The Longest Reign Under JP.

This is from my profile on him, though of course it's covering a period 20 years earlier: [quote]Kidd, however, was the first Brit to be credibly billed as a "genuine" world champion, defeating Mexican Rudi Quarez for the lightweight title in 1949. The precise details remain a mystery, with some accounts having the title match in Dundee and others in Mexico. There are even claims the title in question was the NWA Lightweight championship, but this seems unlikely at best: the NWA never recognised such a crown in the US and it was not among the three weight divisions that had championships subcontracted to Mexican promoters.

Whatever the circumstances of the Quarez bout, Kidd's championship status was confirmed in 1950 when he battled Rene Ben Chemoul. Several accounts had it that Kidd beat Chemoul in Dundee to win the crown. In fact it was Chemoul who took the title in Dundee, setting up a rematch where Kidd regained the crown in Paris, an unusual booking pattern that no doubt left audiences disappointed on both sides of the Channel. The Paris match set off an unprecedented 26-year reign as world champion for Kidd.

[/quote]

So Kidd would possible have been known in Mexico, if only by promoters. As for this listing in 1969, my best guess is that Mexico was in a similar situation to the UK in that they recognised national titles in each division, claimed a couple of their guys as world champions (welterweight and middleweight, which were recognised by the NWA) and then simply said/left assumed that the other divisions had world champions based in other countries, rather than go for the less realistic claim that every world championship was held by a Mexican. Heavyweight would have been the current NWA champion, but if you were a magazine publisher looking for somebody to list as world lightweight champion, Kidd would have been the obvious choice.

Maybe the wrong thread - feel free to move if so. The great @Luchablog posted this on twitter, it is from a Luchalibre Magazine in November 1969, the rankings for the Lightweight Division and George Kidd is litsted as a World Champion.

Considering some of the workings of championships discussed on this topic it is amazing that his World title is recognised in Mexico City - did he travel there? Was there some agreement between promoters across the world to recognise this division. Very interesting.

Tony Costas was introduced as the Middle Weight champion of the Middle East but do not remember him in a match with Maxine

That’s what you have me here for 😊

Yep, that was it, I should start writing all this stuff down somewhere, I don't have time to actually remember half of it!

That's right, a greasy spoon on the A1 by all accounts. And Mike seemed to set up residence there a few times a month. It was home.

That rings a bell Mac, was it a transport cafe on, or near, the A1?

Wasn't there some mention of him owning a transport cafe in the Doncaster area?

Go on Anglo, I'll bite, what do you mean by

"...Mike Marino seemed to manage it over many years; but then, he had a home away from home..."

Excellent discussion, many thanks for attempting to answer my question.

i have a further one, how often were they defended? I assume it depended on the depth of the weight class and the guys that put on the best shows. Do any records exist?

Just watched a 1980 match between Maxine/McMichael in which McMichael is described as a magnificent wrestler and indeed he gave Maxine as good as he got in a full length match. It just seems so unlikely that Maxine is presented as an undefeated champion and McMichael is the perennial loser

By the time Maxine's reign started, the promoters had a clear idea of what they wanted, and apparently ensured of the incumbent belt holders:

• a credible worker who would travel nationwide and do exactly as told, five or six nights a week. Throw your whole life at it.

They were probably licking their wounds due to Billy Robinson's messy departure and Billy Joyce's inactivity.

So in 1972 Albert Wall did this, appearing twelve times on tv, outstripping even McManus. And it clearly blew him out. But he was clever in building up his profile and then probably earning more over the next two years, working half as much.

Mike Marino seemed to manage it over many years; but then, he had a home away from home ....

A bit off-topic, but the short reigns of Pallo and Logan remain fascinating. I have seen the bills where they won and lost back their titles. But has anyone seen any bills where Logan and Pallo were billed as champions during their reigns. I haven't. I'm wondering if they were unplanned reigns?

Agree Ost, interesting stuff for me as well.

I have read on US wrestling sites that some belt holders hated it, because it was an extra piece of big, bulky luggage that they could do without, especially if it added to the weight of a suitcase or bag when flying from place to place to wrestle.

For our boys, were they team players?, did the always try to make their opponent look good?, did they know how to entertain the crowd and send everyone home happy?

Were the belt holders "locker room leaders" who would take no nonsense from others and make sure the show ran smoothly?

Were they (in the early days) put in place to ensure no double cross could occur?

So much we don't know.

Belts appear a little like Oscars in the film industry; a recognition of being great at what you do, without necessarily meaning that your pay packet was going to be any bigger next week.

What interests me in regards to the championships is that it does afford a look into the promotional & business-side of the wrestling industry. Similarly, it's clear that certain promoters put more emphasis or thought into the championship concept than others. As we can't talk to these people, it offers us a way to find out more about them and their methods.

