Week 7: IC 25 -versus- Gelgarin

[Mr. TM]

Antonio Rocca vs Buddy Rogers: Who would you have had win the Rio De Janeiro “match-up”

Gelgarin is the home debater, he gets to choose which side of the debate he is on first, but he has 24 hours.

Remember to read the rules. This thread is only for the debaters.

This round ends Friday 1:00 pm Pacific

 

[Gelgarin]

Without doing any research whatsoever I'm going to say Rocca. I'm predicting that a centre point of my argument will be that Rogers was a stuck up cunt.

I don't care much who goes first, Irish can if he wants.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I've got Rogers then, no sweat. Expect my first post soon. I will open, yes.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

"Nature Boy" Buddy Rogers and the Disappearing Tournament​

I. Backstory

Buddy Rogers defeated Antonino Rocca for the WWWF Championship on april 29th, 1963.

Except he didn't.

This victory was the victory that inaugurated the WWWF Championship, a spin off from the NWA.

Except it wasn't.

The Rogers victory over Rocca should have been the crowning acheivement in the career of the original heel - the man to whom ALL heels today owe a debt of gratitude.

Except it couldn't.

The original “Nature Boy”, Buddy Rogers, won the first-ever WWE Championship in a tournament in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, last defeating Antonino Rocca. The WWE Hall of Famer was one of the most hated Superstars of his time, but he used his patented Figure Four Leglock to torture opponents and become the first-ever WWE Champion.

Ah, the lies of the WWE! The major fact you have to understand about this debate, ladies and gentlemen, is that the tournament never happened. Buddy Rogers was awarded the WWWF Title by Vincent K. McMahon Sr., and the tournament was made up to explain the reign. Rocca was selected as the victim in the finals. I have researched extensively, but I have not been able to find a list of the other wrestlers involved in this fictional tournament.

The fact of the matter is that Toots Mondit and McMahon Sr. wanted to break away from the NWA, and following Rogers losing the NWA Title to Lou Thesz, he was awarded the belt.

II. Why Rogers was the Right Choice

Buddy Rogers was the original "ultimate heel." He was the young, cocky, attractive, talented, bombastic jackoff whom the fans loved to hate. He was the ultimate balance to the respected Lou Thesz. He gave fans a whole new type of character - the arrogant and brash bad guy. Rogers was so good and his character so appropo to the sport of professional wrestling that to this day, no cocky heel has done shit that can't in someway be traced back to Rogers. He is the Chuck Berry of bad guys. Harley Race, Ric Flair, and Billy Graham copied Rogers expilicitly, with Flair even adopting Rogers' nickname and blonde hair.

In addition, Rogers was a significant draw. Sure, Rocca was too, but Rogers had just gotten out of a high-profile, nationally covered feud with Lou Thesz over the NWA Championship. In the 1960's if you wanted to launch a wrestling promotion, it helped to have a big and recognizable name. This was the man who had won the NWA Championship from the respected Pat O'Connor at Comisky Park in front of almost 39,000 people. That match set an attendance record that lasted 23 years.

Rogers was also already a solid draw in the Northeast, where the WWWF was based. Furthermore, the WWWF had a solid talent in Bruno Sammartino, and since Rocca and Sammartino had teamed up a few times, Rogers was the perfect choice as a Sammartino antagonist.

What happened next is a matter of some confusion and conjecture. Rogers claims to have suffered a heart attack. He dropped the title to Sammartino after 18 days, and worked a VERY limited schedule after that, mainly serving as a manager and eventually putting over Ric Flair. The loss to Flair passed the Nature Boy torch, and can be looked back upon as one of the most important matches in pro wrestling history.

Rogers, though a bit of a prick in real life, was a connsumate performer and a man of the business. He drew crowds, wrestled classics, and made money.

Had the tournament in Rio actually occured, it only makes sense that the winner be Rogers. Mondt and McMahon knew this, which is why they made the call to make Rogers the first ever WWWF Champion.

