SaxonWolf A fast, strong youngster would have caused problems for Marino or Bartelli, both who wrestled into their 50's. But I am not just talking about young wrestlers David, my point actually was that one of the things that started to turn me off wrestling was when people like Maxine still held belts when they were over the hill, not sure why that was, and no one can convince me that no one in the country could beat them, but for some reason the promoters wanted to make us belive that. The last few Marino bouts I saw on TV he was slow, naturally. Anyone remember Ken Joyce making a comeback in his 50's? It was pretty bad. McManus did learn amateur, but whether he was any good is open to debate, my memories of him were that he never did much real wrestling, same for Pallo. David Mantell It would have to be an extremely skilled fast strong youngster. Otherwise technical knowledge would trump raw athleticism. matey dave let us not forget steve logan (the original and best) got a championship belt late in his carreer. i be believe this was welcomed by lads in the locker room Anglo Italian Since I have been doing this, I have come to realise just how little most wrestlers knew about the national goings on. I think fans and historians, especially highly insightful ones like David, are to be respected enormously. Their research and analysis give them a breadth of knowledge shared by few "in the trade". Anyway, most wrestlers even now remain too tight-lipped to open up about some of these subjects. To pigeon-hole fans' comments as in any way sub-standard on this fan forum will see our discussion shrivel. David just states his opinions as 100% fact which is an accepted academic style that may shock some casual readers. I was also at odds with one of his opinions above and questioned it (ie that Nagasaki and Robinson would have been unable to beat Bartelli and B Joyce when they started). Let's face it, nobody will be able to prove anything at this point in time 50 years on, but at least David's opinions are crystal clear. The fun here is chatting and disagreeing with people and having evidence to back up one's points. Bernard Hughes Hi Anglo. I accept your admonishment and sincerely apologise to David. Hack Some interesting comments here, but with the exception of Eddie they are all opinions; knowledgeable opinions but not facts however forcefully they are made. The original question was about who made the decision regarding wrestlers unbeaten runs. The answer must surely be the promoter. Champions were mostly legitimate wrestlers until the 1970s, but again that was at the discretion of the promoters. David uses the word appeasement. I'm not sure if that's the right word, but know what he means and think he's right. But the decision to strap the belt around a legitimate wrestler was that of the promoter.It was a strategic decision quite feasibly for the reasons given by Saxonwolf. They didn't need to appease Jack Dempsey, Eric Taylor etc because if they didn't want them as champions, and if they were unwilling to go down as required, they just wouldn't have used them. Nobody was indispensible. It does seem likely, though, that the likes of Norman Morrell and Jack Dale would have had enormous respect for Joyce, Dempsey, etc and would have valued the legitimacy they brought to the business. David Mantell Apology accepted. As for "Dues-paying", there are quite a lot of pros who have told their stories on this and could do so on here - from both ends of the paying. Bear in mind we're talkng about two students - in the youths of their careers - being able to defeat their respective teachers. Not that Bartelli and Joyce would have minded putting over their prize students, but in a shoot it would have both been different stories. Hack I do agree with you on this point David, that both Joyce and Bartelli would have been superior to their students in the early days. I do think there was a difference in that Robinson had been a pro for nine years before being allowed the British title; he'd defeated everyone else (including Joyce) on occasions and was a very credible champion. Nagasaki defeated his mentor after only 18 months as a pro. I'm not so surprised that Bartelli was agreeable to this, but am mystified why the promoters allowed the undoubtely talented Nagasaki such a rapid rise. SaxonWolf I agree Hack, these are all opinions, I admit that mine are, and usually I try and quote the source of information, such as books by Pallo, or Dynamite Kid. I do think that when the Mount Evans committee created the rules and weight classes for modern wrestling, Norman Morrell would have already wanted proper wrestlers to carry the belts, people who could defend it and look good doing it. So, for example, if an Amateur champ was follish enough to issue a challenge to a Pro champ, the pro champ would not let down his profession. I agree with David, that the best shooters would have had the upper hand in the early days, because of the above and because they could do anything in the ring, just like Assirati could brutalise his opponents for as long as people would be willing to pay to see it. And for me, that is the crux