Controversy was at the very heart of professional wrestling and in the good old days we were skilfully manipulated by the promoters into being outraged by injustices.
One of the big ongoing controversies in the early seventies was whether Nagasaki should be allowed to challenge for the British Heavyweight Championship. It went on and on with talk of him having to remove his mask, being willing or unwilling to unmask, and George E. Gillette making endless rants about the unfairness of it all. All good ongoing stuff, but of course masked wrestlers didn't need titles, though a dash of controversy sure helped their cause.
Kent Walton was central to controversies because he told us what we should be thinking. So we watched in amazement as the Black Diamonds were allowed to wear protective helmets. He assured us they were "perfectly legal" and "sanctioned by the board of control", but then he sided with their opponents when they complained about them. Single-mouthedly he managed to confuse us and make us outraged.
Which other wrestling controversies did Members buy into?
A match at Liverpool Stadium in the 1970s, mask V mask, between Kung Fu, who we later learned was Eddie Hamill & The Exorcist, who was rumoured to be Clayton Thomson at the time. A main event,which unusually at the time was a one fall decider. Eddie duly took the win, and we waited with bated breath to see if the rumours of The Exorcist being Clayton were true. The MC, Stan Rylands, said that the rules stipulated that as it was a one fall contest, the "loser" wasn't required to unmask. This didn't stop The Exorcist snatching Kung Fus mask off during the uproar! Eddie had to cover his head with a towel and bolted for the dressing room.. Always struck me as an arrangement of convenience.. As it was the first time I had seen a main event decided by one fall.
Goldbelt Maxine's sawing motion was controversial. I imagine it was intended to distract attention from the various bits and pieces he had on his head.
It just goes to show, really, what suckers we were. If there had been any real animosity, the likes of Faulkner and Saint and Clayton would have whipped off his various toppings and revealed him in all his glory: but I believe I am right in say that none of his hardened enemies ever did this.
Not strictly true Peter, but it took the emphasis away from the good solid workers whom the business should have been build around and instead the business become a pantomime with the likes of Rocco and John Quinn reduced to playing fodder to a grown man in a giant baby grow! As soon as the Crabtree's had milked it for all they could there was nothing left.
How about the one where Big Daddy was called a 'wrestler' … I know, I know. I'm sorry ...
The first wrestling bout that I ever saw was on TV in July 1977 with Vic Faulkner trying to win the British Welterweight title back from Jim Breaks. Bert Royal was at ringside and he started arguing with Jim Breaks, who turned his back on Faulkner and was then pinned for the winning fall by Faulkner. As a young kid I jumped up and cheered. A few weeks later Kent Walton announced that Jim Breaks had appealed to the 'governing body' and the title had been declared vacant and a re-match ordered. The re-match took place at the Silver Jubilee bill at the Royal Albert Hall and to my dismay Jim Breaks won. As a kid, I fell for this controversy hook-line and sinker and was hooked as a wrestling fan for years.
Always the nonsense that titles could not change hands on a disqualification