Without Buddy Rogers as the mega-heel, we may not have had the transition to Bruno Sammartino upon whose shoulders the foundation of the WWF was built.

III. Why Rocca would be the wrong choice

Antonino Rocca holds a win over Rogers in a CWC International Heavyweight Championship tournament, which was a precursor to the WWWF Title we are discussing here.

Aside from that, Rocca's exploits in the singles ranks are largely over exagerated. He was a popular wrestler in New York because he was an athletic Italian-American immigrant with a great singing voice. He was a poor man's Bruno Sammartino. And he was little more than a tag team mainstay despite his popularity. I compare Buddy Rogers to Ric Flair. I compare Rocca to Greg Valentine.

Gelgarin is going to argue that Buddy Rogers was too big of a prick to be a decent WWWF Champion following the Rio tournament, and that Rocca would have been a more respectable choice for the inaugural belt. But Rocca had no steam. No build. No credibility. At least not like Rogers did. Rogers drew better as a heel than Rocca did as a face.

In addition to that, a major reason Rocca did not accomplish much in the WWWF was because, despite Mondt's best efforts, Rocca was impossible to placate.

Rocca was so popular that he was being used as a main eventer by Joseph Raymond "Toots" Mondt who was the co-founder of CWC. Unfortunately, Mondt was unable to keep Rocca happy. Rocca formed a tag team with Miguel Perez in 1957 and they both were a successful tag team within their audiences. They both captured the NWA Capitol World Tag Team Championship which was used in CWC.

Had Rocca been awarded the first WWWF Champion, he may very well have become the first malcontent WWWF Champion. Besides, with McMahon and Mondt seeing the future of professional wrestling in Bruno Sammartino, it's safe to argue that the tranisition would not have been so easy with Rocca instead of Rogers as the champion. Babyfaces rarely fought each other at that time, as evidenced by Bob Backlund having to drop the WWF Title to the Iron Sheik before it went on Hogan.

Buddy Rogers was the best choice - the natural choice - for the first ever WWWF Championship, and whether or not the tournament actually happened, the story that it did and that Rogers beat Rocca is a pillar upon which the success of professional wrestling is partially built.

 

[Gelgarin]

An underlined title... and something about Buddy Rogers.​

Gelgarin: The circle is now complete. When I left you, I was but the learner; now *I* am the master.

IC25: Only a master of ‘Old School’ Gelgarin.

Lightsabres Clash.



Right; now that we’ve got that out of the way, down to business.

This is a really fucking bizarre question. You’re asking me to rewrite and rejustify history, based around a match that almost certainly didn’t happen. Well before we can start dissecting history it is pretty important that we first understand it. Generally I would use this opportunity to enter storytelling mode and relay an extended monologue on Rogers’s spotty history as NWA champion, why Toots Mondt was an idiot and the NWA/CWC split. Alas, Tdingle’s shamefaced bullying regarding the provision of valid sources means I’m not going to be doing that. Perhaps later if the debate goes that way.

For now the world can sit in satisfaction at avoiding a four page Gelgarin thesis, and instead settle for a very brisk, Wikipedia plundered, account of events leading up to the ’63 split. Wrestling was divided into territories. New York was the territory with the most money and was home of much of the wrestling media, and therefore had quite a lot of sway. Toots Mondt (New York Promoter) wanted the NWA championship on a New York guy (Rogers) so that he could make more money. The NWA tried this, it didn’t work very well for anyone since Rogers wouldn’t travel (more on this later), and so Lou Thesz (yay!) came back and reclaimed the title. Mondt and Vince Sr. split from the NWA to start their own federation built around one man. Buddy Rogers. To give Rogers legitimacy they invented a tournament which culminated in Buddy Rogers "defeating" Antonio Rocca.

Now, obviously we’re not simply being asked about a booking decision… partly because this wasn’t really booking. The question behind the question is who the then WWWF should have crowned as its inaugural champion, and in doing do so built its promotion around. Buddy Rogers or Antonio Rocca. I intend to show through a combination of historical evidence and character analysis that Buddy Rogers was totally the wrong man to be the centre of a promotion.

