Pat Roach lost to Dalibar Singh in a televised bout during Roach's blue eye spell during the 1980s. I think it was a 4 man 1 fall only tournament. George Gordienko defeated Roach by K.O. in the early 1970s, but i'm uncertain whether Roach was a blue eye or heel for that encounter. I was 5 or 6 at the time LOL.
Roach lost 2-0 to Wayne Bridges in a bad tempered televised bout in the late 70s, Roach being his usual villainous self then though.
I can certainly see what Anglo means, I couldn't stand Dennison as a good guy either. But for me the Royals have the edge because they were believably just so nice, whereas Dennison as a goodie seemed unauthentic. We knew he was a bad un at heart.
Surely must have. The match I've commented on quite a few times over the last near 20 years (we are old boys) against Billy Robinson he was a good guy who lost.
For me Frank is spot on with the Royals. I shall ignore Big Daddy. It wasn't that I didn't enjoy watching them. There were lots more clean wresteers who would make me groan because they were boring. The Royals weren't boring, and they were in some good matches. It's just that they were so nauseatingly squeeky clean. I'm trying to think of someone to equal them just to show a bit of originality but it's very difficult.
I will answer like this. When Steve Veidor got his big push , I never thought it was credible that he should be beating Wall or Davies or any powerful heavy , and that's even though he was a good wrestler.
I also got fed up of Mike Marino being able to pull it off against big heavies , mainly because he was Mid heavy World Champ. For me again a great wrestler and servant to the game , but in my eyes it lacked credibility.
Pat Roach lost to Dalibar Singh in a televised bout during Roach's blue eye spell during the 1980s. I think it was a 4 man 1 fall only tournament. George Gordienko defeated Roach by K.O. in the early 1970s, but i'm uncertain whether Roach was a blue eye or heel for that encounter. I was 5 or 6 at the time LOL.
Roach lost 2-0 to Wayne Bridges in a bad tempered televised bout in the late 70s, Roach being his usual villainous self then though.
I can certainly see what Anglo means, I couldn't stand Dennison as a good guy either. But for me the Royals have the edge because they were believably just so nice, whereas Dennison as a goodie seemed unauthentic. We knew he was a bad un at heart.
Alan Dennison was so excruciatingly noble as a goodie, exaggerated number of hand-shakes. Just wanted him to lose and clear out.
Now, with his wristbands and Syd or Ted ... another matter.
Surely must have. The match I've commented on quite a few times over the last near 20 years (we are old boys) against Billy Robinson he was a good guy who lost.
Did Pat Roach ever lose as a good guy?
For me Frank is spot on with the Royals. I shall ignore Big Daddy. It wasn't that I didn't enjoy watching them. There were lots more clean wresteers who would make me groan because they were boring. The Royals weren't boring, and they were in some good matches. It's just that they were so nauseatingly squeeky clean. I'm trying to think of someone to equal them just to show a bit of originality but it's very difficult.
Big Daddy and the oh so fabulous Royal bros.
That's a very unusual one Bill.
I will answer like this. When Steve Veidor got his big push , I never thought it was credible that he should be beating Wall or Davies or any powerful heavy , and that's even though he was a good wrestler.
I also got fed up of Mike Marino being able to pull it off against big heavies , mainly because he was Mid heavy World Champ. For me again a great wrestler and servant to the game , but in my eyes it lacked credibility.