PeteF3

I seriously doubt either of those guys are Mexican. That's a bog-standard U.S. wrasslin' minis match with most of the usual comedy spots like the referee catching one of them on a kickout. Mexican minis pretty much work the same style as the bigger guys and I don't see a trace of the tumbling lucha style in there. (And no, that monkey flip/arm drag thing that one of them does is not a lucha spot.) We know Cowboy Lang worked France at this time. These were either guys in the troupe he brought with him or even guys he had a hand in training.

I just asked what other luchador could have accomplished what Mil did in America (and Japan). Not sure what lucha movies in Spain and France have to do with any of that.

Name them. They not only needed his skill and charisma and his physique, but also his size which is what was going to trip up most of them. Santo was a draw in parts of Texas but was never going to be able to be in-demand nationally as Mascaras was. I suppose Canek might have gone places (and he did, to some degree)--tall for a luchador, could fly and do power moves--but while he was a major star I don't think he had the same it-factor that Mil did. The "thousand masks" hook had more cache to an international audience than Jacinto Canek.

Who gives a fuck? As suggested earlier, maybe they prefer the gender-neutral version. Maybe they think it rolls off the tongue better. Maybe they do it in a concerted effort to annoy you, the (sometimes) viewer. (I actually don't ever remember Tenay using the term in WCW, though I never watched much TNA.) We can hammer those guys for using the term "tornado tag team match" or the misuse of the term "one fall to a finish." The use of "trios" as a descriptive term is so far down the list of things even within the specific topic of wrestling commentary that I give a shit about that it can't be measured.

A three-man team can be called a trio. Trios titles are called the Campeones Mundial de Trios. The matches themselves are not called "trios matches." "Manchette" is not an English word. "Trio" is. Yes, it's a loanword--the entire fucking English language consists of loanwords. And it's a basic one. This isn't like referring to The Simpsons as anime even though that's not wrong and is how a native Japanese-speaker, who doesn't differentiate between western animation and Japanese, might refer to it. It would sound weird to western ears. A "trios match" makes perfect sense in almost any language. Were the Kingston Trio or Dolly Parton/Emmylou Harris/Linda Ronstadt being smug and aggravating for daring to use the word? Do you get this frazzled and confused when someone refers to Cream or ZZ Top as a power trio? Is that also being pretentious and snooty?

Also, lucha doesn't usually use "trio"/"trios" as a modifier at all. Tag team matches themselves are "revelos australianos" whether it's two to a side or three.

"A sales rep." "A systems analyst." "A Yankees game." "A savings account." "An arms race." "A clothes hanger." Plural noun adjuncts are allowed and nobody bats an eyelash at 99.9% of them.

Yes, there are two trios competing against each other. Just like how in tennis you have "a doubles match."

This pedantic arguing is setting me on edge. I think I'll relax by listening to the soothing folky sounds of the Kingston Six-Man Tag Team, or admire the jazzy virtuosity of the Thelonious Monk Six-Man Tag Team.

Tecnico and rudo are kayfabe terms, though. The graphics and chyrons will spell out what alignment a luchador is. "Trio" is also not an exclusive Spanish word.

Well, yes, that makes it hard. That's why we're trying to crack the mystery. If they'd said his name was Joe Blow no one would be asking. I have to assume that a 74-year-old ex-wrestler in 2004 is dead in 2025 though the post doesn't seem to say so definitively. So it's not a case of libeling the guy.

" I recently watched James Romero's new video regarding the most evil wrestlers outside the business (link). Some of the obvious examples, like Grizzly Smith and Buck Zumhofe, were summarised. But the video reminded me of a rather unpleasant BBC 2 documentary series called Police Protecting Children, which, as the title suggests, involved police tracking down predators. In the episode, the police monitored a former professional wrestler. He was from Liverpool and achieved some success in the 1960s. But his career came to an end in 1965 upon being convicted of abusing a young boy (his sentence? A £5 fine...). Months following this, the guy somehow managed to become a PE teacher and remained in the position until his retirement in 1992. Police knew of allegations against the guy dating as far back as 1961 up to at least the mid-1980s. The Crown Prosecution Service investigated him in the 1970s but came up short. A few of his victims spoke out on the documentary; most of the offences occurred following swimming lessons. He was 74 when the documentary aired, and the police were monitoring him following new allegations. In fact, he had been arrested earlier that year. One victim spoke out about meeting his wrestling hero in the 1960s when he was 12, only to be targeted for abuse. The victim bravely spoke out many years later. Sadly, the prosecution used the incorrect term to describe the offence, meaning the suspect got away on a technicality. The 74-year-old worked as a car park attendant and often went out day-drinking. Later, he went to the Isle of Man for three days; the police raided his apartment in the meantime. They found a suspicious letter, VHS tapes (containing nothing illegal) and wrestling magazines. Upon his return to Liverpool, the former wrestler was arrested. He denied any allegations against him during his time as a teacher. However, he was charged with 18 counts of indecent assault and one count of buggery against eight victims. This was later reduced to 11 counts against four victims. Unfortunately, he got away with it again... during a preliminary hearing, the defence successfully argued that the suspect's trial would be unfair due to how long ago it was. Key witnesses had since been deceased, while the school had lost vital records. They therefore stated that it would be the defendant's word against his victims. And due to a controversial ruling in an earlier court case, the prosecution was unable to counter this. The case was subsequently dropped. One of the investigators said it best: "If all the defendant can say is that 'I didn't do it', then he can't get a fair trial". That's had bad British law and justice can be sometimes... Since he was considered "innocent", the documentary could not show the guy's face and censored his name. So, for the British wrestling historians, does anyone know who this wrestler is? Because of his relative obscurity, he is not listed among the most evil wrestlers, even though he ranks up there among the Smiths and Zumhofes for sheer depravity. Here are some photographs of him during his wrestling days. There's another depicting him executing what appears to be a boston crab on an opponent, but Imgur doesn't like the image for some reason. 1: https://imgur.com/lp5ZiaQ 2: https://imgur.com/JoQLW5e 3: https://imgur.com/chxxdsx 4: https://imgur.com/WIFRPE3 5: https://imgur.com/zKlGKsl"

https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/1ncmlsn/does_anyone_know_who_this_british_wrestler_is/ Can anyone here help answer this redditor's question? Liverpool wrestler whose in-ring career ended in 1965.

I don't disbelieve the reason, but I never understood how "medical facility" was supposed to prevent calls and visits to area hospitals. "Wow, they put Rey in an ambulance and took him away from the Baltimore Arena...but where? I would have thought Johns Hopkins Hospital, but they specifically said 'medical facility' and not hospital so he can't be there."

I don't think Hogan's a bad worker (and comparisons to Daddy are laughable) but it's also possible they just have different ways of evaluating wrestlers than you and Hogan comes up short.