Reason: Buddy Rogers was an unprofessional dickweed.

Sad but true. But don’t take my word for it; just ask Bruno Sammartino (the man who succeeded Rogers when the original nature boy proved to be a massive flop – more on this later).
In an interview with Dave Meltzar, Sammartino lamented at length over exactly how lazy Rogers was as a champion. This was the 1960’s, when sixty minute ties were still very much par for the course. Rogers would frequently refuse to go more than fifteen minutes. Obviously, when you consider the amount of headlocks in that era, this was both disappointing for fans and earning Rogers a negative reputation backstage.

When the NWA instructed Rogers to drop the title back to Lou Thesz, he originally refused. It took a combination of peer pressure, fiscal extortion and Lou Thesz threatening to kick the shit out of him, to make Rogers vacate the belt. This is not professional, and not what should be looked for in a champion.

During his days as the NWA champion, Rogers frequently wouldn’t travel, because he didn’t feel he would make enough money. After Karl Gotch snapped his hand in half as punishment, Toots Mondt started taking public responsibility for Rogers not travelling, but personally I don’t buy it. We can’t prove that point either way, but I think it can quite safely be said that Rogers was reluctant to travel, which when you add it to refusing to put people over and refusing to work full length matches, leads us very swiftly to the conclusion that Rogers was not the right man to base a promotion around.

Reason: Buddy Rogers wasn’t a national draw.

Now I know what you’re thinking. The WWWF was based out of Madison Square Garden; who the fuck cares how to man drew nationally? Unfortunately it really does matter. By this time the national television era had been going for twenty years, and it must have been clear that that was where the future lay. Similarly, the unsung Dave Meltzars of New York were in full swing, bringing the territories closer than they had ever been before.

The further away from the East Coast you get the more schizophrenic Rogers’s drawing figures become. During his time in New York during the early 60’s Rogers was far and away the top draw; however if you level these stats out beyond his NWA championship run, and expend your horizons beyond the East Coast, Rogers was outdrawn by Kowalski, Perez, Watson, Thesz and others, most notably including Antonio Rocca.
In fact, since we’re on the subject, during the most of their respective careers, our friend Antonio Rocca drew far, far better than Rogers. If we look at each year leading up to ’63, Rocca drew higher gates on a more frequent basis every year that Rogers wasn’t holding the NWA championship. Hell; during the 1950’s over 800,000 people attended shows main evented by Rocca, compared to a paltry ~270,000 for Rogers.

Buddy Rogers was utterly the wrong choice for the national television era.


Reason: Buddy Rogers was an egomaniac who constantly upset people.

You know all the stick Hulk Hogan gets for having a colossal ego? Rogers was worse. In fact, Hulk Hogan might as well be thought of as Humblely Humbleton, the most humble humble-pie producer in the entire of Humbledown when compared to Rogers. (Tip of the hat to Edmund Blackadder for that one)

What’s more, whilst WCW era Hogan could pull more or less whatever shit he liked, Rogers was from a different era in which writing checks your ass can’t cash was a pretty major drawback… especially for a champion. During various points in his career Rogers managed to draw significant ira from guys such as Thesz (who had to threaten him with violence in 63, and damn near beat him up during a match is St Louis), Sammartino, (You know, the most important wrestler in the history of the New York territories), Karl Gotch and Bill Miller (two significant promoters with whom the WWWF needed good relations) and I would imagine a nice collection of other guys who don’t merit mention on Wikipedia.

If I may quote Sammartino again; this time from an interview with WrestlingPerspective, “almost nobody had a worse reputation in the business than Buddy [Rogers]”. When you’ve just declared your independence from the NWA and are facing vigorous attacks from Jim Crockett over your home turf, you do not want the number one guy in your promotion to run around upsetting people.

Remember, this was still the era of kayfabe (and the shooters who came with it), and since Rogers had no legitimate background whatsoever, having him hold your belt was a constant risk. Personally I think it’s a testament to the professionalism of Sammartino that Rogers never got his ribs broken.

