Mount Evans is...

That's better Ruslan.

I don't participate in this because, sorry, I think it's a waste of time.

It's like tracing who played Lady Bracknell in various theatres to work out who was the real Lady Bracknell.

In, I think, four different threads the term brand has been used. This is a term I find alien, inappropriate and have never heard in connection with wrestling of the period we discuss.

Now if Ruslan was to change the word brand to style -

Twentieth Century Catch style

Lord Mountevans Style

Catch as Catch Can style....

then I think we might get somewhere.

That is the thing my friends. I actually think that those weren't just claims...those were actual championships, and that despite the fact that all those championships were pro wrestling championships they all represented different brands (I have to say it again) of pro wrestling.

It is almost like we watch Olympics (whoever still watches them) and we aren't surprised that there are TWO Olympic champs in WRESTLING. One is for the Greco and the other is for the Freestyle version of it. They co-exist because these two are DIFFERENT BRANDS OF OLYMPIC WRESTLING. If that makes sense.

The voice of common sense from Ron. Of course many of us have been saying there was no black and white world of wrestling because it was shrouded in mystery.

There was never a time of one champion - from 1930s until the present day there have been various title claims from various quarters, some more believable than others.

Time has proved that it is not possible to work back a lineage record for the so called titles.

No records were ever kept for the simple reason that a deception was at work and that deception was a bit flexible. A bit of short term swapping of titles could be seen as a small reward for some wrestlers from the promoters.

We have already proved that guys were pictured with belts for the purpose of looking good.

I would much rather have a light hearted chuckle at all this than such an intense desire to nail some sense out of it all.

Nice to recapture the history , but I think the history will have to be a bit flexible too.

I mentioned those brand names purposefully so that we know which promoter (company) was behind which brand.

Do you guys realize that at the same time in Britain...one person was a BRITISH CHAMPION in all-in style of wrestling, the other person was a British champion in XX c Catch, the third person was a British champ in pro free style...later there was another one new British champ on top of all the above British champs the Mount Evans British champ.

That is why...company-brand-years-champs is THE ONLY WAY TO DESCRIBE BRITISH TITLE HISTORY situation in twentieth century, past the 1930. Period.

Thank you for reading this.

I believe you're right Ron. Oakeley did a small number of big venue shows, Harringay and the Royal Albert Hall. Dale Martin soon disposed of him at the RAH.

In terms of post war Oakeley as a Promoter , my own vast bill collection suggests that Oakeley was a very minor player indeed. Of course he invented his own champs. They were champions of very little and his shows very few, He did tend to try and go for flagship venues. If I am not wrong he was blown out of existence in a very short space of time.

I don't think anyone has ever looked at this so deeply , maybe because there is nothing real to find.

Wrestling was often advertised as "Wrestling."

Occasionally pre-fixed by International, All Star, Free style, Professional. All we're pretty meaningless and interchangeable. I'd be surprised if anyone post war used the term All In.

Morrells threat to take Oakeley to court was because Oakeley reported a show in which he said the fights were fixed. Morrell claimed the context meant that Oakeley was referring to one of his shows. It was settled out of court with Oakeley making a public apology for the misunderstanding.

Brand is an absurd modern day term which equates Pro Wrestling promotions to buying a tin of baked beans.Which brand do you prefer?

What do you mean by Pro Wrestling Brand?