of the matter, "for as long as people would be willing to pay to see it". The promoters (Joint Promotions) were earning a small fortune, while we know that wrestlers often complained about small payouts. The promoters were not living in rented accomodation (as was Adrian Street when I left him at the end of book 3 of his series), they were the ones renting out accomodation (to Adrian again, funnily enough), they would not allow a strike by wrestlers for more pay, or a wrestlers union to stop them in their quest for generating income and profit, they called the shots. SaxonWolf David, if shoot wrestling was an Olympic event, then if what you are saying is true (..."It would have to be an extremely skilled fast strong youngster. Otherwise technical knowledge would trump raw athleticism...") all the gold medals would have been won by men in their 40's and 50's? At the 2012 Olympics, in the three main wrestling events (Greco Roman, Freestyle and Judo, if you class jacket wrestling), only two gold medal winners were over 30 (they were both 33), so out of 21 events (seven weight classes per style), the two oldest were 33? the average age for a gold medal winner was around 26 from memory. Where were all the old wrestlers? The only over 40 champ I can think of would be Randy Couture from UFC (an absolute class act), with all the rest of the champs being younger than 35. The promoters let Marino, Maxine, McManus and co hold on to the belts, for reasons known only to them, maybe "bums on seats"? David Mantell If that generation had much higher skills than the young 'uns then yes. In practice in amateur it's stayed level. Of course someone like John Naylor or Steve Wright might have taken out Marino if he was in the mood, but don't expect too many of the rank & file to pull it off. Bernard Hughes First of all I have to say that I think that this is a wonderful site. The depth of knowledge and experience shown here is quite remarkable, considering the length of time since the Golden Era passed. I know that David Mantell will say that wrestling is still going on (as debated in a previous topic) and I am not trying to raise that subject again. Also regarding David I have to agree with Anglo, when he said “ I think that fans and historians ,especially highly insightful ones like David are to be respected enormously. Their research and analysis gives them a breadth of knowledge shared by few in the trade.” I have no problems or queries on that statement When I posted on this topic I asked a specific question for a specific reason. I wanted to know if David had any experience inside the game. If he has then I have to bow to his superior knowledge, however when he makes statements as if they are facts like ” A Ripper is a Hooker who goes onto the mat/ring working from a game plan to maul and ultimately seriously injure an opponent ” then I have to have doubts. The original question amounted to ,” with regard to long winning runs, who decides?” Hack at first said “at the whim of the promoter” Anglo said” when these wrestlers travelled to other JP turf, their reputations and unbeatability were defended 100% thanks to the national agreement” Graham Brook gave a detailed account of who decided bouts when he was promoting. SaxonWolf said” Pro wrestling is a business more than it is any kind of sport” Hack said” Some interesting opinions here but........they are all opinions . Knowledgeable opinions but not facts no matter how forcibly they are made”...... Then he said “The Promoter decided” SaxonWolf said ”The promoters let Marino, Maxine, McManus and Co. hold onto their belts for reasons known only to them, maybe bums on seats” I thoroughly enjoy reading David's contributions on the history of wrestling but I can't agree with him on this subject. Yes Hack, I know that they are only opinions but most of them seem to think one way. I think that any wrestler, no matter how good he was who went into the ring with the intention of injuring his opponent would not be working for that promoter for long and he would soon run out of promoters and hence work. No professional would do this. Sorry, once again David, but we are going to have to agree to disagree this time. David Mantell http://www.lamuscle.com/magazine/article/Real_Wrestling Shooting and Shooters In amateur wrestling, 'shooting' is what you do when you attempt a single or double-leg takedown. You literally 'shoot in' on your opponent's legs. The old-timers, however, didn't refer to leg attacks this way. Singles and doubles were referred to as 'leg dives.' 