Oakeley died in 1987 would love to see any edition which was released when he was still alive.
My concern is whether his apologies appeared in it or any actual corrections to the original text were ever made. Text of the given 'disclaimer' and actual 'apologies' are different and both are different from the 'apologies' from the book.
If we read apologies again and compare it to the text from the book we can see he says - intention was to say that Lord M didn't know much about wrestling meaning was ignorant on this subject... WHY HAD HE BECAME INVOLVED...or may be how had he became involved into something that he has no knowledge of.
He also says that he didn't know who in fact made those M rules, and adds making a firm statement - subs and rounds were brought to Britain by me in 1930. Very interesting apology letter.
I have the original first edition copy of Blue Blood and the reference is on pages 147-8.
I think you'll find that what you have Ruslan is a 1996 copy of the book. This was discussed some years ago with unfavourable comments about the quality of the publication.
If you look on page 2 just under the ISBN number you will see the printed apology to Norman Morrell.
" Hack, I am not sure if this document is even real, like I don't think the letter given is an authentic letter by Atholl Oakeley, we have to remember that news can be fake as well...no one really cared what was on the Page 148 of his book. I think everyone took it all very lightly considering the matter of objection. This letter provided looks like a typical pro wrestling 'promotional credible evidence'. "
No doubt it was to do with credibility. In 1970 British professional wrestling had a lot of credibility and Joint Promotion members would do everything to protect that credibility.
This apology was widely published in Britain. I don't consider it possible that Morrell would have created the letter and publicly humiliated Oakeley without legal action from Sir Atholl.
From what I've looked at in the 30s and 40s in particular, I suspect that often the use of catch/freestyle/all-in names was less to do with the actual rules or styles and more to do with local authority rules. The council would want to ban pro wrestling for being too violent or unsuitable, but not want to ban Olympic-style amateur wrestling, so they'd pick a specific term promoters were using and ban that "style" of wrestling. Savvy promoters could then rebrand and claim they weren't breaching the rules.
"The new form of wrestling is known as Modern International Catch as Catch Can and all wrestling meetings in Britain held under these rules must be advertised as being controlled by the British Wrestling Association ...."
4, 6, 10, or 15 Rounds, 2/3 Falls, Knock-out, or Points. Now I have a question what did they call those Oakeley's Rules? Was it XX Century Catch-as-catch-can Rules?
NOTE: no winning on submissions. Understandable because there was strong opinion against submissions which were widely considered a Japanese Jiu-Jitsu thing rather than catch wrestling.
The original apology (which I posted above) was not published in the book. It was part of the programmes distributed around the halls.
Oakeley died in 1987 would love to see any edition which was released when he was still alive.
My concern is whether his apologies appeared in it or any actual corrections to the original text were ever made. Text of the given 'disclaimer' and actual 'apologies' are different and both are different from the 'apologies' from the book.
If we read apologies again and compare it to the text from the book we can see he says - intention was to say that Lord M didn't know much about wrestling meaning was ignorant on this subject... WHY HAD HE BECAME INVOLVED...or may be how had he became involved into something that he has no knowledge of.
He also says that he didn't know who in fact made those M rules, and adds making a firm statement - subs and rounds were brought to Britain by me in 1930. Very interesting apology letter.
I have the original first edition copy of Blue Blood and the reference is on pages 147-8.
I think you'll find that what you have Ruslan is a 1996 copy of the book. This was discussed some years ago with unfavourable comments about the quality of the publication.
If you look on page 2 just under the ISBN number you will see the printed apology to Norman Morrell.
there's nothing on Page 148 (or 147)...but there's something on Page 141.
" Hack, I am not sure if this document is even real, like I don't think the letter given is an authentic letter by Atholl Oakeley, we have to remember that news can be fake as well...no one really cared what was on the Page 148 of his book. I think everyone took it all very lightly considering the matter of objection. This letter provided looks like a typical pro wrestling 'promotional credible evidence'. "
No doubt it was to do with credibility. In 1970 British professional wrestling had a lot of credibility and Joint Promotion members would do everything to protect that credibility.
This apology was widely published in Britain. I don't consider it possible that Morrell would have created the letter and publicly humiliated Oakeley without legal action from Sir Atholl.
I wonder if Soviet politician Molotov also had an apologies letter by Oakeley.
Just to entertain everyone...it says by JOE STECHER (sometimes his last name was spelled Stetcher)...huh.
IT IS PRO WRESTLING - PRO WRESTLING IT IS.
Who believes that this paragraph from the same book is an actual truth???
So, having matched the preliminaries, I wrote to Mr. Molotov
mentioning I was a friend of the great Russian wrestler, Karl Pojello.
I asked him if he would allow the Soviet heavyweight champion
and champion of Bulgaria, Ivan Georgieff; to wrestle for me in
London. Mr. Molotov courteously agreed but made the condition that
the GRA and I, whenever Georgieff came over, would ensure that
he returned to East Berlin where he was practising as a surgeon.
Having given our word on this, I made a point personally of seeing
Georgieff off on his plane whenever he left England.
This is the man, Oakeley is referring to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyacheslav_Molotov
That's just the conclusion we reached when researching A Year of Wrestling in the 1930s John.
From what I've looked at in the 30s and 40s in particular, I suspect that often the use of catch/freestyle/all-in names was less to do with the actual rules or styles and more to do with local authority rules. The council would want to ban pro wrestling for being too violent or unsuitable, but not want to ban Olympic-style amateur wrestling, so they'd pick a specific term promoters were using and ban that "style" of wrestling. Savvy promoters could then rebrand and claim they weren't breaching the rules.
Don't say it too loudly Ruslan
Paragraph 1 states:
"The new form of wrestling is known as Modern International Catch as Catch Can and all wrestling meetings in Britain held under these rules must be advertised as being controlled by the British Wrestling Association ...."
4, 6, 10, or 15 Rounds, 2/3 Falls, Knock-out, or Points. Now I have a question what did they call those Oakeley's Rules? Was it XX Century Catch-as-catch-can Rules?
NOTE: no winning on submissions. Understandable because there was strong opinion against submissions which were widely considered a Japanese Jiu-Jitsu thing rather than catch wrestling.