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?!!!