Serious subject. Serious question. To everyone who considers themselves pro wrestling history researchers - what is the main subject, main focus of your studies, and why?
A little of pre history. I found this website around 2017, and quickly emailed Ron asking my questions about the British pro wrestling and what is the best way to approach this subject in a way that will help me to better understand the historical processes and evolution of this game. I always prefer calling wrestling a game. For me it is. Ron suggested not to spend all my time on collecting the pro wrestling results from different eras, because that is what I was pretty much doing, my collection of wrestling results related to English wrestling history is arguably the biggest in the world (no kidding) it goes back all the way to 1600s, the times of last Stuart kings of England. Back then I argued with Ron, because to me personally the results was the only thing that did matter, the only thing that will actually stay in history forever and not only that, this is the way it's here in America, the wrestling researchers just collect the results, that is what we do. Precisely. Because that is how we believe we are preserving the wrestling history I suppose.
Long story short, back then I wasn't capable to understand what Ron was teaching and preaching to me. It took years of personal evolution as a researcher and years spent here on this forum of old school British wrestling fans, learning a lot from you guys, that nowadays I can claim that yes I do agree with Ron, fully and completely, and yes follow his fashion of studies. Yes, I still do research certain things very specific, but the way I approach events has changed.
When I see a wrestling programme a bill with names on it...I no longer am concerned about the results that much, someone won someone lost those bouts from the past. I see something that does look like a sports advertisement a programme in front of me, but as a matter of fact is nothing but a THEATRE AFICHE (I have to address it in French, for a stronger accent, and to add an additional meaning to it) and should be treated as such. It is like those old theatre posters which show us the names of great actors and actresses of the past, and we only can judge the performance, accepting their era's norms and standards for the quality acting. So my main focus switched from the "results" to such things as what was their pro wrestling like, what they did in the ring to entertain crowds of spectators, what the fans considered fun about this whole thing called pro wrestling and why they were willing to come and watch it, what was behind the theatrical curtains of pro wrestling stage. The evolution of performance became my new subject, the language wrestling artists spoke to their fans and everything about it. This teaches me more about wrestling history than anything has ever did in the past. This new approach truly enriched my researcher's world and I am very thankful to Ron, Hack, Anglo and all of you my dear friends. Thank You All!
Many of us have been talking to each other on this site, and the old 1Stop Wrestling site, before that, for about 20 years!
When I first stumbled across the old 1Stop Wrestling site, it was to find out more information about what had happened to the Wrestlers of my youth, a sort of "where are they now?", that you see about pop groups and actors.
I always wanted to believe that the Wrestlers we grew up liking (and hating, of course!) had been well paid and had all retired to a comfortable life. It was buying, and reading, "The Wrestling" that changed a lot of that thinking. It told of Mick McManus in a nice apartment filled with antiques, Jackie Pallo in a bungalow with various old Saab's outside. Kendo Nagasaki in a large country house. Adrian Street living in Florida.
So some people had done well, but what about the rest?, I found out that Iron Man Steve Logan ended up working on the sea front, in the North West, Johnny Czeslaw, was in an old person's home, blind, Dynamite Kid was in a wheelchair.
Then other questions popped into my head; why did the likes of Mike Marino, Brian Maxine and Count Bartelli hold belts and titles for decades?, did they own the belts?, if so, why did the promoters play along with the fictitious titles that these wrestlers (at least in Bartelli's case) bestow upon themselves?
As for results, the interesting thing became "why" did someone go on a long winning streak, or lose to an unlikely opponent. What happened if someone gave you a hard time in the ring (like Cliff Belshaw with Jackie Pallo, in Pallo's book), did the promotor have words with them after?
My favourite part of the business, as those who have read things that I put on here will know, was about the international travel, which back in the 60's and 70's, must have been fantastic. Finding results online about the Hell's Angels in Spain, or Judo Chris Adams in Mexico, Ringo Rigby in Los Angeles. Travelling the world at someone else's expense, and working for around 20 minutes a night.
For me it's about filling in the gaps, and people have been doing it a long time (newspapers printing results, collectors & historians compiling them) so it makes sense to continue the work. Although I agree a wrestling result means very little without context. The best context is people's memories. But not everything sticks, but that too can help tell the story.
However, almost every week I'm approached by people for results, so it must have some use.
I agree about titles, etc. For me they are promotional tools and that's what I find interesting about them. In regards to the UK, on a personal level, I enjoy finding wrestlers who may have had a fairly unremarkable career otherwise, being given the chance to be a champion in the 1950's or earlier. Promoters weren't thinking about 5 years in the future, let alone 60 or 70 years.
When it comes to history Rusian the only thing you can be sure of is that it's all in the past. But yes, collecting results for a predetermined exhibition seems like a pretty uninspiring thing to do. But hey, that's just me. One of the nice things about W H and the forum is the wide range of interest that members have.
ruslan-pashayev
1h And yet, some results do matter. Like those we would call the "title changes". Why? Because titles belonged to the companies it was their property. And the title holders was never a random man, but the wrestler who established strong relationships with their employer so that they trusted him enough to represent company's name everywhere...
