I'm wondering why some wrestlers hit the absolute top of the tree and could pretty much headline any bill, Nagasaki, Rocco, Haystacks, Quinn etc to name just a few! and why some others just missed the mark? While I have total respect for wrestlers like Pete Roberts, Ray Steele, Rex Strong etc they just weren't really the kind of names you'd get too excited to see. Pat Roach would arguably also be on this list. As I say I have total respect for these fine wrestlers but they somehow just didn't have that edge that some others did. I know they could all mix it with the very best (especially Pat Roach) but it was really all about them having the right opponent where as say Kendo would make any bout exciting just by being Kendo. Rex Stong (for instance) was a heel but he just wasn't as convincing as the likes of John Quinn or Mark Rocco, Pete Roberts was a blue eye but he just didn't cut it like Steve Viedor or Wayne Bridges. So...what was the difference?
top of page
bottom of page
Must agree with you Power,People went to watch Rocco,Quinn,Kendo,and Haystacks in the hope they would be beaten.They inspired the punters to cheer "the opponent"and boo (or worse) the baddie.A great bad guy could make a blue eye out of any opponent
It was a mixture of skill, character, ring presence, interaction and they had to be a little different from the norm, the names you mentioned sum that up perfectly also they were all heels,
I think it could also be about levels.
The very best workers could work a great bout with anyone and also had a good gimmick and a good look.
I think a question of styles held others back. They had to have the right match.
The very best had unlimited versatility.
I think the promoters measured audience reaction and that was the barometer.