Reason: Buddy Rogers as WWWF Champion was a fucking disaster.

Sorry, I normally try to avoid doing this, but there’s something that’s got to be said.
.
.
.
Lol
.
.
.
I know, I know, that was horrible, but it had to be done. You see the whole time I’ve been outlaying my spectrum of arguments as to why the title shouldn’t have been put on Rogers, I’ve been completely overlooking the fact that this is exactly what happened, and it was a fucking disaster.

The WWWF did give the title to Buddy Rogers, and he kept it for a grand total of eighteen days before he pretended to have a heart attack (Sammartino interview again), dropped the belt to Bruno in something like 47 seconds, and slunk off with his tail between his legs.
Let us recap this. The WWWF, under more pressure than ever before from local competition, decided to put all its eggs into one basket, split from the NWA and rebuild its self around Buddy Rogers. Less than four months later Rogers was gone, and the company was forced to improvise. It’s a true stroke of fortune that Bruno turned out as well as he did, because he certainly wasn’t in line for that push at the time.

They bet everything they had on Rogers and lost. He was a terrible decision.

Reason: Antonio Rocca wasn’t Buddy Rogers.

Seriously. To be honest I think it would be a lot more effective to just leave it at that.


Psyche! Like I’m going to use one line when I can use twenty.
Rocca was easily as talented as Rogers (not very much in my eyes, but the kids loved him). He was easily as big a draw as Rogers. He was as popular and recognised as Rogers. He also didn’t have Roger’s massive list of personal problems. With the exception of Lou Thesz (who, let’s be honest, hated everyone out of New York) I’ve never come across anybody with bad things to say about Rocca. Rocca was innovative (he was doing frankensteiners before Scott Steiner was even born), exciting, and probably the man who really should be credited with bringing lucha styles across the border.

I think with the benefit of hindsight we can both agree that the WWWF would have been better putting the strap on Sammartino than anyone else… but in a decision between Rogers and Rocca, I’m inclined to go with the guy who wasn’t an unprofessional cockwit destined to fail.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

So, wait a second Gelgarin, you're saying that the reason Rocca should have gone over Rogers was because he "wasn't as bad of a person?"

Oh boy, I hope you're kidding. Otherwise this may well be a very short, one-sided, IC25 victory.

I am in no way arguing that Buddy Rogers was a good person.

Far from it. In fact, to the contrary. I totally agree that he was a douche. He was quotes on several occassions as saying "use your friends and love your enemies, so that they too become your friends, and then you can use them." That wasn't a kayfabe character line used to draw the ire of fans - it was what he said backstage. Frequently.

Rogers wasn't just a douche bag, he was a womanizer and an unconchinable egomaniac. He was turned down by Fabulous Moolah when he requested that their manager / managee relationship become sexual. Yes, he didn't have a great reputation.

So let me ask you, oh he who feels awkward re-writing history. Has character ever been a criterion for becoming a champion?

Ultimate Warrior held Vince McMahon hostage on a couple occassions because he wanted more money, and effectively ruined well build storylines.

Hulk Hogan became the poster child for steroids in professional wrestling, denying allegations on Arsenio Hall and then running away.

Triple H has been accused by numerous colleagues of backstage politics and using his position as Vince McMahon's son in law to maintain influence and financial success.

Steve Austin has been involved in at least one confirmed domestic violence dispute.

Kevin Nash is a leading voice in keeping gays out of wrestling and has as bad a backstage reputation for abusing booking power as Hogan and HHH.

And most recently, what about Jeff "The Drug Addict" Hardy?

This brings me back to my original point - since when in the history of professional wrestling has strong, personal character been a requirement to be a champion? Answer - it hasn't. So if "Buddy Rogers was a dick" is the best you've got, well, that's a shame because I agree with you, and yet still have been able to illustrate why he was a vastly better choice than Antonino Rocca.