See Ruslan, you do talk sense occasionally. And you've phrased it perfectly. This sentence shows just how far your outlook has changed since you joined us. I agree that championship holders are important for the reasons that you have stated, they show a wrestler's position in the pecking order, those who could be trusted, and sometimes those to be rewarded. Where we do get into difficulties sometimes is looking into the finer details because promoters were not always consistent, creating short term local champions for the benefit of a local audience. This occurred in Joint Promotions whilst on the independents the champion was more or less the one that had champion written underneath his name. Good post Ruslan.
That is right Hack, results (whether it is a victory or a defeat) do not speak for anything. The fact that the pro wrestling workers (artists) names were repeatedly appearing on pro wrestling afiches all around the country does, it tells us the factual truth - they definitely had fans, who were there to watch them do their ring-theatre job! The idea of approaching this realm of theatre as if it is the Olympics is kind of a ridiculous nonsense to me now. The only pro wrestling statistics I currently accept would be number shows a week, or a months, by a certain performer, or how far a certain wrestler travelled, this type of things. Definitely not the "results".
It is like it does matter (for theatre history researchers) how many times a year SARAH BERNHARDT played CLEOPATRA or JOAN OF ARC in those plays every year of her career since she attended the international stardom. This question would make sense to me. Because it is self explanatory of her profession, her performing quality! This is the kind of "results" I accept, they would make sense to me.
And yet, some results do matter. Like those we would call the "title changes". Why? Because titles belonged to the companies it was their property. And the title holders was never a random man, but the wrestler who established strong relationships with their employer so that they trusted him enough to represent company's name everywhere...on every poster, in every newspaper, in every village and in every town where they did their wrestling showcase, call it title is a money making race car, mileage is moneys, speed is shows quality and hence more money...you want to give that car to some capable race car pilot, not to someone who would ruin your business into ashes. Hence yes, I do think that it is important to have a certain clarity on who and when held company's championships. So that we could better judge the company, the business, just the overall processes that formed and accompanied this theatre wrestling. If that makes sense.
Years ago I remember reading a comment on an American forum by one of their most well known and it seems respected members (can't remember who) that he wished those over on Wrestling Heritage would do some serious research and post the career record results of Bert Assirati who they were discussing at the time. Apart from thinking this would be impossible I did think, and still do, it would be pretty meaningless. I do look at the endless list of results in our records, but only to try and identify patterns and trends to help us better understand how the pro wrestling business developed and worked. The same is true of titles. I do join in with our title discussions, but sometimes despair because we are trying to fathom out something unfathomable; titles were a marketing tool and no more. Titles, championships and results are fine to discuss as long as we don't get too set in on our own beliefs - because someone will surely come along and make us challenge them.
All of us who participate in Heritage and Talk Wrestling have our own special interests, and that's what makes it such an interesting and enriched place.
We have all come a long way. One of the greatest detailed deceptions of all time .
Fascinating colour and sometimes mystery and a bundle of trade tricks to enchant us.
There is something for everyone.
Well done to Ruslan for doing so much.
It's nice to have a consuming passion.
You have to have lived through the early 1960's to really shake yourself and appreciate what you saw. Wrestling in every town almost no matter how small.
Hi Ruslan,
Your comments today mirror very closely the editorial we posted to launch Wrestling Heritage in March 2007. I'll re-post the closing paragraphs of that piece here in case it is of interest now:
"We arrive late with our own website. Others go before us with marvellously comprehensive listings of matches and results, collated according to location, date, nationality, wrestler, pairing, tv airing – in short, statisticians are in great supply amongst wrestling fans. We thank and value our quantitatively-minded colleagues, their offerings in some cases form the basis of our observations, whilst at the same time questioning their angle of focusing on results when these results had very little competitive foundation, or none at all. We comment on and record the halcyon days, defined as you wish, perhaps equating to the first 25 years of Her Majesty’s reign, but focusing more personally, and we hope appreciatively, on the combined company effort that went into each and every wrestling show to give it balance and variety, forsaking all aspects of competitive superiority, even ability, in the interest of providing all-round entertainment.
The most mystifying aspect of all is perhaps that a handful of aged fans are still able to recall and recount with such detail and dedication the events of decades gone by. Now we want to analyse what we were seeing, we want to dissect the goings on that captivated us, and we want to explore the business organogram that determined who were the victors and losers, the names and the nameless, in the magnificent uncompetitive sport or spectacle that was professional wrestling.
Do not consult us for career records or championship histories. Look elsewhere for details of unbeaten runs and invincibility of all kinds. But stay a while with us here to glory in the performance of each and every wrestler, from the least until the lowest, to see how the collaboration worked and to try to fathom out what non-ability based hierarchy determined poster inches, championship status and regular televised appearances. We offer a modern-day sociological and business perspective on what was a hugely popular spectator sport nationwide."
: