WAS MIKE MARINO OVER-RATED?

Thanks Hack, a draw with a credible world champion is a good result.

According to the Lou Thesz tribute on this site Marino drew with Lou at Hanley on 23rd December, 1957. The source was Ray Plunkett.

Here are the details of the televised matches that Ost mentions, note that it gives you the original TV Times billed line up at the bottom.

25/5/63, Wembley, 1.20-2.40

Mick McManus (Southern area welterweight champion) (2) v Jackie Pallo (1)

Mike Marino (2) v Ski Hi Lee (1)

Steve Logan (2) v Steve Veidor (1)

Sid Cooper (2) v Zolton Boscik (1)

Johnny Kwango (2) v Keith Williams (1)

This was the annual FA Cup Final day spectacular, billed in the TV Times as "the show of the year". The billed line-up was McManus v Pallo, Clayton Thomson v Ezzard Hart, Leon Fortuna v Jim Breaks and Lindy Caulder (Lightweight and welterweight champion of the West Indies) v Pete Szakacs.

One thing that I think is interesting (you may have discussed this already) is this:

May 25, 1963 - a Televised show from Wembley on FA Cup final day.

Mike Marino defeated Sky Hi Lee 2-1. Now at the time both of these men worked for Paul Lincoln. Before and after this one-off. Did DM feel they needed bigger names for the Cup final show? Or did another match fall through. The answer is probably on the site, but I just think it's interesting and shows you the power of being a big name.

Marino had last appeared on TV in May of 1961, and wouldn't appear again until May of 1966.

Still the Wayne Bridgeses of this world are leaning tight-lippedly across the flaps of their bars refusing to share any info with nutter punters like us.

If only they were to know that they would nudge closer to immortality by sharing their wealth of experieces with us Nice nutters.

"actual evidence" ... Saxonwolf is spot on again in this game of smoke and mirrors.

We run the risk of believing articles written with great authority in 1968 about what did, or probably didn't, happen in the fifties.

The late fifties are very very under-reported. At least at that time. It was all based on reminiscences ten years later. Vague reminiscences. Reminiscences distorted to suit all and sundry.

Did we know that when the great Lou Thesz came to wrestle in the UK in 1957, Mike Marino was one of the men he faced?

Can we see if we can find actual evidence of this?

"... But it was to be Marino's year and fresh from a great battle with world heavyweight champion Lou Thesz at Hanley, Marino travelled to Aberdeen to meet Demitre, and came home with the title. ..."

Back to the Golden Boy.

Today is the anniversary of the death of Mike Marino.

I have just read the Mike Marino's biography in John Lister's book 'Have a Good Week … Till Next Week'. A couple of quotes from it are 'on the British circuit he quickly made his name as a highly skilled technical grappler, working out in the gyms with the likes of Bert Assirati and Billy Robinson. Johnny Kincaid recalls that Marino produced a more credible wrestling base style 'he was a wrestler's wrestler. He liked to wrestle straight and his moves were very feasible'. Marty Jones recalls that Marino didn't use his legitimate skills to take advantage of younger grapplers 'he was what I think of as a great technical wrestler, he could make anyone look good and he wanted you to look good'.

I think that Mike Marino is just spoken too highly of by other wrestlers for him not to have been good enough to warrant his position as a champion, at his peak. I must admit that when I first saw him in 1977 I was not too impressed but I now know that he was 56 then. Like Mick McManus and Count Bartelli, he was allowed to keep his title in the 1970's, even though they were all in their fifties. I think that we should blame the promotors for that that, not Mike Marino.

Mike Marino and his amazing knowledge of all the holds and throws. His technical perfection remained until the very end. I think he brought Superstar Mal Sanders into the grappling game. Mike Marino, a wrestling legend.

Thanks Hack.

Weren't those old articles so beautifully written. They reveal almost nothing and most of any detail in what they do say we can now determine to have been tosh. I think even the writer forgot himself as his 33-y-o- Mike would have been just 20 when winning his European title in Paris.

No opponents are named, no promoters are named. Was his wife Italian? I rather thought not. The Italian childhood also sounds a bit dodgy - but just confirmed to the causal reader and fan what we wanted to believe. And he limited himself to two or three bouts a week....

And Primo Carnera is tagged on for no obvious reason. Love it.

Just watched on YouTube Alan Kilby vs Tom Dowie (sorry can't supply the link) given as title eliminator to wrestle Mike Marino for his European mid-heavyweight belt. Mike comes into the ring with the belt and shows it to the wrestlers and fans.Great close up shot of this magnificent belt .The bout is well worth a watch.

Anglo, I am not arguing about his credentials as a "shooter", if that is what you are implying?, I am sure, as we have been told, back in the days he started out, the basic starting point was that you had to be able to wrestle in the amateur style, to at least an average degree.

Like I said, it was more the world title claim, similar to Maxine with his belt, that made the whole thing "less plausible" shall we say. That's all.

In terms of Marino being over-rated - still not sure who was over-rating, but from fuzzy questions interesting thoughts emerge - the very fact that he wrestled pretty much all those mentioned in this thread just underscores his versatility.

Worrying about to what degree he was a shooter, and true we have no idea: spare me this, please. Quite irrelevant in wrestling though 8,000 professional wrestling bouts.

Shooter certainly enough not to pick up an injury and disappoint.

Pro enough to spill the claret at times.

Respected enough to trade belts back and forth. And to slip seamlessly back to the DM fold when others didn't.

This is what we see, what we know.

Beyond this, the promoters and other wrestlers must have loved him.

The promoters did a great job in telling us we should love him, too (even if Main Mask now has us scratching our heads as to precisely why.)

In my opinion, Marino's best opponent was Norman Walsh, however in my era I also think that Geoff Portz and Johnny Allan would have been good opponents too.

Congratulations to Main Mask for a thread that had gone past the 100 mark. It takes some doing and who would have thought this one could have got there when it was initiated.

I have been racking my brains on one question. If most of us feel not quite convinced about Marino's entertainment value , Who wold have been your choice of an ideal opponent for him if we were match maker.

I think the ideal match would be with Billy Howes.

While I don't doubt he was professional Anglo, my point was as to why a man approaching his 60th Birthday, before he sadly died, was holding multiple belts and titles, how was that helping the credibility of the sport? Combat sports are a young man's game.

I fully understand Marino being given work/dates for the reasons you say; hard working, reliable, maybe a good influence in the dressing room, maybe happy to pass on his experience to younger lads.

But a World Champion at 59? No, he must have bought the belts/titles, somehow.

Similar to Brian Maxine, who was also a belt wearing champ at 60, there must have been some ownership involved.

Just my opinion, of course.

Just thinking about how long Mike Marino held onto his title(s) for, and the assumption of it being because he was popular with the rest of the industry and a good servant to it.

Is it possible that, in fact, Mike Marino "owned" the belt and title, similar to Count Bartelli and his Commonwealth title?

The World Mid Heavyweight title lineage, during Mike Marino's life, was mainly held (on multiple occasions) by three men; Mike Demitre, Norman Walsh and Mike Marino.

Demitre is the title holder in 1947, loses it that same year to George Broadfield, then wins it back, two years later, in 1949. He holds onto the belt until 1954 when he loses it to Norman Walsh, who loses it to Black Butcher Johnson a year later, in 1955, who loses it back to Mike Demitre in the same year.

In 1958 Demitre loses the belt for the last time, to Mike Marino, who loses it to Vic Hessle, who loses it to Norman Walsh, all in the same year.

In 1960, Mike Marino wins the belt back from Norman Walsh, loses it back to Walsh in 1961 and then regains it the same year.

He holds the belt to 1964, loses it to Judo Al Hayes, then wins it back in 1969 and holds it until his death in 1981.

During those years he worked for Joint Promotions, Paul Lincoln, then back to Joint, and Joint (as we know) was run by various promoters, then the Hurst Park Syndicate, then William Hill and then Max Crabtree. It appears none of them forced him into surrendering his belts to anyone else, and upon his death was holding the World, European, Empire (Commonwealth) etc.

So I guess my question, again, is, did he actually own any of those belts outright?

As for was he over rated, I never saw him in his prime, only saw him live once, and I was very young, and mainly remember him for clean, technical bouts.

Possibley over rated as a wrestler,but much loved by many people as a performer.When pitted against a villain he always had the crowd (well 95% of them) on his side.World Champ? No.Danny Hodge was mentioned earlier in the thread,he would have beaten Mike in about 35 secs.(IMO) in a "real" contest.

But he was not (IMO) over-rated due to the fact that he could do what was needed to create an entertaining match when in with the right opponent.Just my 10 pennorth.

Not sure if we have the complete answer as to why in 1949/50 he hit the ground running. We know he stayed there because of his position. He must have had something to be where he was from 1949-1961.

I assume he got a position with Dale Martins after 1966. Is it possible he was influential with Dale Martins in the 1950's.

Was he just that good with his ring craft and his general look.

I am won over. A Hall of Fame wrestler for sure for me.

I never aid that Mike Marino was not popular.

Did he draw the crowds? Yes because as an Italian or as a Golden Greek, with a well built athletic figure he cut a glamorous figure in post war Newcastle anyway.

But in my opinion, he was overrated as a wrestler.

For all the titles that he held, he had ringcraft, but no great power and no submission hold speciality.

This was in his younger days.

In his later years I think that DM held him in great respect and favoured him for his loyalty .

Once again just my opinion.

I guess it all comes down to what was meant in the original question by over-rated. Over rated as a shooter? How would we know? Anyway professional wrestling wasn't about being a great shooter. There was much more involved in being a great wrestler. It wasn't just about one aspect. Pallo was a colourful wrestler and we loved to watch him. Over rated as a showmar never, but as a shooter well, yes, he never claimed to be anything of the sort. McManus was a great villain who could anger us and pull in the punters. But again, was he a great shooter? Probably not. Would we say they were over-rated? Unlikely. Assirati is often cited as a great shooter. But a great pro wrestler? Well,the promoters who shunned him didn't seem to think so. So, was he over-rated?

If Mike was over-rated, in what way? BKendo1 will know better than any of us if Mike was a great pro wrestler, and he tells us he was, agile and aggressive. Was he a crowd puller? Seemingly yes, in some halls at least. I guess that in the south familiarity may have bred contempt, but he was always a welcome addition in the north.

Mike had the qualities of a great pro wrestler. Look at his career. Exactly why he was given "a push" from the start we don't know, but in December 1949 he is said to be unbeaten in Italy and Britain. Nonsense maybe, but it's the fact that promoters were promoting him in this way that is significant. By October 1949 he's a champion; Light Heavyweight Champion of Italy. That's only a couple of years after turning professional, and the newspaper report states he had the speed and cunning to beat three stones heavier Pat O'Keefe by two falls to nil. I'm sure that Marino would have grown up in a neighbourhood surrounded by wrestlers (Joe D'Orazio was a cousin) but that wouldn't have been enough to give him this sort of push. It might have got him a foot in the door, but promoters were only interested in making money so not too many favours. Promoters knew he was a good worker, popular with fans and reliable. We know that Mike was an established Joint Promotions wrestler during the 1950s. But then look what happened in 1962. Mike jumped ship and went to work with his pal Paul Lincoln in opposition to his old masters. Surely the end? But this wasn't the end. When Lincoln was absorbed into Dale Martin in 1966 Mike Marino was back. It was no doubt part of the deal that Lincoln's partners Hunter, Hayes and Marino were taken on by Dale Martin (along with a load of other Lincoln men). But Dale Martin could have cut down his bookings, lowered him down on the bill and quietly shunted him out. Did they? Definitely not. He was back on their books as World Champion, bill topper, tv star and then to top it all he is given the job as matchmaker. Doesn't sound like he was over-rated, does it?

You might not want to name the MC BKendo1. Just tell us.. was it the one we all think it was?

Sorry Anglo I went off subject it was an mc who really meant to say he was always objective but actually said he was always objectionable and all present agreed.

Yes, Ron, Main Mask has certainly set the cat amongst the pigeons with this thread; probably because it's unanswerable and the question has to remain: over-rated by whom?

The Matassa bout was 1953 and so old it was speeded up like a Charlie Chaplin film, not sure if that was all Marino energy. If anything, I felt Marino was over-acting there.

I can't understand your last point Bkendo: who was allegedly objectionable? Surely not Mike???

Mike was a necessary cushion. Norman Walsh beat the world champion; Kendo Nagasaki beat the world champion. The overal tapestry was rich.

I think unmasked Nagasaki spoke lovingly about Mike - also the Croydon story - and we should be thankful. He catapulted from being the most silent wrestler to being the most forthcoming which is what we wanted, isn't it? In his book and in his talk, he tends to limit himself to snippets of anecdotes and generalisations like these rather than the nitty-gritty of working with Marino, Bruno, or, I seem to recall, the real probelms with working with Terry O'Neill.

I must own up to one thing , I had never looked at Mike Marino in so much detail.

Some brilliant analysis ebbing and flowing and I have had another look on Youtube with great nostalgia and more admiration than perhaps I had previously.

Mike was never bad for me , just lacked a little bit extra that I quantified by him needing a submission speciality.

I am convinced now , and Marino has gone up in my estimation.

A very very good worker and servant to Wrestling.

Not sure about this but didn't Assirati give him the cauliflowers.

Going on from that and the near obsession on this site over many years with shooters, and Wiganite shooters.

It's almost as if you couldn't be a shooter if you weren't from Wigan. This is clearly a bit far-fetched.

Dale Martin had a businesslike approach to wrestling: attractive posters and bills; reliable workers; variety.

Dale Martin never let the complication of shooting ability get in the way of making money. But it stands to reason that many Dale Martin wrestlers must have also been shooters when they wanted to be, and Mike Marino mysteriously fits into this category.

Tibor and Gordon Nelson were probably others but it is admittedly difficult to identify home-bred shooters. Harry Kendall, from Brixton itself, was probably one, but he never exactly hit the heights. Maybe Mancelli had been?

Maybe Mike Marino was King of the Hill?

Link to a relevant earlier topic

https://heritagedocs.wixsite.com/talkwrestling/forum/memories-of-the-old-days/mike-marino-titles-1950s-60s-70s

Bernard, it has been established that Marino and Walsh had numeous bouts. Walsh was frequently winning up north. For his fans, an angle would be that he should be allowed to challenge for Marino's title; not having that title bout would seem unfair. That's all.

call me a silly billy but did any of you carrying on about michael harrison being over rated ever see him in his prime. just remember that wrestling was in his blood and the sound of the crowds feed him. if he retired what would he have done. just remember he used to put bums on seats

Hi Ron, don't apologise, 1959 was after Walsh's accident. As I said previously Walsh held sway up North and Marino down South.

Now Anglo---Injustice.

Please can you explain to a simpleton like me, what episode of this thread you are talking about with MM beating NW and not getting the title.

It's late and I can't find that article or bill..

Certainly, Main Mask. I find the discussion fascinating, as in a thread like this we once again get to the very core of professional wrestling.

I hope my thoughts don't come across a trying to be definitive, it's just the way I see it at the moment and I am enjoying your passion, too. We shared the passion 50 years ago, haha.

Yep, it could have been better. But wanting it to be better just by having More of everything can't be right. My ongoing insistence is not to apply too much hindsight just because we know so much now. We needed the opening bouts of Dick Conlon versus Robby Baron. We needed Syd knocked out through the middle of the ropes in Round 5 of the closing bout to send everyone home happy.

A Mike Marino Golden Boy was a necessary figure in so many of those main event bouts. So what if the logic wasn't 100% right in those Mid-Heavyweight bouts with Howes and Robin and Norman Walsh.

Mind you, I never saw him in one of those bouts so maybe I should reel myself in ...

Sorry Anglo ,your first sentence did not make sense to me. What Injustice?

Also " they must have got it right, as they got away with it for 30 years."

How long did DM get away with it with Mick McManus?

In my opinion, at that time, Walsh would always beat Marino "in a straight fight", which we know know it wouldn't be. So we get the situation where Walsh wins in the North and Marino in the South.

That's the injustice.

Precisely as Bernard says.

Norman Walsh beat the World Champion on home turf and all the Newcastle fans could go crazy at the injustice.

N'Boa the Snakeman mistreated the World Champion - just goes to show what a great technical wrestler he really was.

Bruno Elrington could manage a draw with the world champion, giving 5 stones. Goes to show Bruno wasn't just Beard & Bluster.

Lethargic Logan could also draw with the World Champion when giving weight - gee that Logan must be so much better than he looks.

Marino set the bar. His role was to be rather neutral. All the others could do their antics alongside a straight wrestling World Champion.

And for his part, as for many others in wrestling, we just suspended the belief about his age and thought "Oh he must be much younger than those swarthy Italian features make him look."

Personally I think the promoters got it right. Rememebering his key attributes of being a reliable traveller and one who could wrestle with the best (eg Luther Lindsay).

They must have got it right as they got away with it for thirty years.

For me, it was Marino v Tibor where it all went wrong if it was top-of-the-bill. But even this was necessary to balance Marino's bouts.

I saw Walsh v Marino quite a few times at Newcastle.

I don't remember Marino ever winning, but of course we now know that in Newcastle ,against local boy Walsh, this was not going to happen especially in a title match

I think that you will find that Marino did not "get" a midheavy title until after Walsh was injured ina bad car crash.

Even then after recuperation I think that Norman Walsh took the title back again.

Walsh then fell out with Joint and went elsewhere and so lost his title . Marino inherited it, even though he was not a patch on Portz or Johnny Allan in my opinion.

The promoters always held sway.

I think you are bang on there Anglo , and at the end of the day Marino has provided a very interesting thread.

Hang about! Just looking at this week's magazine reminds me of Mike Marino's multiple bouts with Billy Robinson - scarcely a pleasure. All credible, presumably.

And Ron has him topping the bill here and giving 5 stones to Prince Kumali.

The man was a technician who could wrestle clean and straight and let all the others shine in their shows. But he could do it.

We are too harsh if we discredit him now. He clearly did it all in the fifties and just stuck around like McManus and Kellett into the seventies. Not Mike's fault if the promoters weren't bringing on newbiues.

A great shame if we discredit Kellett, Logan, Pallo, Bruno, McManus, Marino and the ever-youthful Masambula because of their seventies work in their fifties. Just because we can't remember them making their names 25 years earlier.

Nagasaki talks disparagingly on his video about "Come-and-get-me Mike" but Mike was twenty years his senior. In 1990, Nagasaki was only too pleased to have Blondie Bob take the bumps at an age when Mike Marino was still taking his own.

Go Mike!

Jan 18th 1960....still Norman Walsh !!!!!!!!!

But were Wryton up to date.....did they care !!!!!!!!

The write up for the Aberdeen bill states that Marino was Junior Heavyweight Champ of the World.

Here we are in 1961 and Marino has left joint , but he's having that title.

I agree with the general consensus that Mike Marino was not entirely worthy of all the plaudits accorded to him, but when I first saw him around 1962 when he was in his early forties, he was a very skilful performer, if lacking in charisma. In common with some wrestlers of the post war era, he probably went on a little too long. This is common in many aspects of life so one should not be too critical.

I was told, and this may be open to conjecture, that Mike was well established in the Dale Martin hierarchy which may account for his longevity prior to his very sad demise.

With some more digging I found close to 20 bouts with Walsh and Marino. They started as early as 1949 at Newcastle.