 

[Gelgarin]

That’s it? Nothing on Rocca being a more proven draw? Nothing on the calamitous failure that Rogers turned out to be? I don’t strain my word processors character count for the good of my health Irish, and if I may steel and inevitable page from your playbook, right now you’re hiding behind smoke and mirrors.

Now, because I’d actually like to have a debate rather than a narrow minded nit picking contest, I’m going to address each area that you’ve brought up… watch and learn.

Why Rogers was the Right Choice

Buddy Rogers was the original "ultimate heel."

And here's little old me attributing that to George Wagner.

He was the young, cocky, attractive, talented, bombastic jackoff whom the fans loved to hate. He was the ultimate balance to the respected Lou Thesz. He gave fans a whole new type of character - the arrogant and brash bad guy. Rogers was so good and his character so appropo to the sport of professional wrestling that to this day, no cocky heel has done shit that can't in someway be traced back to Rogers. He is the Chuck Berry of bad guys. Harley Race, Ric Flair, and Billy Graham copied Rogers expilicitly, with Flair even adopting Rogers' nickname and blonde hair.

So he was a pretty good heel; whoopdy fucking do. I seriously hope that this isn't your idea of "proof" as to why he was a better choice? Like I said, pretty much no heel, cocky or not, has done shit that can't be traced back to Wagner, so let's not paint Rogers with credit that he doesn't deserve. The idea of being "cocky" was around long before Rogers came to the dance (hell, Thesz used to do it on the east coast), and plucking one convenient example out of the air and yelling "pioneer" is frankly naive.

In addition, Rogers was a significant draw. Sure, Rocca was too, but Rogers had just gotten out of a high-profile, nationally covered feud with Lou Thesz over the NWA Championship. In the 1960's if you wanted to launch a wrestling promotion, it helped to have a big and recognizable name. This was the man who had won the NWA Championship from the respected Pat O'Connor at Comisky Park in front of almost 39,000 people. That match set an attendance record that lasted 23 years.

Rogers without the NWA championship was massively outdrawn by Rocca. I make use of the boldface there because as we get down the page you're going to claim that I presented no evidence as to why Rocca would have been a better choice. I thought you might have missed it last time. I have no desire to delude myself, Rogers did have a certain amount of momentum coming off of his NWA title loss to Thesz, but I hardly think that counterbalances Rocca being the second highest drawing wrestler (slightly behind Lou Thesz) in the country for over a decade. Surely a consistent proven track record counts for more than a hypothetical momentum advantage.

Rogers was also already a solid draw in the Northeast, where the WWWF was based. Furthermore, the WWWF had a solid talent in Bruno Sammartino, and since Rocca and Sammartino had teamed up a few times, Rogers was the perfect choice as a Sammartino antagonist.

I think we need to get something cleared up here, because you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that Sammartino was scheduled to become the top face at this point. He wasn’t.
In ’62, just before these events kicked off, Vince Sr. had gotten Bruno suspended from working in the US, and he was up performing in Torronto (and getting extremely over). Vince and Toots only brought him back because Rogers wasn’t working out;

After promoters Toots Mondt and McMahon Sr. cleared up Sammartino's suspension by paying his $500 fine, Sammartino went back to work in New York. McMahon Sr. was having a tough time drawing fans with Buddy Rogers. After many weeks of phone calls with McMahon, Sammartino got a title shot for the WWWF World Heavyweight Championship) against Rogers.

Says it all really.

What happened next is a matter of some confusion and conjecture. Rogers claims to have suffered a heart attack. He dropped the title to Sammartino after 18 days, and worked a VERY limited schedule after that, mainly serving as a manager and eventually putting over Ric Flair. The loss to Flair passed the Nature Boy torch, and can be looked back upon as one of the most important matches in pro wrestling history.

Buddy Rogers and the disappearing heart attack.


You are correct; there is quite a lot of confusion surrounding this issue, so I think it would be best to get all of the information that we know out into the public domain as quickly as possible. Let’s leave aside the fact that Bruno Sammartino is convinced he faked the heart attack and deal in information.

