had been a pro for nine years before being allowed the British title; he'd defeated everyone else (including Joyce) on occasions and was a very credible champion. Nagasaki defeated his mentor after only 18 months as a pro. I'm not so surprised that Bartelli was agreeable to this, but am mystified why the promoters allowed the undoubtely talented Nagasaki such a rapid rise.
SaxonWolf
I agree Hack, these are all opinions, I admit that mine are, and usually I try and quote the source of information, such as books by Pallo, or Dynamite Kid. I do think that when the Mount Evans committee created the rules and weight classes for modern wrestling, Norman Morrell would have already wanted proper wrestlers to carry the belts, people who could defend it and look good doing it. So, for example, if an Amateur champ was follish enough to issue a challenge to a Pro champ, the pro champ would not let down his profession. I agree with David, that the best shooters would have had the upper hand in the early days, because of the above and because they could do anything in the ring, just like Assirati could brutalise his opponents for as long as people would be willing to pay to see it.
And for me, that is the crux of the matter, "for as long as people would be willing to pay to see it". The promoters (Joint Promotions) were earning a small fortune, while we know that wrestlers often complained about small payouts. The promoters were not living in rented accomodation (as was Adrian Street when I left him at the end of book 3 of his series), they were the ones renting out accomodation (to Adrian again, funnily enough), they would not allow a strike by wrestlers for more pay, or a wrestlers union to stop them in their quest for generating income and profit, they called the shots.
SaxonWolf
David, if shoot wrestling was an Olympic event, then if what you are saying is true (..."It would have to be an extremely skilled fast strong youngster. Otherwise technical knowledge would trump raw athleticism...") all the gold medals would have been won by men in their 40's and 50's?
At the 2012 Olympics, in the three main wrestling events (Greco Roman, Freestyle and Judo, if you class jacket wrestling), only two gold medal winners were over 30 (they were both 33), so out of 21 events (seven weight classes per style), the two oldest were 33? the average age for a gold medal winner was around 26 from memory. Where were all the old wrestlers?
The only over 40 champ I can think of would be Randy Couture from UFC (an absolute class act), with all the rest of the champs being younger than 35.
The promoters let Marino, Maxine, McManus and co hold on to the belts, for reasons known only to them, maybe "bums on seats"?
David Mantell
If that generation had much higher skills than the young 'uns then yes. In practice in amateur it's stayed level. Of course someone like John Naylor or Steve Wright might have taken out Marino if he was in the mood, but don't expect too many of the rank & file to pull it off.
Bernard Hughes
First of all I have to say that I think that this is a wonderful site. The depth of knowledge and experience shown here is quite remarkable, considering the length of time since the Golden Era passed.
I know that David Mantell will say that wrestling is still going on (as debated in a previous topic) and I am not trying to raise that subject again. Also regarding David I have to agree with Anglo, when he said “ I think that fans and historians ,especially highly insightful ones like David are to be respected enormously. Their research and analysis gives them a breadth of knowledge shared by few in the trade.”
I have no problems or queries on that statement
When I posted on this topic I asked a specific question for a specific reason. I wanted to know if David had any experience inside the game.
If he has then I have to bow to his superior knowledge, however when he makes statements as if they are facts like
” A Ripper is a Hooker who goes onto the mat/ring working from a game plan to maul and ultimately seriously injure an opponent ” then I have to have doubts.
The original question amounted to ,” with regard to long winning runs, who decides?”
Hack at first said “at the whim of the promoter”
Anglo said” when these wrestlers travelled to other JP turf, their reputations and unbeatability were defended 100% thanks to the national agreement”
Graham Brook gave a detailed account of who decided bouts when he was promoting.
SaxonWolf said” Pro wrestling is a business more than it is any kind of sport”
Hack said” Some interesting opinions here but........they are all opinions . Knowledgeable opinions but not facts no matter how forcibly they are made”...... Then he said “The Promoter decided”
SaxonWolf said ”The promoters let Marino, Maxine, McManus and Co. hold onto their belts for reasons known only to them, maybe bums on seats”
I thoroughly enjoy reading David's contributions on the history of wrestling but I can't agree with him on this subject.
Yes Hack, I know that they are only opinions but most of them seem to think one way.
I think that any wrestler, no matter how good he was who went into the ring with the intention of injuring his opponent would not be working for that promoter for long and he would soon run out of promoters and hence work. No professional would do this.
Sorry, once again David, but we are going to have to agree to disagree this time.
