Larry Matysik's 50 Greatest Professional Wrestlers

[evilclown]

EvilClown, were most of Gotch's matches worked? Matysik makes it seem like his match against Tom Jenkins was a shoot and so were his matches against Hackenschmidt.

This is certainly up for debate. I would suspect that the vast majority of his matches while tour the country with various athletic shows and circus like extravaganzas were all works. It's unclear whether his matches with Hackenschmidt and Jenkins were fixed, but both were accused of match fixing during the course of their careers.

[jdw]

The Jenkins matches were clearly worked, and brilliantly booked.

 

Hack-Gotch II was pretty clearly a work.

 

Hack-Gotch I... been ages since I've read the newspapers. Clearly planned to be a work, as everything pretty much was by that point. In the ring... it read odd when trying to add it up. Doesn't mean it was a shoot, but it always was one that there was so much bullshit around that it was tough to sift through. Haven't read those old clips since the mid-90s, so...

 

John

[evilclown]

The Jenkins matches were clearly worked, and brilliantly booked.

 

Hack-Gotch II was pretty clearly a work.

 

Hack-Gotch I... been ages since I've read the newspapers. Clearly planned to be a work, as everything pretty much was by that point. In the ring... it read odd when trying to add it up. Doesn't mean it was a shoot, but it always was one that there was so much bullshit around that it was tough to sift through. Haven't read those old clips since the mid-90s, so...

 

John

Hack-Gotch II was such an obvious work they wouldn't accept bets on the match. At least it feels that way reading about it. People at the time certainly thought so. The hero worship of these guys, despite people of their era pretty clearly believing they were frauds, is astounding.

 

That said, I wonder how much of this we see because we want to see. Are we prejudiced and see work because we are accustomed to wrestling being a charade?

[Al]

Fair enough, but word is that Gotch used a lot of headbutts to beat Hackenschmidt in a two-hour match. They were certainly not stalling.

Not stalling, more a stalemate.

 

There's no video footage of the match that I know of and no one left alive who actually saw it. And even if we saw it, there's two ways of fixing a match. A complete work, or just working the end result. If a match was outright worked in that era, what exactly did it look like?

[JerryvonKramer]

My copy of this arrived today. I'm almost more interested in reading the early chapters than the bios in the list itself. I'm also planning on listening to Todd Martin's negative review of the book later.

[JerryvonKramer]

I've read the first 3 chapters now. Bloody hell, doesn't he go on and on about the WWE list? There are so many needless cheapshots at Vince too.From what I've seen of the bios I've looked at so far, this continues throughout. Feels like any credit to WWF is coming through gritted teeth.

 

I don't really like the tone of the book so far. It seems to cheapen what Matysik is doing.

 

I listened to Todd Martin's review too and it is more or less a burial. But most of his points are justified. The best of points were this idea that Matysik almost always assumes his 60s/70s picks would make it in the modern era (Dory Funk Jr talking point) but not the other way around (see Rey).

 

Some odd little things too. He seems to think that Rick Rude did his "best work" in WWE. Surely his best work was in WCW? All the run in 92-3 gets is "some mileage" (p. 77). I don't feel he's really giving each guy he dismisses a lot of thought. I don't mean that Rude should be in the top 50, I don't think anyone would argue that, but the shorthand trot through his career doesn't really give any dues for his highpoints. The explanation for not including, for example, Curt Hennig (pp. 58-9) is generally fuller, but he's not terribly consistent in how he approaches each case. Foley gets a very full treatment (pp. 69-71), Pat Patterson scarcely two paragraphs (p. 65). I only mention this unevenness because the tone of the book is "WWE fucked this up, now I'm going to do it right", but then he doesn't really do it right.

 

I wouldn't write it off completely, so far it has had some nice occasional insider insights and anecdotes about different booking conversations. But mostly this has been disappointing so far, even coming into it with diminished expectations.

[jdw]

The Jenkins matches were clearly worked, and brilliantly booked.

 

Hack-Gotch II was pretty clearly a work.

 

Hack-Gotch I... been ages since I've read the newspapers. Clearly planned to be a work, as everything pretty much was by that point. In the ring... it read odd when trying to add it up. Doesn't mean it was a shoot, but it always was one that there was so much bullshit around that it was tough to sift through. Haven't read those old clips since the mid-90s, so...