Rogers did miss some dates prior to the match with Sammartino, which adds a certain level of credence to the whole medical issue story, although it is worth noting that these absences were attributed to pneumonia, and not a heart attack.
However; Rogers was only kept on the shelf for a couple of months. I’m no expert in heart failure, but I would imagine that the down time would be longer than that. What we know is that a couple of months after dropping the title to Bruno, Rogers was back, and working on building towards the rematch.
Two months after his heart attack Rogers pinned Sammartino and Bodo Brazil in tag matches, and the WWWF got as far as printing tickets for the Rogers – Sammartino rematch. Unfortunatly, the match never took place. According to Buddy Colt, Rogers had a blow up with McMahon over the phone when he found out that he wouldn’t be regaining the title. That was the last that was seen of Rogers in the WWWF, and since few people in the business wanted the hire him, we didn’t see him wrestle again until 1966.
Whether Rogers suffered, exaggerated or outright faked a heart attack is not really relevant to this question. He walked out of the WWWF because he couldn’t be champion, not because he couldn’t work. I guess we can chalk another act of temperamental and assholeish behavior to his record. One more reason why he shouldn’t have been champion in the first place.

Rogers, though a bit of a prick in real life, was a consummate performer and a man of the business. He drew crowds, wrestled classics, and made money.

Cut all the bad parts out of the sentence and replace Rogers with Rocca and you’ve got my counter argument.

Had the tournament in Rio actually occured, it only makes sense that the winner be Rogers. Mondt and McMahon knew this, which is why they made the call to make Rogers the first ever WWWF Champion.

Mondt and McMahon may have known this; but we know that Rogers turned out to be a massive failure.

You yourself talked about the momentum that Rogers would bring to the WWWF championship after his NWA run. How much of that momentum do you think was left after he lost it in 47 seconds, just a couple of weeks after obtaining it. It’s certainly not the history that most people would ask for when starting up a promotion.

Without Buddy Rogers as the mega-heel, we may not have had the transition to Bruno Sammartino upon whose shoulders the foundation of the WWF was built.

This at least is a valid argument. If Rogers hadn’t been a catastrophic failure then the company probably wouldn’t have been forced to gamble with Bruno. I think it’s pretty twisted to try and fashion good fortune resulting from a catastrophe as a reason for bringing about the catastrophe in the first place.

As I said; Bruno wasn’t there when this decision was made. McMahon and Mondt were planning to have Rogers be the head of their promotion. This plan didn’t work, therefore it was a bad plan.

Antonino Rocca holds a win over Rogers in a CWC International Heavyweight Championship tournament, which was a precursor to the WWWF Title we are discussing here.

Aside from that, Rocca's exploits in the singles ranks are largely over exagerated.

Oh; aside from that. Aside from that…
Aside from being a main eventing heavyweight champion for four years, defending successfully against top names, including doing this to Lou Thesz.

Aside from being one of the top draws of the past decade, and being the consistent main eventer for the WWWF between ’53 and ’57…

I agree Irish, if we take all of that away from his history then it does start to look a little bland.

He was a popular wrestler in New York because he was an athletic Italian-American immigrant with a great singing voice. He was a poor man's Bruno Sammartino. And he was little more than a tag team mainstay despite his popularity. I compare Buddy Rogers to Ric Flair. I compare Rocca to Greg Valentine.

Time out. Time out.

Poor man’s Bruno Sammartino?

I think it would be best all round if we attributed those remarks to good old fashioned racism with regards to them both having Italian blood… because I wouldn’t want to think that you’re really ignorant enough to make the comparison for any other reason.

Bruno was a 280lb strongman who worked a legitimate wrestling style and detested gimmickry of all kinds.
Rocca was a 220lb high flyer who had no legitimate knowledge and thrived on gimmickry both in and out of the ring.
Aside from the fact that they both worked as faces most of the time (except when feuding with one another when working for Kwariani) I can see no legitimate comparison between them

Gelgarin is going to argue that Buddy Rogers was too big of a prick to be a decent WWWF Champion following the Rio tournament, and that Rocca would have been a more respectable choice for the inaugural belt. But Rocca had no steam. No build. No credibility. At least not like Rogers did. Rogers drew better as a heel than Rocca did as a face.

