Just watching Main Mask and Hack discussing an “aged” Bert Royal in 1971. Neither was very impressed by him.
Personally I thought he was fabulous and I never saw him in a dull bout. Even his technical bouts were enthralling.
Of course, the business ensured all the work they wanted for top rankers once they passed fifty.
But the quality of their performances varied greatly. Wrestling is a creative and artistic business. With intelligence and dedication, old-timers could make up through guile for what they lacked in dropkicks.
Take McManus and Logan. Ostensibly very similar, certainly age wise. But McManus was aware of his age and took steps to camouflage his limitations, In every bout he took three cross-ring throws (he wouldn’t go with the fourth). He squealed and waved his arms around, varied his style dramatically, created surprise. No one could complain that 55-y-o McManus wasn’t value for money.
Logan, on the other hand, was tired and lacking in any imagination. When thrown he rolled at 45 degrees. He had no offence, no aerial moves, but clearly wasn’t even studying. how he could work better. Royal was a similar age but their youtube bout is an embarrassment - all he could muster were about fifty boring forearm smashes, whilst Bert used his wide repertoire as far as he could with such a lethargic co-worker.
I never saw Alan Garfield in the fifties. But I saw him plenty of times in his fifties We have built up an intriguing profile of fifties Garfield “the most exciting character in wrestling” . His final few years were not dynamic or acrobatic or even fierce. But his performances and backchat were captivating.He surely had carefully developed this veteran’s approach.
So who were you 50+ favourites and who went on too long?
I saw Eddie Capelli a few times in the early 1950's and i must admit that I was impressed with him.
I thought that he had the attributes to go far, but he got lost to Morrell land and afterwards I only saw him on bills for D&M.
As has been said, he dropped down the bills then.
Yeah, but Mick was a mere newbie then. Eddie may have had some amateur skills. He was a carbon copy of Geo. Kidd.
McManus obviously had "other" skills.
I think he started just after Mick. They must have expected big things because he got quite a few verdicts over Mick back in 48.
I saw Eddie C loads. In fact, when I assumed my forum name, someone, I think Mad Mac, also still with us, was sure I was Mr Cappelli.
Anyway, his early seventies performance was the same every time. What I can now knowingly describe as "light". Very light indeed. Little variation in opponent.
Took no risks; happy to slide down the card, no more career aspirations; get in, stay safe, do the job à-la-Haggetty, and get out.
I can't relate to that villainy. Unsmiling, yes, moaned a bit. But not very exciting in the early seventies. Had he been memorable...I'd be remembering more today.
Just wondering what he was like twenty years earlier. But we will now, definitely, never know.
I only saw Eddie Capelli live once, at The De Montfort Hall in Leicester, where he fought Mick Mc.Manus. He wasn't billed but I forget who he replaced. I also recall seeing him three times on TV against Alan Sargeant, Clive Myers and Johnny Kwango. What impressed me was his ability to get heat by sailing close to the wind without actually breaking the rules. I particularly recall the heat he received against Myers by persisting with quite a simple cheek hold. He knew how to pace a bout and tell a story. Against Mc.Manus, of course, he was the blue eye but his villainy was more subtle. I wonder if any of those three TV bouts which I recall (or, indeed, any others) are recorded for posterity somewhere or will his performances now be drowned in the sea of time.
Okay, I'll try again.
One that I always doubted, Eddie Capelli, and Dale Martin fans may reassure me. I only saw him on tv, which in itself is unfair, but he always seemed well past his sell by date as Ken Walton drooled over him.
Eddie Cappelli? The most cryptic of posts, dear Hack ☺
No John. I was talking about Eddie Capelli. Obviously.
This is the sort of thing Mrs Hack complains about.
Hi Hack. Are you referring to Bill? As there’s a lot of his later American bouts on the ‘tube’ where he throws himself over the top rope, big belly and all, gets back in and prevails, whilst dropkicking and taking back drops and slams etc.
One that I always doubted, and Dale Martin fans may reassure me. I only saw him on tv, which in itself is unfair, but he always seemed well past his sell by date as Ken Walton drooled over him.
Kiwi Kingston was looking rather brittle the last time I saw him on the t.v.
During his run as Big Daddy, Shirl should not have been exposed to wrestling fans who liked their wrestlers to look athletic, villainous, powerful or skilful. He did put money in his fellow workers pockets, but ultimately helped put the game into the lower leagues of entertainment from which it took a very long time to re-group and return to an acceptable level of competence (many fans never returned though).
You only have to look at George Kidd's bout with Black Jack Mulligan to realise he went to the well for far too long. If you showed that bout to a stranger to wrestling, he'd probably quite enjoy it, however if you waxed lyrical to him about George's brilliant shtick throughout his career and then showed him the bout, he'd think you were a guilding the lilly somewhat!
I don't think I've seen an 'old mans' display by Johnny Saint.
Kwango's performances (I'm won't use the word 'act') became colourless (no pun intended) as he grew older.