 

John

Hack-Gotch II was such an obvious work they wouldn't accept bets on the match. At least it feels that way reading about it. People at the time certainly thought so. The hero worship of these guys, despite people of their era pretty clearly believing they were frauds, is astounding.

 

That said, I wonder how much of this we see because we want to see. Are we prejudiced and see work because we are accustomed to wrestling being a charade?

 

If wrestling in that era was about working the marks for gambling money, then Gotch-Jenkins was pretty clearly worked... and brilliantly done to max ripping off gamblers.. There even was that great quote by Gotch in 1904 to the effect that even if his matches were cons, he was still that champ.

 

John

[Guest Nell Santucci]

The Jenkins matches were clearly worked, and brilliantly booked.

 

Hack-Gotch II was pretty clearly a work.

 

Hack-Gotch I... been ages since I've read the newspapers. Clearly planned to be a work, as everything pretty much was by that point. In the ring... it read odd when trying to add it up. Doesn't mean it was a shoot, but it always was one that there was so much bullshit around that it was tough to sift through. Haven't read those old clips since the mid-90s, so...

 

John

Hack-Gotch II was such an obvious work they wouldn't accept bets on the match. At least it feels that way reading about it. People at the time certainly thought so. The hero worship of these guys, despite people of their era pretty clearly believing they were frauds, is astounding.

 

That said, I wonder how much of this we see because we want to see. Are we prejudiced and see work because we are accustomed to wrestling being a charade?

 

That's one of the most defined sentences I've read on this forum. You know - some might get upset about my saying this, though I'm not sure they'd be unjustified - but I don't think those guys could have been that great of workers if most thought of them as frauds. Why?--because their style in that era would have been easiest to work the audience since they were both on the mat and did no serious high spots. That's what struck me about the Gus Sonnenberg bio: He literally changed the business by doing a football tackle of all things for a high spot. Grappling, headlocks, toe holds, and a host of other catch-as-catch-can moves makes for a more boring match, but it also makes it far easier to pass the match as a shoot.

[jdw]

I remember getting a great laugh all those years ago out of coming across a newspaper report of the Evan "Strangler" Lewis vs Ernest Roeber title match or the Lewis-Burns match where it was along the lines:

 

Wrestler X Wins Title

People Don't Think It Was On The Level

I mean... it was literally right there in the sub header of the article. I can't keep all of those early matches clearly in my mind other than the Gotch-Jenkins-Hack-Beell stuff of 1904-08, so Jonathan probably has a fresher mind on which of those 1890s matches was thought to be fixed at the time.

 

The other thing about the Lewis-Roeber that I do remember is that it was Catch vs Greco, where they alternated falls under which each would be wrestled. Roeber was Greco, Lewis catch... so he was clear whoever had the 5th fall in their style would win. The guys of the era often fought a match one style, and another match in the other style, trading wins. It was a bit like Pancrase back in the day where they would fight Mo Smith in Kick Boxing rules, get their ass kicked, then beat Mo in Pancrase style. You pretty much knew what was going on.

 

Anyway, there were reports all through the teens about it being fake. By the 20s in the post Black Sox era, you quickly saw "exhibition" slipped into pro wrestling terminology, and it was an nakedly open secret that it was fake.

 

John

[Eduardo]

Speaking of articles like that, anyone remember the name of that website that had those turn of the century articles? Maybe Bix knows, I want to look for a specific article there.

[Bix]

Speaking of articles like that, anyone remember the name of that website that had those turn of the century articles? Maybe Bix knows, I want to look for a specific article there.

This? http://wrestlingperspective.com/working.html

[Eduardo]

Speaking of articles like that, anyone remember the name of that website that had those turn of the century articles? Maybe Bix knows, I want to look for a specific article there.

This? http://wrestlingperspective.com/working.html

 

Yes! That's it, thanks.

[Eduardo]

EDIT: Double post.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

I doubt Larry means "believability" to mean "Juiced Up Big Man". I took it to mean guys who could "wrestle" and game across as believable in the ring. Is Hulk really believable for Larry, or just a cartoon?

 

I mentioned Ric because there isn't anything more believable about Ric in the ring than Lawler. Ric played stooging bitch for the vast majority of his prime years. He was as believable as Gorgeous George.