Down in Worthing in 1955 Marino won by K.O. with Walsh acting silly.

A match in Aberdeen in 1953 , Marino also retired Walsh with a Boston. in 1955 there , they did a double K.0.

Found them minimum 5 times at Aberdeen , 5 times at Liverpool and probably 5 at Newcastle in 1957-58 alone. Seems at some stage Marino may have got Europe title off Walsh to set up a Euro Champ V World Champ match

Morecambe was a good place to take it too as a headliner.

They met at least 8 times in 1957-58 and were still at it as late as 1961.

Don't seem to have took their show to Belle Vue.

It is my bet they met as many as 50 times and must have got on well , two good pro's , even conceding defeats on their own territory.

Big question is , was Bernard at this match in 1949. And note they were light heavyweights back then.

In 1953 they were then billed as Heavies.....Bet Bernard was at that one.

Walsh beat Marino above.........................................................And above bout a no contest.

Way back in 1952 I have Walsh beating Marino.

The sell was that Marino turned up with an infected wound in his leg.

Walsh mercilessly played on it and made Mike Quit. Round 3.

Fast forward to 1958 , again at Aberdeen Walsh rings a submission out of Marino and Marino , pressing him hard got knocked out , so a real pasting.

Working for Dale Martins this time and the same month , Marino dished out a pasting and ended up with an unconscious Walsh on top of him and could not escape in time so it was a double K.O.

Are we not lucky to have so much newspaper coverage of something so long ago.

My pleasure Mate, it would be a boring world (and forum) if we all agreed. :)

As a fan of Mike Marino I have to say I think its fair enough to ask if he was over rated. Wrestling was a sport (well sort of...) and if you put yourself in the public eye then people are entitled to debate your ability/credibility. Its not personal as I think we'd all agree Mike did a lot for wrestling, whether or not he was as good as DM made him out to be is a fair enough question and not in any way disrespectful. People will always differ in their opinions and that's what makes a forum like this interesting.

I only saw him in the twilight of his career so made my statements on what I saw, what was he like in his prime?

Thanks for putting Rocco on hold, MM, and replying that the promoters over-rated the other MM we are discussing. That implies the promoters were wrong.

A bit too much hindsight in this thread, I think. We all went along with Mike being world champion and happily and passively mused that he must have been phenomenal in all his bouts ... that we weren't witnessing. The promoters didn't get it wrong. They correctly assessed his credibility and served him up to us over decades in a hardly changing format. We put up with it, because we never revolted. The protestations are a bit late now.

You went on to say that to make it in wrestling you have to be different. But it's an ensemble cast and the likes of Tibor and Mike and Al Nicol and Mick McMichael and Peter Szakacs were essential to make the whole show plausible. If everyone had been different it would have been a farce.

In the years I was taking it all so seriously I certainly needed these doses of sobriety to convince myself of some pretty unbelievable antics I was seeing in other bouts.

And all the fans who loved booing the baddies (though they probably paid especially to see them) needed the Golden Boys to convince themselves that they were righteous clean-minded fans and citizens.

let us not forget that michael harrison was still wrestling when he was 59 when he died. we don't really know how long michael had been suffering from leukaemia. the could still put bums on seat and it was obvious the other wrestler looked after him. most of the armchair only some him when turned 40 and not when he was at his peak. he did not start wrestling until nearly 30 and was good. age slows us and he was pushing his body. have a bit of respect for somebody who kept going going until death rang the bell

Never saw Mike defend his title but I did once see him ask a big mouth in the crowd who was giving him and his opponent a hard time if he'd like to climb into the ring for a fight. Needless to say the punter suddenly lost his voice.

I have to speak up for Mike, I enjoyed his fights even if he wasn't in the big league.

Who "over-rated" him?

Several big name wrestlers were over rated particularly those who dragged on long after their sell by date

Hmmm … I hear what you say but it would be hard to remember those great days without a Mike Marino bout or two.

The Royal Bros were the most over rated in my humble opinion. zzzzzzzzzzz