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.
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?
Chris, I think the answer to your question "...how often were they defended?..." is basically, as and when needed.
In other words, a bill needs pepping up a bit, see if any belt holder is free that night.
Also, if you were building up a good, loyal crowd, at a venue, you could have a competition, ran over a few weeks, to have an eliminator to find the official challenger for a certain belt, and then have a title match.
It was never (as far as I know), like boxing, where a training camp push for their contender to get a crack at a title.
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?
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.
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!
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!
Maxine is a very interesting case because it gives us some insight into the inner thinking of JPs. He went from a lowly welterweight undercarder to invincible first ever dual champion within a very short space of time.
He didn't at all fit the profile of what Norman Morrell had seen as a British champion.
Maybe the dates give a clue? Maybe, after the 1966 merger with Lincoln, Dale Martin became so very big that they could dominate JPs; from their new recruits, Marino was consolidated; Sargeant, Cortez and Boscik quickly got British titles. Thomson and Miquet, too, wherever they fit in.
Up to 1966, Dale Martin had largely contented itself with the range of southern England titles which they could at least dictate. McManus, Rann, Fury and Mancelli/Cornelius. And yet they seemed mysteriously to disregard the other three weight classes. They seemed to like very long-term reigns without all the faffing around with new champions; this made the posters and The Wrestler easier to produce.
If Norman wanted the Wild Man of Borneo, and he did, maybe he had to yield title-wise.
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!
Maxine is a very interesting case because it gives us some insight into the inner thinking of JPs. He went from a lowly welterweight undercarder to invincible first ever dual champion within a very short space of time.
He didn't at all fit the profile of what Norman Morrell had seen as a British champion.
Maybe the dates give a clue? Maybe, after the 1966 merger with Lincoln, Dale Martin became so very big that they could dominate JPs; from their new recruits, Marino was consolidated; Sargeant, Cortez and Boscik quickly got British titles. Thomson and Miquet, too, wherever they fit in.
Up to 1966, Dale Martin had largely contented itself with the range of southern England titles which they could at least dictate. McManus, Rann, Fury and Mancelli/Cornelius. And yet they seemed mysteriously to disregard the other three weight classes. They seemed to like very long-term reigns without all the faffing around with new champions; this made the posters and The Wrestler easier to produce.
If Norman wanted the Wild Man of Borneo, and he did, maybe he had to yield title-wise.