David Mantell
http://www.lamuscle.com/magazine/article/Real_Wrestling
Shooting and Shooters
In amateur wrestling, 'shooting' is what you do when you attempt a single or double-leg takedown. You literally 'shoot in' on your opponent's legs. The old-timers, however, didn't refer to leg attacks this way. Singles and doubles were referred to as 'leg dives.'
'Shooting,' on the other hand, meant you had a match that was on the level, with rules like those shown above. As professional wrestling devolved, however, it became necessary to distinguish between the real pros or 'shooters,' and the pretend wrestlers, known as 'workers.'
In order to be known as a 'shooter' - you had to be schooled in the professional style, replete with submissions. Even if you were an amateur champion, you were not considered a 'shooter' until you knew the professional game. Most importantly, you had to be someone who went to the post.
In the United States, after the late 1920's, there were no more shoots, but there were professional wrestlers who were trained in the real pro method. These men may have never had a professional shoot, but they were known as 'shooters' because they could and would go to the post at any time, if someone wanted to try them. Additionally, these men were known to train for real during the day, so there skills were always razor sharp.
Hooks, Hookers and Hooking
When referring to the submission holds of professional catch wrestling, the common term they used was 'hook.' The world's foremost catch wrestling authority, Karl Gotch, also known as 'The God of Pro Wrestling' in Japan, describes the term thusly:
'Think of fishing. When you have a fish on the end of a hook, he wiggles and squirms and can't get free. You've hooked him. That's where the term comes from. You hook a guy when you have a submission hold on him and he can't do anything to wiggle free. But, like in fishing, once you have the guy hooked, you still have to reel him in. We always said, 'take up the slack.' Once you take up the slack, you position the fulcrum and apply the leverage. And the big thing about it is, bulls get killed on the floor. Submission is not something you do standing up.'
To be known as a 'hooker' in professional wrestling, you had to be highly skilled in the art of submissions. But, a 'hooker' and a 'shooter' were one in the same. And it had to be this way.
'A shooter who didn't know hooking wasn't a shooter,' said Gotch. 'It would be like going into a professional boxing match without knowing a jab, a right cross, a hook and an uppercut. Hooking was basic to professional catch wrestling. All shooters knew how to hook. And when you could hook faster than the others, you became known as a hooker, but you were still a shooter.'
Rippers and Ripping
In boxing you have the knockout artist. He knows the same punches as the others, but he's rougher and tougher than the rest and does whatever it takes to put his foe out for the count. Professional wrestling's equivalent of boxing's knockout artist is called the 'ripper.' It is the highest form of praise that a shooter can receive from his peers. A 'ripper' doesn't simply work for a pin fall or a submission. His mission is to physically maul you. If you leave the ring bloodied, battered and injured, the ripper considers it a job well done.
From the moment Karl Gotch entered the famous Billy Riley gym in Wigan, England, in 1950, he was trained to be a ripper. Nothing less.
SaxonWolf
David, is this from a US site? Gotch said many things over the years, including massive praise of Billy RIley, and then pouring scorn on Billy RIley.
I have read the Billy Robinson book, but can't rememberhim saying he was trained to be a "ripper", (I could be wrong and will go and check if I get the chance this weekend), and seeing as I see Billy Robinson as the supreme wrestler/shooter, I am taking his word! :P
David Mantell
I've never seen anything of him pouring scorn on Riley. Gotch poured scorn on Matt Furey (after they fell out over money), but that was a different matter.
Ripper and Hooker were more American terms, but even in America back in the day Wigan had the reputation of being a hotbed for rippers. (Cf also Max Crabtree's comment in Simon Garfield's book about Wigan wrestlers having "reputation for breaking legs")
SaxonWolf
David, you can find an interview on youtube of Karl Gotch, smoking a cigar on his front porch, chatting to the bloke who wrote the book on shooters recently (I will dig out the info if you cannot find it, not near my books at the minute) Gotch pulls a face when Rileys face is mentioned, and either says, or agrees to the fact that, "Riley learned everything from Pop Charnock". I think they are discussing "The Wigan Hold" or whatever the DVD was called. (Catch" The Hold Not Taken?)
Ripper and Hooker were more american terms, exactly! "Shooter" was (or is) the British/European name, from what I have seen.
SaxonWolf
David, I love your knowledge and enthusiasm (going right back to the one stop wrestling days), please understand this is just a difference of opinion between us on one topic, in fact just a difference of very specifc things, not a fundamental issue on our mutual fascination with shooters.
David Mantell
Shooter and Hooker and to a lesser extent Ripper were all dervied from carnivals in America, however the term shooter made it over here to the UK wrestling business to the point where even the Riley's scene knew of it. However, the Snakepit was known of as far afield as the US and over there they had the Ripper reputation.
