Antonino Rocca or Buddy Rogers?

[LibSuperstar]

Both Antonino Rocca and Buddy Rogers are legends and contemporaries, yet it seems that Rogers is more known by the average fan. I ran a poll on Twitter asking which name were people more familiar w/ and Rogers got more votes overwhelmingly. Granted Rogers has the distinction of being the first WWE Champion ever and original Nature Boy in his favor but I'm amazed at the discrepancy. Matter of fact, WWE didn't even acknowledge Rocca's birthday on social media two weeks ago while they acknowledge Roger's in February. One thing I can think that might help Rocca's visibility is his appearance on commentary in All-Star Wrestling episodes on the Network but still...

 

[Bruno's Sanctimony]

Rocca was a northeast, Capitol Wrestling, star. Very popular, certainly. But Buddy Rogers was a star across the US and Canada and, several times, the NWA heavyweight champion.

 

[Bernkastel]

So you're asking why WWE honors Rogers and not Rocca. I can think of two likely reasons. The first being that Rogers was a former WWE champion, while Rocca wasn't. So there's more familiarity and marketability there with modern fans. The second being that Rocca didn't have nearly the relationship with VJM that Rogers did. This was the man that joined rival promoter Manny Heicklen in his later years in an attempt to take business away from Vince in the New York area. Although, WWE did use Rocca's likeness on the logo for their Southpaw Regional Wrestling spoof. So there's that.

It's a shame though. Rogers was an important business partner for Vince in the 1960's. Before Bruno's popularity exploded, Rogers was the man in the sport. However; it's because of Rocca that wrestling in the Garden even became profitable during that era. He was the first wrestler since Jim Londos to draw big money there. The platform that Bruno inherited and expanded was created off the success of Rocca.

 

[FromGlasgow]

The WWE seems to have their favourites who they like to mention reguarly from history while some others are almost forgotten, I can't even guess what their reasoning is behind this, Sad that WWE is now the only main company left so for most people it will only be WWE's biased version of wrestling history that they will hear.

 

[LibSuperstar]

So you're asking why WWE honors Rogers and not Rocca. I can think of two likely reasons. The first being that Rogers was a former WWE champion, while Rocca wasn't. So there's more familiarity and marketability there with modern fans. The second being that Rocca didn't have nearly the relationship with VJM that Rogers did. This was the man that joined rival promoter Manny Heicklen in his later years in an attempt to take business away from Vince in the New York area. Although, WWE did use Rocca's likeness on the logo for their Southpaw Regional Wrestling spoof. So there's that.

It's a shame though. Rogers was an important business partner for Vince in the 1960's. Before Bruno's popularity exploded, Rogers was the man in the sport. However; it's because of Rocca that wrestling in the Garden even became profitable during that era. He was the first wrestler since Jim Londos to draw big money there. The platform that Bruno inherited and expanded was created off the success of Rocca.

Now I gotta go back and look. Good points though! Probably doesn't help either that Rocca died in the '70s well before the expansion.

The WWE seems to have their favourites who they like to mention reguarly from history while some others are almost forgotten, I can't even guess what their reasoning is behind this, Sad that WWE is now the only main company left so for most people it will only be WWE's biased version of wrestling history that they will hear.

Very sad! I'm even working on a column touching on this.