 

That was my point.

 

Lawler was believable to his fans.

 

Hogan was believable to his fans.

 

Flair... well he was believable in what ever role the fans paid to see him in.

 

Except...

 

It's fucking pro wrestling. It's FAKE!

 

John

Exactly. It's all about whether you can draw and/or get over. That that point goes over Matysik's head is partly why conservatives of the business would not be able to save modern pro-wrestling if put in a position to. Watts of 1992 WCW is an application of that view.

 

 

 

I'm reading through some of these articles now. http://wrestlingperspective.com/working/19...enoeve1118.html

 

Gotch was obviously very convincing to his fans, just as Jerry Lawler was, but he wasn't fooling everyone. I suspect back then that there were a lot of moles, and those moles were probably rival promoters who were paid to talk and that they talked for a myriad of reasons, and not so much a reflection of their working style.

 

I hope someday someone on this board does a top 50 to counter the conservative view of someone like Matysik. There needs to be a reevaluation of that era, hard as it might be. It certainly didn't look like the wrestlers of that era were fooling those who'd be in the know. The matches had to look worked, and they couldn't have been that well worked because I think, for example, that Ken Shamrock v. Vader (FMW 1997) could pass off as a shoot to the vast majority of people except for those who know very particular, subtle nuances that would allow for one to differentiate between a work and a shoot.

 

EDIT: EvilClown, I've long intended to read your book but will prioritize that now. I feared that it'd be very boring as most writing from that era was. (Tim Hornsbaker comes to mind as the most boring author I've ever read, despite the information in his book.)

[Al]

The one difficulty I see from that era is that there's a difference between working a match and fixing a match. The work is done to maximize entertainment. The intent of the fix is purely to minimize risk of the result.

 

When it comes to Frank Gotch's or George Hackenschmidt's "working ability," I think it's immaterial anyway. We have nothing to go on. No video footage, no opinions of contemporaries (because the people inside weren't talking openly). And even if we did, it's still the most subjective factor. But in a way it doesn't matter. Gotch isn't an all time great because he was a legitimately unbeatable wrestler. He's an all time great because he was the most popular wrestler who twice drew 30,000 fans to Chicago.

 

And what I mean out of all of this is that while the methods are up for debate, the end goal is really the same.

[jdw]

Gotch was able to transition from "work the gambling marks out of their money" as a way of earning a living to "draw a monster gate" as a way to earn a living. The gate against Zbyszko in 1910 and the gate against Hack in 1911 likely dwarfed what he made running around in 1909 working more matches. It's not surprising how little he worked after the Hack match, picking a spot here and there to pull in some more cash.

 

That's not to say "fleece the gambling marks" died after those two matches.

 

It does feel like Stecher-Caddock I was a massive fleecing of Stecher's local fans.

 

It feels like the Legendary Five Hour Stecher-Lewis Match was working to a draw and that "fans" were having none of it the longer it went, trying to get light onto the match. That feels like a draw worked against the majority of the gambling in some fashion. It doesn't seem like it was done to "protect" Lewis, since (i) from the reports he didn't work the match in a fashion to protect himself, and (ii) they already had a "protect Lewis" from their prior match that would have been just as easy to go with rather than a long draw that pissed everyone off. It sure as hell wasn't a SHOOT~! or Lewis not cooperating with Joe, since they continued to work with each other in the coming years.

 

I suspect that Fleece The Gambling Marks was still around to a degree in the 10's, perhaps more so in some cities / areas than others. In the 20s... it doesn't seem to be around in NY or Chicago, but you never know in smaller towns / areas where someone might try to work the gimmick. Risky, though: folks who've been fleeced can end up shooting the con-men.

 

John

[Al]

I suspect that Fleece The Gambling Marks was still around to a degree in the 10's, perhaps more so in some cities / areas than others. In the 20s... it doesn't seem to be around in NY or Chicago, but you never know in smaller towns / areas where someone might try to work the gimmick. Risky, though: folks who've been fleeced can end up shooting the con-men. smile.gif

The Black Sox scandal is my frame of reference there. If gamblers are bold enough to fix the World Series in 1919, chances are they have their hands in everything else.