There was definitely as Riley vs Charnock feud on in the mid C20th. I think Karl was digging out old politics from that feud. We do know that the last moneyed shoot in Lancashire wrestling history was Rileys vs Charnocks, with Billy Joyce representing Riley's (he lost, apparently.)
However, before you infer from the above that there was no hooker/shooter distinction in the UK, it's worth considering the following little quote
"I went to Wigan on two occasions to speak with Roy Woods [sic] and his friend and wrestling writer Allison. Roy explained the more lethal wrestling was not shown systematically and was saved til the student had earned their wings through orthodox sport wrestling. And it depended on the student’s “trustability” (my word)."
Grizzled Veteran
Whilst this thread has wandered from its original question into a somewhat abstract disscussion of "hookers, shooters, etc, etc" I was interested in the mention of Billy Joyce losing a shoot.
I seem to rememberthis came up before in a thread on an old site "1stop" maybe where it was stated that one of the Belshaw/Beamont brothers beat him injuring his leg in the process, an injury that troubled him for the rest of his career.
Does anyone else recall this and provide/confirm the details?
SaxonWolf
David, as interesting as it is, I would probably ere on the side of caution (personally) and I will stick to what Dynamite Kid says in his book, he says that he learns to "wrestle" and that he is then told he needs to learn to "shoot". He refers to John Foley, Billy Robinson and Karl Gotch as "shooters" and does not use the terms "Hookers" or 'Rippers" as far as I re, if anyone wants to point to me where this is mentioned in "Pure Dynamite" then I will stand corrected.
In "Whatever Happened to Gorgeous George", I do seem to recall the word "Hooker" being used (and as we all know, it was the name of the Lou Thesz book), so I believe this to be a US term. When I learned submission wrestling, we were always taught to "get our hooks in", which was locking someones arm or leg, so they could not move, while you slowly shifted position to get into a painful submission move.
I always thought that shooter was a wigan term that travelled far and wide, not a term from the USA that travelled over here, I would really love to know where you get that information from?
As a real life student of submission wrestling, and a fan of all wrestling, real or pro, I am always happy to learn more, so if you can point me at your sources I would be grateful.
For everyone else, if I/we have gone off topic, I apologise. This is just sheer enjoyment of the subject, not trying to intentionally derail something.
SaxonWolf
hi Grizzled. Yes I know the conversation you mean, as I think it was me that supplied it! I know I searched, found, and posted some information on an American website that discussed catch and carnival wrestling, and I posted that the last known real "behind closed doors" shoot was in Riley v Charnock, with substantial side-bet money on. I just need to rememberwhere I got my information from!
David Mantell
It's late at night right now and I've got work, but just strictly for starters:
http://www.wrestlingperspective.com/UnrealVideo.html
""Hooker" and "shooter" come from the carnival. To "hook" is to double-cross, such as the barker rigging the carny games so the sucker can't win. In wrestling it also refers to a double-cross, a "hooker" being a double-crosser. After a while it became a badge of honor and signified people outside the wrestling trust. To be a hooker, you had to be really good at your craft. "Shooter" comes from "straight shooter," referring to rifles that weren't tampered with; eventually "shoot" was equated with honest. "
http://www.squaredcircleofwrestling.com/2012/09/06/squared-circle-of-wrestling/
Shooters And Hookers
Posted on September 6, 2012 by squaredcircleofwrest “It is vain to find fault with those arts of deceiving wherein men find pleasure to be deceived.” — John Locke, 1690
straight shooter (n) – term describing one who is candid, forthright, honest. The phrase originated in American carnivals in the post-Civil War period in the late 1860s, which among other forms of entertainment offered shooting contests. These contests attracted gamblers, most of whom were unaware that the contests were rigged; to ensure that the right contestant won, the ‘rube’ was given a corrupted gun to use, which would miss its target. The intended winner was given the ‘straight shooter.’
The traveling American carnival of yesteryear: a spectacle of fun, excitement, and amusement; as well as a cesspool operated by society’s rogues and outcasts, whose sole purpose was to separate their marks from their money. That could be accomplished through rigged shooting contests, phony cure-all potions, or confidence scams.
A reliable source of revenue for the carnies was the ever-popular wrestling match. The matches followed a certain format; a burly brute in a gaudy costume issued an open challenge, offering a handsome cash prize (usually about $20) to any man who could beat him, or perhaps just stay in the ring with him for a certain amount of time. That kind of money was an easy lure for the typical strapping young local boy. But the local was usually in over his head; after the spectators’ bets were made with the impresario (the carnie promoter), a victory for the carnie wrestler had to be ensured so that the impresario made his money. Often, if the local favorite was proving to be a tougher opponent than expected, the pro would resort to moving the opponent near the curtain behind the ring – where a hidden carnie would clock the local with a blackjack, knocking him out.