We all think it's sad when an entertainer can no longer hit the high note, or has to leave the big club and play with the minnows, loses a winning record streak and starts to go backwards in his chosen sport, but if they have to do 'it' to live, or it's the only thing they know, or especially because they just love doing 'it', then we have to respect that. Of course, as a wrestler there is only so much you can do, only so many holds, moves etc. and if you have a ten to thirty year career, you are going to repeat yourself and your performances over and over and over...
p.s. Billy Robinson put on a lot of weight, his body broke down but he could still put on a hell of a show!
Yes, that Wiki date is right. I'd lost interest long before the end of TV but believe Johnny worked regularly until about 1994. Others may be better informed (they usually are).
Les Kellett was wrestling in 1984, aged 69, I don't think that could be considered right.
Pallo I saw in 1976 one one of his own shows. He wasn't bad, but seemed to go on for quite a few years after that and I can't imagine it ending well.
The last time I saw Johnny Saint live when he was wrestling would be 1976, so he would be in his forties then and fine. I did see him once more, about 2010 in one of those one-off old style shows. At the time there were lots of posts still drooling over him. My opinion was that he was remarkable for his age, could still do lots of clever stuff but it was all a slow motion version of the old Johnny. I can't remember his opponent but it would probably have been someone carefully chosen. That's the thing with those who went on for far too long, they tended to work with people they could trust, wouldn't want to risk some young upstart coming in to try and prove themself.
Which reminds me of a couple more that went on way too long - Cyril Knowles and Reg Ray, glued together in their latter years.
Bert Royal always delivered in his bouts, and he knew exactly what the fans wanted. He retired at the right time in my opinion, after a glittering career in the ring. Mick McManus, Steve Logan, Les Kellett, Jackie Pallo, Johnny Saint, all timed it right with their retirement from the squared circle. Each one of the named wrestlers providing their own unique brand of wrestling skills. Sad thing is, that age catches up with all of us.
Johnny wrestled his retirement match in 1996 it would be another 5 years before he relinquished the World Title., He evidently wrestled for the very last time in 2015 in Italy, .that made him 74 when he hung up his boots
Well now I just don't understand. For years so many of you have been writing how great Johnny Saint has been wrestling in the twenty-first century (I haven't seen so no comment) yet now we have posts saying he went on too long.
I suppose in fairness to all, by about 1980 promoters had to call on the nostalgia card to attract older audiences who remembered the big name Les Kellett from his sixties tv glory. That was a fair deal between Kellet, promoter opponent ... and the fans logically needed to buy into it. He was putting on exhibitions. The Crabtree era had reduced the chances to create big new names, only those with proper wrestling skill made it (Rocco. Jones, Sanders etc) and no new big-name gimmick or masked wrestlers came through from 1974. Potential like Skull Murphy, Yellow Streak, Rex Strong, Iron Fist, Romany Riley, Magificent Maurice .... the promoter could have brought these to top of the bill status, but didn't. They tried with Catweazle but he was not appropriate.
Kwango, Colbeck and (unmentioned) Ken Joyce all ended up reffing for Dale Martin. But that brings its challenges, too: two hours concentration as opposed to twenty or twenty-five minutes. Their refereeing careers were brief.
Although the later years were not of my era, I'm surprised that more has not been said about George Kidd and Johnny Saint.
Both of those seemed to go on too long for me, even though they were both brilliant in their heyday.
Wrestlers seemed prone to go on a bit too long, and if you were famous and still of value to the promoters it was a business model that encouraged it, Kwango, as mentioned by Anglo Italian comes to mind) and most likely Kendo, though I didn't see him deteriorate - as opposed to a change of style which I didn't like.
The ones that went on far too long in my mind, and there will be more the longer I think about it:
Count Bartelli - way, way too long.
Les Kellett - Can't agree with those who saw him towards the end of his Joint days, he went on for an eternity with the independents; I think it was Graham that said he was very reluctant who he would work with in latter days.
Pedro the Gypsy - Brilliant in his day, but should have retired at 100.
Shirley Crabtree - no further comment
Jack Dempsey - After going to the independents I saw him a few times when he was still good, but by the early 1970s his performances were poor.
As for those who aged well
Bert Royal - my criticism has always been that he was repetitive, but he always delivered.
Alan Colbeck - Did he ever change? Was he not over 50 when he started out and stayed that way for the next 30 plus years.
McManus is in a special category for me. I was never a fan. Mainly because, like Royal, his matches were predictable.I thought he'd gone on too long in the 1960s. It's only since we came back into wrestling, have had the opportunity to watch him again that I appreciate how good he was. It's also been a revelation to me how generous he was at stepping down to younger men in his later days. Wherever you are Mick, forgive me.
Per the Reunion site, Bert will be 90 in December. I think it was mentioned at the time of Vic’s untimely passing that he was in poor health then. Notwithstanding his wrestling career, he’s enough of a “celebrity” in the Bolton area (wasn’t he a Liberal councillor?) that he won’t go unnoticed, so to speak.
I have a friend who is a relative of Bert, whom I was hoping could pose some questions to him. However it seems Bert is not in the best of health as he must be getting very old. He said he had received no letters or Christmas cards in recent years, whereas he had regularly in the past. Don't know if anyone closer to him can add anything further ?