[jdw]

It's a different beast, though some of us suspect the Black Sox was one of the reasons wrestling so often was tagged as "exhibitions" in the 20s.

 

Baseball already was a business largely to draw fans. Look at the teams of the 1919 Series: Redland Field had a 25,000 capacity, while Comiskey Park has a 32,000 capacity. The Reds look like they drew 8589 per date (62), while the White Sox drew 9361 per date (67). That's counting a doubleheader in those days as one ticket sold covering both games... which is how it was even when I was a kid. That's pretty decent business, especially considering it's all day baseball, so drawing anything on weekdays is decent.

 

The Black Sox wasn't about the "booker" ripping off the gambling marks. It was about the gambler's ripping off the bookies, knowing who was going to win.

 

In pro wrestling, the early point to make money beyond the minimal draw was to get the gamblers to lay a majority of the money in one direction and have the result go in the other direction. The bookies are in on the fix: they're taking the bets knowing they're not going to have to pay out. In turn, they cut the wrestlers in on that action.

 

There was a ton of talk/heat after certain screw jobs where the hometown / local hero tanked, like Stecher jobbing to Caddock and Jenkins jobbing to Gotch in Cleveland. People lost their shirts backing the hero.

 

Gotch-Jenkins was great that way:

 

* fleece the CLE fans laying money on their local hero

* fleece the NY fans laying money on the massively built up Gotch by booking the "upset"

* fleece the NY fans again with Jenkins coming off getting destroyed by Hack and getting another "upset" against Gotch

 

Great stuff.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Does anyone have the link to Todd Martin's review of Larry Matysik's book?

[rovert]

Chris Masters should replace Randy Orton in the 2nd edition of this book:

http://www.tmz.com/2013/03/20/wwe-chris-ma...ghbor-arrested/

 

[goodhelmet]

That is the greatest wrestling story ever.

[Guest TheGreatPuma]

Absolutely incredible.

[Dylan Waco]

That is some Danny Hodge style shit.

[Indikator]

The Jenkins matches were clearly worked, and brilliantly booked.

 

Hack-Gotch II was pretty clearly a work.

 

Hack-Gotch I... been ages since I've read the newspapers. Clearly planned to be a work, as everything pretty much was by that point. In the ring... it read odd when trying to add it up. Doesn't mean it was a shoot, but it always was one that there was so much bullshit around that it was tough to sift through. Haven't read those old clips since the mid-90s, so...

 

John

Hack-Gotch II was such an obvious work they wouldn't accept bets on the match. At least it feels that way reading about it. People at the time certainly thought so. The hero worship of these guys, despite people of their era pretty clearly believing they were frauds, is astounding.

 

That said, I wonder how much of this we see because we want to see. Are we prejudiced and see work because we are accustomed to wrestling being a charade?

 

That is actually a very good question. Regarding Hack, I came across something by Michael Hitzler who pretty much said that Hack always bought his European victories. I wonder what he or other Hack adversaries said about the Hack vs Gotch matchups

 

Recently I read of a Prague 1906 tournament finale in which Stanislaus Zbyszko was apparently shoot pinned for a whole minute (!) by Jakob Koch in a Greco Roman style match. There is a +60 year old German biographer of Jakob Koch who is pretty much what Chapman is for Gotch, I asked him if he had more information about this incident but he pretty much ignored that question in a mail. Likely he thinks Kochs matches were always legit. I guess I will talk about him about the general accusations and discussions at one point. In general one must notforget that these accusations were more often than not personal vendettas or merely done to protect their own businesses (the media involvement was anything but objective back then).

What do I want to get to? I guess because of my fandom I pretty much assume that everything could be faked and probably was faked, but if there is something that would nowadays pretty much guarantee a shoot or a big dispute I would see that as a sign that there was no cooperation. Guilty until proven innocent. I assume that most people who started out as wrestling fans have similar doubts.

 

And it's not like amateur wrestling was always as idyllic as people make it out to be, the Swedes in the 1912 Olympics oiled themselves up for instance.

[Al]

Speaking of Danny Hodge, what's the general opinion on him? He's usually listed among the 50 greatest on most lists. But I haven't seen much on him as a draw, he didn't seem to mix with the other big stars of his era and I've never seen a single match of his. But obviously his amateur career and credibility are beyond reproach.