But more often, the carnie won through what was known amongst wrestlers as ‘hooking.’ See, in the carnival wrestling community, there were three different levels of wrestlers: you had your journeymen, who were usually young up-and-comers just learning the ropes – they relied more on showmanship and personality to appeal to fans; shooters, who had a solid level of experience in the amateur style, and could wrestle competitively if need be; and then you had your hookers. They were the most feared of the group. They were called hookers because of their knowledge of ‘hooks,’ little-known and dangerous holds which were illegal in conventional amateur wrestling. Armlocks, leglocks, chokeholds were all part of their repertoire; today these moves would be known as submission holds. Furthermore, there were two different types of hookers: your typical hooker, who was dangerous but sporting; and the most dangerous type of hooker: a ripper, who might ask his opponent if he’d had enough punishment, but only after snapping the man’s arm or leg. The ripper, also known as the crippler, had a savage thirst for blood. You didn’t want to be the local yokel to accept the challenge of a ripper.
SaxonWolf
That answers the questions for me; Hookers and Rippers are American Carnival terms, from Carnival wrestling, similar to what we would call Fairground booths in a way. The US guys use the term "shooter" as someone who is a solid amateur wrestler, whereas over here in the UK (and I guess Europe), a Shooter is someone who is the submission wrestler. So a Shooter over here equals a Hooker over in the USA, and a Ripper simply means someone who can submission wrestle with malicious intent.
David Mantell
No, the US guys traditionally used "Shooter" to mean a submission wrestler and this word somehow found its way back to Britain. An amateur would be called just that, a "good amateur" or "amateur champion".
Only in recent years have US fans started using shooter to mean someone with an amateur background, or even someone with other fighting skills.
Hookers were an elite among shooters. Lou Thesz claimed in his autobiography in the mid 1990s that there were only five hookers still alive (it is believe he meant himself, Karl Gotch, Billy Robinson, George Gordienko and Dr Bill Miller) although he later backed away from this statement - it would be more accurate to have said that only five hookers remained who had found gainful employment in the pro wrestling industry of North America.
Specimen evidence - according to Ric Flair's autobiog "To Be The Man", when Ric Flair got back to WCW in 1993, on his first day in the WCW office at the CNN centre North Tower he came across then-WCW boss Bill Watts (the only man in the building not in a suit and tie) clamping an armlock on fellow WCW exec Bill Shaw. Flair reports that Watts commented: "Hey Ric, Shaw thinks he's pretty tough. He used to wrestle in high school. Let's see if he knows how to shoot."
John
Regarding one of the interesting questions asked by both Andy and Hack on the first page of this interesting 'Winners and Losers' topic of why Brian Maxine was allowed to keep his British title for so long, I thought I would add my opinion, for what it is worth. Maxine always struck me as a genuinely hard, tough man but not a shooter. My guess is that other more technically skilled wrestlers such as John Naylor, from Wigan, could probably have beaten him if they had wanted to. However, the promoters had come up with the very successful image for Maxine as Brian 'Goldbelt' Maxine, who came into the ring wearing his gold championship belt and his crown and acted arrogantly, winding up the crowd. If he had lost his British title he would have had no gold belt to wear and I suppose the promoters had to keep him as champion or come up with another image for him. so he stayed unbeaten as champion.
Regarding another question, again asked by both Andy and Hack, of why Kendo Nagasaki was allowed an unbeaten run right from the start of his 1964 career, my thought is that this would probably have been helped by the influence of Count Batelli. It is now generally accepted that Nagasaki (Peter Thornley) was the protege of Bartelli (Geoff Condliffe). I would guess that Condliffe, after about, at that time, 17 years as an unbeaten masked wrestler would have had quite a bit of influence with the promoters and other wrestlers. He must have told the promoters about this great prospect he was training and the promoters must have agreed with him, after seeing Thornley in training. Also, many of the experienced wrestlers who lost to Nagasaki early in his career, such as Jim Hussey, were probably long time opponents and friends of Condliffe's (Bartelli).
Neither of these theories are facts, they are just my thoughts on these interesting questions and I hope that they are of interest to some of you.
SaxonWolf
John, your thoughts and opinions are as valid as anyone's on here, please keep posting!