Very good point Ron, we know that some Wrestlers were doormen.

In my locality, Jim Moran, Alan Kilby, Eric Cutler, Bobby Graham, and probably a few others.

I have a thought that if some wrestlers also worked as doormen , then as far as wages go there could not have been that much in it.

Ha ha, I have to agree with you there, Anglo. The Wrestling industry (Joint Promotions and Independents) was all about getting as many paying customers into a venue as possible (and some would say, also trying to get away with paying the Wrestlers as little as possible!). The vast majority of Wrestling fans just wanted to be entertained, and didn't have an interest in how things operated behind the scenes.

We don't know how co-operative the members of Joint Promotions were with each other despite the name, "Joint".

We don't know the politics that went on behind the scenes, with promoters and also Wrestlers.

We don't know how or why people ended up as "Champions" (but we can have a good guess, that is probably not to wide of the mark).

We don't know how much money people were making, either Promoters or Wrestlers.

We can assume that some Wrestlers wrestled to supplement their day time wages from another job, and others had other jobs just to fill in time between their wrestling commitments, but we don't really know that properly, again we can have a good guess.

We have a good idea who were "Shooters" and who were "showmen" and we know that, at least until some point in the 1970's, you needed an amateur wrestling background to get into the business, but we don't know everything.

We know that a lot of Wrestlers (the majority?) wrestled under assumed names, whereas the sort of related sport of Boxing, rarely sees that.

We wondered if the assumed names/ring names, were to throw the taxman off the scent (heaven forbid.....) and I think you yourself Anglo, said something along the lines of wondering if "complicated love lives" came into it as well.

We have uncovered so much over the years, on here, and yet on a daily basis, I often think we know nothing at all!

The management and performance of "our" British Professional Wrestling was fabulous at many levels.

But not at the level of managing the titles.

Maybe the insiders didn't realise just how seriously some of the outsiders were taking it all.

I agree with Hack here (in fact, I doubt anyone really disagrees with this)

"...I believe the national Mountevans belts were owned by Norman Morrell. Some of the independent champions were belt holders because the wrestlers bought the belts themselves..."

We don't know, and probably will never know, how things were decided at the Joint Promotions meetings in Leeds (unless Tarzan Boy Darren, who I believe owns all the collection/archive that the De Relwyskow family had, decides to show something, notes from a meeting, official minutes, etc.)

Morrell owned the Mountevans belts (after all, it was his stroke of genius that came up with the idea in the first place). This would have preceded the formation of Joint Promotions by a year, I think? (I need to check), and the Mountevans rules were published in book form by "Wrestling News and Views Ltd." of Halifax.

The original belt holders were all real wrestlers and mainly Northern.

When Morrell decided that a belt would change hands (maybe as a favour to another JP member, or to reward a wrestler), it seems to come back to his Wrestler not long after. Was this a written agreement, or just done on a handshake?

The Empire/Commonwealth and European titles seem to be a lot looser, with Independents sometimes making up champions for these belts.

Anglo Italian says, about Brian Maxine: -

"...He didn't at all fit the profile of what Norman Morrell had seen as a British champion..."

And here is where things get murky, where a Wrestler appears to own their own belt. Was Maxine a good, loyal wrestler for Billy Best in Liverpool?, is that why he was pushed forward? And his continuing hold on the belt? Joint Promotions don't seem to have a problem with this, after all, if they did, then why give TV air time to Maxine, or Bartelli? Why continue to let an increasingly older Mike Marino claim to hold multiple titles?

Is it really a case that, by the 1970's, it didn't really matter anymore? When Hurst Park Syndicate took over?

Perhaps it really is just a hand full of middle aged men, on here, who have any interest in this after all!

Lost up on page 1 is this question from Chris

Hi,

can I ask why these particular reigns were so long? We’re they the best draws or workers in their respective classes? Did they own the belts and therefore refuse to drop them if so why did JP not simply vacate them or did they simply not care who held the championships?

To me this is a far more significant question than who was the champion from what date to whatever. Most of us didn't care who the champion was. We didn't question that McManus seemed unbeatable but wasn't a champion, or that a British champion would be first on whilst someone wearing a glittery jacket or called himself a Lord was top of the bill.

The champions were wrestlers who gave credibility to wrestling and made it appear a competitive sport, I believe the national Mountevans belts were owned by Norman Morrell. Some of the independent champions were belt holders because the wrestlers bought the belts themselves.

Don't we have some kind of watershed moment here with the arrival of The Wrestler magazine in 1961? Here we had some national coverage and what was written was gospel. This was cemented by the famous photo of the seven British champions. All northerners; dismantled over the next five years to include plenty of southerners,

I agree Bernard. When attendances were falling in the 1980s having Tiger Gil Singh defeat Ray Steele to become British Heavyweight Champion helped boost ticket sales in parts of the country with growing Sikh populations

Hi Anglo, even after that "bums on seats" was still the main thing.

You have to have that to be a going concern.

Accountability only started to emerge as necessary with the arrival of televised wrestling in 1955.

Before that, bums on seats were all that mattered.

Hi Ron and Sax. At the time that I went to Newcastle and afterwards, the results were published in the "Sunday Sun".

I know that Ian used to record these.

Know what you mean , but for sure they never bothered publishing any history.

They did very little merchandising in those days. Missed a trick.

Hi Ron, I am not so sure about Joint Promotions not keeping records, I would have thought that minutes were taken at meetings and documented, to make sure there were no arguments later (about who they had agreed would lose or win a belt), just seems to me to be something they would do. I could be wrong.

Obviously most newspapers didn't cover Wrestling and results didn't appear in the sporting pages of the Daily newspapers. Most results were kept local, to the people attending, and it was only because of a handful of die hard fans, swapping results, (or writing them in the program, in biro, as Main Mask's pictures show) that we know anything at all, for the most part.

I am sure, as I have said before, that they never expected people like us would one day be picking over the results, looking for newspaper clips, etc.

Yes Anglo , the way I look at it is who were the ones that never let me down , always worth the entrance fee ,never in a bad bout.

For me the identity of a good masked man was way ahead of who held titles.

I could never buy it that a champion could fight five nights a week and keep his belt for years when there was so little between some wrestlers.

Some guys I liked never held any championship.

For me Abe Ginsburg was always value for money. Like McManus, his bouts had a fairly standard script , he just did it so well though.

I went to many Kendo/Daddy bouts and some of them were poor play acting , but not the memorable night of their first meeting at Winsford.

I saw them in a terrible bout at Blackpool , a 100 mile round trip and never went again to the Tower.

Mal Kirk was another who for me never had a bad bout , Wild Angus another.

These guys were never champs.

I agree with you, Ron, that we should have fun.

We need much mote discussion of performance quality.

Quality live entertainment over two hours was what made for an evening out, in competition with cinemas of the forties, fifties and sixties.

It is unlikely that there is a lineage to be found as the promoters did not keep records. They did not keep results because there was no need as it was only competitive in terms of the public liking their heroes.

As they did not keep records of champions we are unlikely to find every brief exchange of a title which was partly a thank you and partly a story line.

No harm in us having fun though.

Joint Promotions looked to bring a consistency with the titles which they largely did. By talking about other federations, promoters etc. it confuses and muddied the waters do to speak, the original question has been basically answered adding addendums to the question is what confuses it.

That certainly fits in with policy, Saxonwolf, considering that Pallo and Logan both had short championship reigns. It does seem to be some kind of "thanks". It also legitimized - to a certain extent - the supposed skills of show wrestlers who were getting on in age. Haha, to think Kellett was getting on already in the fifties ....

Hi Sax, yes I agree with you, I understood that Norman Walsh took the british L/H title from Tony Baer.

Ruslan, you have an almost impossible task, every site that you find giving title holders will have different names.

The site given above does not mention Norman Walsh and I know that he was billed L/H champion at times before moving to the Mid Heavy title and holding that until his car crash.

Someone mentioned sites such as Wiki.

Just to get a guide and nothing more there has been an attempt on this site.

https://www.wrestling-titles.com/europe/uk/joint/

Exactly @The Ost "...The thing with the early 50's is there were multiple versions of the British titles at some weights. The first listing that SaxonWolf posted looks like the Dale Martin lineage, or closest to it. Local promoters were also doing their own title switches to create interest in their halls...."

The original question from Ruslan was about "JP" Champions (Joint Promotions), and so I was looking for the people who held the belts for decent length of time (more than a couple of days) as I think the people who held the belts for a good time period were the people who were elected to carry that title, by the committee at JP who met in Leeds on a regular basis.

I am not sure if any of the Joint Promotion members went as far as to claim (on their bills, posters and programs) that a JP wrestler held a title that he didn't really hold. I am sure the independents did, of course, but did Morrell or Dale Martin, even just for one night, to spice a match up?, I wouldn't have thought so, they ran the industry like clockwork, or so it appears.

Morrell could have had a title switch to Les Kellett for a month or so, as a "thanks" for loyal service I suppose? But as I said above, I think JP planned things better than this.

The Ost, 100% true. Theres no titles without naming the promotion which was running it.

The thing with the early 50's is there were multiple versions of the British titles at some weights. The first listing that SaxonWolf posted looks like the Dale Martin lineage, or closest to it. Local promoters were also doing their own title switches to create interest in their halls.

That's the thing I'm not sure if we all are talking about the same weight class. Baldwin and Joyce a Hwt title change. Others not necessary light heavy...may be mid heavy, or heavy mid...thats why I think it's impossible to dig this way, but rather to try dig the truth another way around...when Ernie Riley won title to whom he lost it (I personally doubt that ever happened, may be I'm wrong ). Plus in the 50s Riley usually appeared with his father's belt (not Mount Evans Belt of any kind, neither old not new). Photos to follow.

Regarding Jim Anderson v Dennis Mitchell, Anderson would have been billed as champion, although I don't find this in any records.

According to records that I have seen;-

Sonny Wallis (from Sydney)beat Charlie Fisher in July 1950

Norman Walsh beat Wallis in Feb 1951

Les Kellett then held it for a short while.

Dennis Mitchell was champion in 1952, but lost to Ernie Riley in the same year.

How much of this is true and recognised, I can't say.

Did Maxine ever defend his title because there were numerous better middleweights than him

Hi Ruslan

Someone else can maybe help with a better timeline, but from what I have seen, Ernie Riley won the title (in a contest with Steve Logan), in 1952. The fact he wins from Logan, who was not the belt holder, means it was a decider to crown a new champion (I will look into the longer history of the belt later).

January 15th 1953 - Dennis Mitchell holds the title, I assume he won it from Ernie Riley.

1955 - no actual date yet, but Charlie Fisher appears to be holding the belt (he did in 1950 as well), then vacates the belt, unsure why.

November 25th 1955 - Ernie Baldwin beats Steve Logan (again) in Ramsgate, England.

1957 - Billy Joyce seems to be named as Champ, but I can't see how or why yet.

November 22nd 1957 - Ernie Riley is Champion again.

November 17th 1959 - Eric Taylor (usually a Heavy Middleweight) wins the title in London, England.

December 29th 1959 - Ernie Riley wins the belt back in London, England. So only a one month reign for Eric Taylor.

1960 - no actual date, Roy St. Clair seems to have a short reign with the title and belt.

August 11th 1960, Ernie Riley is the belt holder from this point until 1969.

I am not sure why the end or November seemed to be such a prominent date in the title changes.

Also, as this is pro-wrestling, it seems that occasionally, someone would be named as Champion, for a single night, on a poster somewhere, or in a program from the event.

I guess no one back then, in those days, thought that all these years later, grown men like all of us would have the technology to investigate dates, places and title changes, just for the fun of it.

Thanks SaxonWolf I would love to know his title's history...yes at least 9 years straight...or may be 1950-1969??? I am fantasizing of course...depending whether he ever dropped his title in the 50s. His major opponent would have been Arthur Belshaw of Charnock's Gym and Billy Joyce of Riley's Gym, in the 50s both were light-heavies, am I right on that, please correct me if I am wrong.

Hi Ruslan, well Ernie "Lost it" (or probably more realistically, let someone borrow it for a time) on a few occasions, only to win it back after.

I think on the final occasion, he held it from 1960 to 1969.

Thanks Ruslan, good stuff. I still stand by my comments that Marino and Maxine were the longest standing belt holders for Joint Promotions (Maxine holding it for the longest period I think).

We debated on here a few months ago that both of those wrestlers must have actually "owned" the belts, paid for them outright at some point.

SaxonWolf and one more poster. 1950.

SaxonWolf you can see in 1950-52 at least three men had original Mount Evans Belts: Busfield, Colbeck, Baldwin, all three were from the same area as the boss of JP Morell was. West Riding of Yorkshire.

In the ITV era, as best I can tell the longest British title reign for each division (going by the version recognised by Joint, which arguably is different to the 'Mountevans' holder at times): Heavyweight: Bill Joyce, 15 July 1960-9 March 1964

Mid-heavyweight: Mike Marino, December 1966-August 1981

Light-heavyweight: Ernie Riley, August 1960 to December 1969

Heavy-middleweight: Bert Royal, May (?) 1969 to 29 August 1975

Middleweight: Brian Maxine, 1 June 1971 to still champion when TV ended in 1988

Welterweight: Jack Dempsey, 23 April 1958 to October 1966

Lightweight: Melwyn Riss, some point before December 1958 to October 1963

(I've seen one listing with Jack Beaumont billed as British light-heavyweight champion in Taunton in 1963 but I assume that's either an error or a promoter being cheeky.)

Mike Marino would have to be a strong competitor, as would Brian Maxine.