'Shooting,' on the other hand, meant you had a match that was on the level, with rules like those shown above. As professional wrestling devolved, however, it became necessary to distinguish between the real pros or 'shooters,' and the pretend wrestlers, known as 'workers.' In order to be known as a 'shooter' - you had to be schooled in the professional style, replete with submissions. Even if you were an amateur champion, you were not considered a 'shooter' until you knew the professional game. Most importantly, you had to be someone who went to the post. In the United States, after the late 1920's, there were no more shoots, but there were professional wrestlers who were trained in the real pro method. These men may have never had a professional shoot, but they were known as 'shooters' because they could and would go to the post at any time, if someone wanted to try them. Additionally, these men were known to train for real during the day, so there skills were always razor sharp. Hooks, Hookers and Hooking When referring to the submission holds of professional catch wrestling, the common term they used was 'hook.' The world's foremost catch wrestling authority, Karl Gotch, also known as 'The God of Pro Wrestling' in Japan, describes the term thusly: 'Think of fishing. When you have a fish on the end of a hook, he wiggles and squirms and can't get free. You've hooked him. That's where the term comes from. You hook a guy when you have a submission hold on him and he can't do anything to wiggle free. But, like in fishing, once you have the guy hooked, you still have to reel him in. We always said, 'take up the slack.' Once you take up the slack, you position the fulcrum and apply the leverage. And the big thing about it is, bulls get killed on the floor. Submission is not something you do standing up.' To be known as a 'hooker' in professional wrestling, you had to be highly skilled in the art of submissions. But, a 'hooker' and a 'shooter' were one in the same. And it had to be this way. 'A shooter who didn't know hooking wasn't a shooter,' said Gotch. 'It would be like going into a professional boxing match without knowing a jab, a right cross, a hook and an uppercut. Hooking was basic to professional catch wrestling. All shooters knew how to hook. And when you could hook faster than the others, you became known as a hooker, but you were still a shooter.' Rippers and Ripping In boxing you have the knockout artist. He knows the same punches as the others, but he's rougher and tougher than the rest and does whatever it takes to put his foe out for the count. Professional wrestling's equivalent of boxing's knockout artist is called the 'ripper.' It is the highest form of praise that a shooter can receive from his peers. A 'ripper' doesn't simply work for a pin fall or a submission. His mission is to physically maul you. If you leave the ring bloodied, battered and injured, the ripper considers it a job well done. From the moment Karl Gotch entered the famous Billy Riley gym in Wigan, England, in 1950, he was trained to be a ripper. Nothing less. SaxonWolf David, is this from a US site? Gotch said many things over the years, including massive praise of Billy RIley, and then pouring scorn on Billy RIley. I have read the Billy Robinson book, but can't rememberhim saying he was trained to be a "ripper", (I could be wrong and will go and check if I get the chance this weekend), and seeing as I see Billy Robinson as the supreme wrestler/shooter, I am taking his word! :P David Mantell I've never seen anything of him pouring scorn on Riley. Gotch poured scorn on Matt Furey (after they fell out over money), but that was a different matter. Ripper and Hooker were more American terms, but even in America back in the day Wigan had the reputation of being a hotbed for rippers. (Cf also Max Crabtree's comment in Simon Garfield's book about Wigan wrestlers having "reputation for breaking legs") SaxonWolf David, you can find an interview on youtube of Karl Gotch, smoking a cigar on his front porch, chatting to the bloke who wrote the book on shooters recently (I will dig out the info if you cannot find it, not near my books at the minute) Gotch pulls a face when Rileys face is mentioned, and either says, or agrees to the fact that, "Riley learned everything from Pop Charnock". I think they are discussing "The Wigan Hold" or whatever the DVD was called. (Catch" The Hold Not Taken?) Ripper and Hooker were more american terms, exactly! "Shooter" was (or is) the British/European name, from what I have seen. SaxonWolf David, I love your knowledge and enthusiasm (going right back to the one stop wrestling days), please understand this is just a difference of opinion between us on one topic, in fact just a difference of very specifc things, not a fundamental issue on our mutual fascination with shooters. David Mantell Shooter and Hooker and to a lesser extent Ripper were all dervied from carnivals in America, however the term shooter made it over here to the UK wrestling business to the point where even the Riley's scene knew of it. However, the Snakepit was known of as far afield as the US and over there they had the Ripper reputation. There was definitely as Riley vs Charnock feud on in the mid C20th. I think Karl was digging out old politics from that feud. We do know that the last moneyed shoot in Lancashire wrestling history was Rileys vs Charnocks, with Billy Joyce representing Riley's (he lost, apparently.) However, before you infer from the above that there was no hooker/shooter distinction in the UK, it's worth considering the following little quote "I went to Wigan on two occasions to speak with Roy Woods [sic] and his friend and wrestling writer Allison. Roy explained the more lethal wrestling was not shown