In the sixties and early/mid-seventies probably not.However.mid to late seventies brought us many tough,fast and skilful heavy-middles and light-heavies which I eventually preferred to watch.Your opinions please.
As I stated earlier in the thread, I preferred the lighter weights, more variety and innovation and because of the amount of supremely talented lighter weight wrestlers you got a more imaginative wrestling bill or you did till the Crabtrees decimated the Joint roster.
Like
Unknown member
May 20, 2022
I'm afraid I have to disagree with that - it was the logic and ingenuity of the technical skill that made it real for me and the lighter weights were better at that. They could escape/avoid situations that the heavies couldn't because (except for an athletic minority who could do stuff like jumping when an arm lever was suddently wrenched upwards, so they could still go up in the air, spin over to undo the arm lever and still make a feet first landing) they simply couldn't move like that with their big bodies. Maybe Pete Roberts or even Kendo could do that, but no way could John Elijah of Colin Joynson, never mind the superheavies.
Now Now Mr Mantell don't forget the superb athleticism and agility of Big Shirley,His ability to climb the steps to the ring was unsurpassed,and don't forget that he could also get to his feet after landing his big belly flop. On a more serious note Billy Ribinson was both superb technically and athletically.
In the days before the Pallo book many of us clung on to the belief that it was all real. For my mind that's why the heavies ruled the roost. Their power made them more believable. Lighter men were faster and entertaining but for real wrestling bring on the heavies.
The Pallo book just confirmed what most of us guessed but the heavyweights particularly in a championship match seemed very credible.
Like
Unknown member
May 18, 2022
I'll add another vote in favour of the lighter men, from George Kidd midway last century to Nino Bryant today.
The difference between these fast paced youngsters and wiry veterans, against the half-pints like AEW's Marko Stunt that Jim Cornette puts the boot into in his podcasts is that our lightweights were generally matched up against other lightweights in good competitive fast paced matches on which the extra bodyweight would have been a drag, whereas AEW demands that the audience believe the lightweight can go toe to toe with the heavies and make the big man uncovincingly sell for the lighter man.
As I said I would have watched a show without heavies but I'm racking my brain to remember one. I agree with Peter about the enjoyment of lighter weights but Anglo is right about feeling short changed. I would definitely have felt less excited about going to a show without the heavies.
Attended yes, we had no choice but to accept what the promoters served up to us.
But I felt a bit short-changed on those bills, I have to admit. The lighter men were fast and furious, but only the heavyweights packed real wallop. A forearm smash from Bruno sent a crack around the arena, not for the squeamish.
I personally was not bothered about the size of the men on the bill,I just wanted to see an exciting nights wrestling.Boring/charisma-less wrestlers came in all sizes,and shapes.The top men were either fast and exciting,or great showmen,or that rarity....both.
I'm pretty sure I would. By the 1960s lighter men McManus, Pallo, Kidd were main eventers and the Royals, Breaks, Eagles, and other lighter men were attractive names on the bills.
I remember seeing posters for Sheffield City Hall, late 70's/early 80's, with Jones and Rocco headlining, that would have been a very appealing headliner.
I tended to prefer the lower weights, faster paced, generally more variety skill wise, Pallo, Street, Rocco, Breaks, Colbeck, Barnes etc. Great entertainment and value for money
If we would have a time machine and go back to 1840s...welterweights, that would be all we would see when it comes to Lancashire catch wrestling. Major players were all under 12st.
Yes I would and I did. Kidd, Stead, Lewis, Murray, plenty of Light and up to Middleweights at that time. All good for entrance fee.(Which wasn't too much!)
As I stated earlier in the thread, I preferred the lighter weights, more variety and innovation and because of the amount of supremely talented lighter weight wrestlers you got a more imaginative wrestling bill or you did till the Crabtrees decimated the Joint roster.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with that - it was the logic and ingenuity of the technical skill that made it real for me and the lighter weights were better at that. They could escape/avoid situations that the heavies couldn't because (except for an athletic minority who could do stuff like jumping when an arm lever was suddently wrenched upwards, so they could still go up in the air, spin over to undo the arm lever and still make a feet first landing) they simply couldn't move like that with their big bodies. Maybe Pete Roberts or even Kendo could do that, but no way could John Elijah of Colin Joynson, never mind the superheavies.
In the days before the Pallo book many of us clung on to the belief that it was all real. For my mind that's why the heavies ruled the roost. Their power made them more believable. Lighter men were faster and entertaining but for real wrestling bring on the heavies.
I'll add another vote in favour of the lighter men, from George Kidd midway last century to Nino Bryant today.
The difference between these fast paced youngsters and wiry veterans, against the half-pints like AEW's Marko Stunt that Jim Cornette puts the boot into in his podcasts is that our lightweights were generally matched up against other lightweights in good competitive fast paced matches on which the extra bodyweight would have been a drag, whereas AEW demands that the audience believe the lightweight can go toe to toe with the heavies and make the big man uncovincingly sell for the lighter man.
I don't remember any bill at Newcastle without at least one Heavyweight bout.
Even Lightweight title fights at the top of the bill did not exclude at least one good bout with the big boys.
As I said I would have watched a show without heavies but I'm racking my brain to remember one. I agree with Peter about the enjoyment of lighter weights but Anglo is right about feeling short changed. I would definitely have felt less excited about going to a show without the heavies.
Yes there were usually compelling matches in the lighter weights
Attended yes, we had no choice but to accept what the promoters served up to us.
But I felt a bit short-changed on those bills, I have to admit. The lighter men were fast and furious, but only the heavyweights packed real wallop. A forearm smash from Bruno sent a crack around the arena, not for the squeamish.
Definitely yes.
I personally was not bothered about the size of the men on the bill,I just wanted to see an exciting nights wrestling.Boring/charisma-less wrestlers came in all sizes,and shapes.The top men were either fast and exciting,or great showmen,or that rarity....both.
I'm pretty sure I would. By the 1960s lighter men McManus, Pallo, Kidd were main eventers and the Royals, Breaks, Eagles, and other lighter men were attractive names on the bills.
I remember seeing posters for Sheffield City Hall, late 70's/early 80's, with Jones and Rocco headlining, that would have been a very appealing headliner.
I tended to prefer the lower weights, faster paced, generally more variety skill wise, Pallo, Street, Rocco, Breaks, Colbeck, Barnes etc. Great entertainment and value for money
If we would have a time machine and go back to 1840s...welterweights, that would be all we would see when it comes to Lancashire catch wrestling. Major players were all under 12st.
Yes I would and I did. Kidd, Stead, Lewis, Murray, plenty of Light and up to Middleweights at that time. All good for entrance fee.(Which wasn't too much!)
I totally would. Would love to go watch some welterweight men as well. Colbeck, Dempsey, Jim Lewis.