Brian Maxine is an interesting one; I guess the promoters had more to gain by leaving a belt on him (with punters thinking/hoping that this week, they may see him lose it) than taking it off him. He was, from memory, an amateur boxer (hence the badly broken nose), and I think an amateur wrestler, but I agree with you that a skilled technician like John Naylor would have probably tied him up in knots in a real contest.
With Nagasaki, as skillful as he undoubtedly was, I wonder if an element of "right place, right time" happened? Did the promoters see a need to build a long winning streak on a masked man of mystery? Again, I think it would have been decided by bums on seats.
Hack
I think that's an interesting point of John about Maxine and his title. To build an entire persona around the necessity of holding a title was either genius on the part of Maxine or short sightedness on the part of the promoters. I wonder if it was planned that way, or whether Brian was just allowed the belt temporarily and niftily moved in to develop his character around it, making his championship indispensable to the promoters. Clever eh? Well maybe. To be fair to Brian Maxine he does seem to get a fair bit of negative comments on wrestling forums, but I don't rememberany of us being critical of him at the time. We accepted him for what he was, champion.
Saxonwolf may well have a point of Kendo being in the right place at the right time and John right about Bartelli's influence. It is still odd though that a teenager with no previous experience should be given this role. there's so much to learn.
Alan
A little snippet about Ken Joyce, that may not be known. He made the wrestling boots that a lot of the old timers used. Not a lot of people know that'
graleman
To shoot, is to wrestle for real, no pre arranged stuff. Ripper, never heard that term in all my time living in and around west Manchester. Kendo got his run, due to Bartelli having huge clout. Its a good rumour that Kendo was Bartelli's son anyway, so the huge push for him. Marino held the belt for so long, as he put a lot of bums on seats, and was the real deal. Many times, he would give a lot of weight away, as he was 'that good'. And, never heard another wrestler have a bad name for him. A true gentleman, and very tough man. Maxine had inside help in keeping the belt. Iam sure one of his family was married to one of the 'main people'. Thats what i have heard.
graleman
Just like to mention Harley Race. Many wrestlers have been asked, who they reckon to be the toughest of the tough, and Race's name would often be mentioned. He had a fight with Texas Tornado [Kerry Von Eric]. Possibly one of the best matches i have ever seen. To say Race could not wrestle, is pure wrong. He could do it all, and both men [Race was getting on then], put 110% into the bout. And both left with genuine cuts ! The bout was definately nothing that usually happened. I think both wrestlers had a shoot bout for sure.
Andy.
David Mantell
Sorry Graleman, Harley was a tough man but he could not legitmately wrestle Catch-as-Catch Can style (or any other style of sport wrestling) and he admits as such in his autobiog.
Rippers were hookers who went into bouts with a gameplan/mindset of injuring the opponent not just getting the win.
graleman
Sorry David. Race was a great NWA champion, beating all the greats, and wrestling all over the world. The NWA was a proper belt, and even the likes of the Funks said, he was one hell of a hardman, and extremely hard to beat. Even when Race had his feuds with Bruno Sammartino, perhaps one of the best wrestlers of all time, Bruno said, Race had it all. Skill and toughness. Race is a legend amongst many wrestlers and fans for a reason.
David Mantell
A hardman is not the same thing as a shooter. Race was an incredibly tough guy. But being a shooter is about actually being able to play the sport in which you purport to be competing and Harley did not have this atribute. He would have been in terrible trouble if he was in the ring against, say, Billy Robinson and Billy decided to refuse to cooperate.
Oh and Bruno was most definitely not a shooter either, regardless of how stroppy he got about it when the late Lou Thesz pointed this out some years ago.
graleman
Race worked on the Zybisco's farm, in return getting them to teach him wrestling. He can shoot if he wants. Just look at his AWA and NWA record. He would sort out any feuds in the ring, and many got sent to hospital. He now runs World League Wrestling, and trained people like Triple H, Henig family and the Dibase family. Please look again at the man's record. In Japan, he wrestled shoot style, as thats what they wanted then.
Bill Smith
I'm almost certain that Harley Race went to Japan with Ric Flair when Flair was the champ,and was at ringside at his bouts against Inoki ,ready to jump in incase Inoki attempted to shoot on Flair.Harley Race was a very hard man,in a "locked room challenge " Billy Robinson is not forced to have been the one who left first.Even Billy lost a couple outside the ring.
David Mantell
In America, shooters were far less common than in Britain. Harley was a tough guy and that was all he needed to be an enforcer. It did not mean that he was a competent Catch Wrestler. The Undertaker was enforcer in WWE for many years even though Mark Calloway cannot catch-wrestle for toffees.
Harley admtted in his own autobiog that he had negligible catch-wrestling skills.