systematically and was saved til the student had earned their wings through orthodox sport wrestling. And it depended on the student’s “trustability” (my word)." Grizzled Veteran Whilst this thread has wandered from its original question into a somewhat abstract disscussion of "hookers, shooters, etc, etc" I was interested in the mention of Billy Joyce losing a shoot. I seem to rememberthis came up before in a thread on an old site "1stop" maybe where it was stated that one of the Belshaw/Beamont brothers beat him injuring his leg in the process, an injury that troubled him for the rest of his career. Does anyone else recall this and provide/confirm the details? SaxonWolf David, as interesting as it is, I would probably ere on the side of caution (personally) and I will stick to what Dynamite Kid says in his book, he says that he learns to "wrestle" and that he is then told he needs to learn to "shoot". He refers to John Foley, Billy Robinson and Karl Gotch as "shooters" and does not use the terms "Hookers" or 'Rippers" as far as I re, if anyone wants to point to me where this is mentioned in "Pure Dynamite" then I will stand corrected. In "Whatever Happened to Gorgeous George", I do seem to recall the word "Hooker" being used (and as we all know, it was the name of the Lou Thesz book), so I believe this to be a US term. When I learned submission wrestling, we were always taught to "get our hooks in", which was locking someones arm or leg, so they could not move, while you slowly shifted position to get into a painful submission move. I always thought that shooter was a wigan term that travelled far and wide, not a term from the USA that travelled over here, I would really love to know where you get that information from? As a real life student of submission wrestling, and a fan of all wrestling, real or pro, I am always happy to learn more, so if you can point me at your sources I would be grateful. For everyone else, if I/we have gone off topic, I apologise. This is just sheer enjoyment of the subject, not trying to intentionally derail something. SaxonWolf hi Grizzled. Yes I know the conversation you mean, as I think it was me that supplied it! I know I searched, found, and posted some information on an American website that discussed catch and carnival wrestling, and I posted that the last known real "behind closed doors" shoot was in Riley v Charnock, with substantial side-bet money on. I just need to rememberwhere I got my information from! David Mantell It's late at night right now and I've got work, but just strictly for starters: http://www.wrestlingperspective.com/UnrealVideo.html ""Hooker" and "shooter" come from the carnival. To "hook" is to double-cross, such as the barker rigging the carny games so the sucker can't win. In wrestling it also refers to a double-cross, a "hooker" being a double-crosser. After a while it became a badge of honor and signified people outside the wrestling trust. To be a hooker, you had to be really good at your craft. "Shooter" comes from "straight shooter," referring to rifles that weren't tampered with; eventually "shoot" was equated with honest. " http://www.squaredcircleofwrestling.com/2012/09/06/squared-circle-of-wrestling/ Shooters And Hookers Posted on September 6, 2012 by squaredcircleofwrest “It is vain to find fault with those arts of deceiving wherein men find pleasure to be deceived.” — John Locke, 1690 straight shooter (n) – term describing one who is candid, forthright, honest. The phrase originated in American carnivals in the post-Civil War period in the late 1860s, which among other forms of entertainment offered shooting contests. These contests attracted gamblers, most of whom were unaware that the contests were rigged; to ensure that the right contestant won, the ‘rube’ was given a corrupted gun to use, which would miss its target. The intended winner was given the ‘straight shooter.’ The traveling American carnival of yesteryear: a spectacle of fun, excitement, and amusement; as well as a cesspool operated by society’s rogues and outcasts, whose sole purpose was to separate their marks from their money. That could be accomplished through rigged shooting contests, phony cure-all potions, or confidence scams. A reliable source of revenue for the carnies was the ever-popular wrestling match. The matches followed a certain format; a burly brute in a gaudy costume issued an open challenge, offering a handsome cash prize (usually about $20) to any man who could beat him, or perhaps just stay in the ring with him for a certain amount of time. That kind of money was an easy lure for the typical strapping young local boy. But the local was usually in over his head; after the spectators’ bets were made with the impresario (the carnie promoter), a victory for the carnie wrestler had to be ensured so that the impresario made his money. Often, if the local favorite was proving to be a tougher opponent than expected, the pro would resort to moving the opponent near the curtain behind the ring – where a hidden carnie would clock the local with a blackjack, knocking him out. But more often, the carnie won through what was known amongst wrestlers as ‘hooking.’ See, in the carnival wrestling community, there were three different levels of wrestlers: you had your journeymen, who were usually young up-and-comers just learning the ropes – they relied more on showmanship and personality to appeal to fans; shooters, who had a solid level of experience in the amateur style, and could wrestle competitively if need be; and then you had your hookers. They were the most feared of the group. They were called hookers because of their knowledge of ‘hooks,’ little-known and dangerous holds which were illegal in conventional amateur wrestling. Armlocks, leglocks, chokeholds were all part of their repertoire; today these moves would be known as submission holds. Furthermore, there were two different types of hookers: your typical hooker, who was dangerous but sporting; and the most dangerous type of hooker: a ripper, who might ask his opponent if he’d had enough punishment, but only after snapping the man’s arm or leg. The ripper, also known as the crippler, had a savage thirst for blood. You didn’t want to be the local yokel to accept the challenge of a ripper. SaxonWolf That answers the questions for me; Hookers and Rippers are American Carnival terms, from Carnival wrestling, similar to what we would call Fairground booths in a way. The US guys use the term "shooter" as someone who is a solid amateur wrestler, whereas over here in the UK (and I guess Europe), a Shooter is someone who is the submission wrestler. So a Shooter over here equals a Hooker over in the USA, and a Ripper simply means someone who can submission wrestle with malicious intent. David Mantell No, the US guys traditionally used "Shooter" to mean a submission wrestler and this word somehow found its way back to Britain. An amateur would be called just that, a "good amateur" or "amateur champion". Only in recent years have US fans started using shooter to mean someone with an amateur background, or even someone with other fighting skills. Hookers were an elite among shooters. Lou Thesz claimed in his autobiography in the mid 1990s that there were only five hookers still alive (it is believe he meant himself, Karl Gotch, Billy Robinson, George Gordienko and Dr Bill Miller) although he later backed away from this statement - it would be more accurate to have said that only five hookers remained who had found gainful employment in the pro wrestling industry of North America. Specimen evidence - according to Ric Flair's autobiog "To Be The Man", when Ric Flair got back to WCW in 1993, on his first day in the WCW office at the CNN centre North Tower he came across then-WCW boss Bill Watts (the only man in the building not in a suit and tie) clamping an armlock on fellow WCW exec Bill Shaw. Flair reports that Watts commented: "Hey Ric, Shaw thinks he's pretty tough. He used to wrestle in high school. Let's see if he knows how to shoot." John Regarding one of the interesting questions asked by both Andy and Hack on the first page of this interesting 'Winners and Losers' topic of why Brian Maxine was allowed to keep his British title for so long, I thought I would add my opinion, for what it is worth. Maxine always struck me as a genuinely hard, tough man but not a shooter. My guess is that other more technically skilled wrestlers such as John Naylor, from Wigan, could probably have beaten him if they had wanted to. However, the promoters had come up with the very successful image for Maxine as Brian 'Goldbelt' Maxine, who came into the ring wearing his gold championship belt and his crown and acted arrogantly, winding up the crowd. If he had lost his British title he would have had no gold belt to wear and I suppose the promoters had to keep him as champion or come up with another image for him. so he stayed unbeaten as champion. Regarding another question, again asked by both Andy and Hack, of why Kendo Nagasaki was allowed an unbeaten run right from the start of his 1964 career, my thought is that this would probably have been helped by the influence of Count Batelli. It is now generally accepted that Nagasaki (Peter Thornley) was the protege of Bartelli (Geoff Condliffe). I would guess that Condliffe, after about, at that time, 17 years as an unbeaten masked wrestler would have had quite a bit of influence with the promoters and other wrestlers. He must have told the promoters about this great prospect he was training and the promoters must have agreed with him, after seeing Thornley in training. Also, many of the experienced wrestlers who lost to Nagasaki early in his career, such as Jim Hussey, were probably long time opponents and friends of Condliffe's (Bartelli). Neither of these theories are facts, they are just my thoughts on these interesting questions and I hope that they are of interest to some of you. SaxonWolf John, your thoughts and opinions are as valid as anyone's on here, please keep posting! Brian Maxine is an interesting one; I guess the promoters had more to gain by leaving a belt on him (with punters thinking/hoping that this week, they may see him lose it) than taking it off him. He was, from memory, an amateur boxer (hence the badly broken nose), and I think an amateur wrestler, but I agree with you that a skilled technician like John Naylor would have probably tied him up in knots in a real contest. With Nagasaki, as skillful as he undoubtedly was, I wonder if an element of "right place, right time" happened? Did the promoters see a need to build a long winning streak on a masked man of mystery? Again, I think it would have been decided by bums on seats. Hack I think that's an interesting point of John about Maxine and his title. To build an entire persona around the necessity of holding a title was either genius on the part of Maxine or short sightedness on the part of the promoters. I wonder if it was planned that way, or whether Brian was just allowed the belt temporarily and niftily moved in to develop his character around it, making his championship indispensable to the promoters. Clever eh? Well maybe. To be fair to Brian Maxine he does seem to get a fair bit of negative comments on wrestling forums, but I don't rememberany of us being critical of him at the time. We accepted him for what he was, champion. Saxonwolf may well have a point of Kendo being in the right place at the right time and John right about Bartelli's influence. It is still odd though that a teenager with no previous experience should be given this role. there's so much to learn. Alan A little snippet about Ken Joyce, that may not be known. He made the wrestling boots that a lot of the old timers used. Not a lot of people know that' graleman To shoot, is to wrestle for real, no pre arranged stuff. Ripper, never heard that term in all my time living in and around west Manchester. Kendo got his run, due to Bartelli having huge clout. Its a good rumour that Kendo was Bartelli's son anyway, so the huge push for him. Marino held the belt for so long, as he put a lot of bums on seats, and was the real deal. Many times, he would give a lot of weight away, as he was 'that good'. And, never heard another wrestler have a bad name for him. A true gentleman, and very tough man. Maxine had inside help in keeping the belt. Iam sure one of his family was married to one of the 'main people'. Thats what i have heard. graleman Just like to mention Harley Race. Many wrestlers have been asked, who they reckon to be the toughest of the tough, and Race's name would often be mentioned. He had a fight with Texas Tornado [Kerry Von Eric]. Possibly one of the best matches i have ever seen. To say Race could not wrestle, is pure wrong. He could do it all, and both men [Race was getting on then], put 110% into the bout. And both left with genuine cuts ! The bout was definately nothing that usually happened. I think both wrestlers had a shoot bout for sure. Andy. David Mantell Sorry Graleman, Harley was a tough man but he could not legitmately wrestle Catch-as-Catch Can style (or any other style of sport wrestling) and he admits as such in his autobiog. Rippers were hookers who went into bouts with a gameplan/mindset of injuring the opponent not just getting the win. graleman Sorry David. Race was a great NWA champion, beating all the greats, and wrestling all over the world. The NWA was a proper belt, and even the likes of the Funks said, he was one hell of a hardman, and extremely hard to beat. Even when Race had his feuds with Bruno Sammartino, perhaps one of the best wrestlers of all time, Bruno said, Race had it all. Skill and toughness. Race is a legend amongst many wrestlers and fans for a reason. David Mantell A hardman is not the same thing as a shooter. Race was an incredibly tough guy. But being a shooter is about actually being able to play the sport in which you purport to be competing and Harley did not have this atribute. He would have been in terrible trouble if he was in the ring against, say, Billy Robinson and Billy decided to refuse to cooperate. Oh and Bruno was most definitely not a shooter either, regardless of how stroppy he got about it when the late Lou Thesz pointed this out some years ago. graleman Race worked on the Zybisco's farm, in return getting them to teach him wrestling. He can shoot if he wants. Just look at his AWA and NWA record. He would sort out any feuds in the ring, and many got sent to hospital. He now runs World League Wrestling, and trained people like Triple H, Henig family and the Dibase family. Please look again at the man's record. In Japan, he wrestled shoot style, as thats what they wanted then. Bill Smith I'm almost certain that Harley Race went to Japan with Ric Flair when Flair was the champ,and was at ringside at his bouts against Inoki ,ready to jump in incase Inoki attempted to shoot on Flair.Harley Race was a very hard man,in a "locked room challenge " Billy Robinson is not forced to have been the one who left first.Even Billy lost a couple outside the ring. David Mantell In America, shooters were far less common than in Britain. Harley was a tough guy and that was all he needed to be an enforcer. It did not mean that he was a competent Catch Wrestler. The Undertaker was enforcer in WWE for many years even though Mark Calloway cannot catch-wrestle for toffees. Harley admtted in his own autobiog that he had negligible catch-wrestling skills.