I’m pretty sure we’re not allowed to make up information. You yourself have already talked about how the CWC International Heavyweight Championship was the precursor to the WWWF title, and I’ve pointed out how Rocca had been holding it for the past four years. I’ve pointed out Rocca was a historically better proven draw… so I’m not sure where you’re getting your assertion from. Rocca having no credibility in New York is an absolute joke, that you don’t need me to discredit.

In addition to that, a major reason Rocca did not accomplish much in the WWWF was because, despite Mondt's best efforts, Rocca was impossible to placate.

So wait, I presented my thesis on all of Rogers’s character issues and you shug them all off with a “so what”. Yet you’re going to try and use the exact same argument, based on a lone wiki quote, against Rocca? Hypocrisy much?

Never mind the fact that you’ve accidently conceded the point on Rocca’s singles experience, let’s talk about your assertion that he was “impossible to placate”. Evidently that’s not true, because in over a decade of success in the company, Rocca stormed out of the promotion with his tail between his legs exactly zero times. That’s one time fewer than Buddy Rogers. I’ve been researching the man extensively and I’ve struggled to come up with any actual evidence of him being a problem case… and when compared to Buddy Rogers, there’s simply no question.

Had Rocca been awarded the first WWWF Champion, he may very well have become the first malcontent WWWF Champion. Besides, with McMahon and Mondt seeing the future of professional wrestling in Bruno Sammartino, it's safe to argue that the tranisition would not have been so easy with Rocca instead of Rogers as the champion. Babyfaces rarely fought each other at that time, as evidenced by Bob Backlund having to drop the WWF Title to the Iron Sheik before it went on Hogan.

As I have already pointed out, at this point they did not see the future in Bruno Sammartino. At this time they saw the future of professional wrestling in Buddy Rogers, and I really don’t think I need to relay to you again exactly how that turned out?

Irish’s second post.

This was dull and I don’t feel like taking it apart word by word. You’ve listed a bunch of guys who were also dicks, and somehow assumed that this utterly negates Rogers’s problems. It doesn’t.
You Irish, apparently think that, when deciding who you want to build your promotion around, “being a good heel” should be taken into account over;

• Refusing to travel.
• Refusing to job.
• Refusing to work extended matches.
• Inability get along with people.
• Sabotaging company connections.
• Likelyhood to throw a tantrum and quit the company.

Rogers was a very high risk choice to build the company round, and history flat out confirms that he didn’t work out because of the problems I have outlined above. Hogan and Austin may have been worth their problems for the money they drew, but the fact that Rogers only ever managed one, 47 second title defence, we can safely say that he was not.

Rocca was a more reliable performer and a better draw.
My argument isn’t that Buddy Rogers was a dick. My argument is that Buddy Rogers was a failure, because he was a dick. History proves me to be correct, so unless you’ve got something better stashed away then Rogers being a good heel, I recommend heading back to the drawing board.


EDIT: Due to history on this board, I probably ought to point out that I in no way think that Irish is racist towards Italians; I was being ironical. [/EDIT]

 

[IrishCanadian25]

That’s it? Nothing on Rocca being a more proven draw? Nothing on the calamitous failure that Rogers turned out to be? I don’t strain my word processors character count for the good of my health Irish, and if I may steel and inevitable page from your playbook, right now you’re hiding behind smoke and mirrors.

I am pacing myself. Allowing you to make a mistake. I know my case is rock solid, so why do I need to blow my load on a Monday? You may feel free to show your entire hand early if that's your technique.

And here's little old me attributing that to George Wagner.

Was he the guy with the tobacco company baseball card that's worth a million bucks?

So he was a pretty good heel; whoopdy fucking do. I seriously hope that this isn't your idea of "proof" as to why he was a better choice? Like I said, pretty much no heel, cocky or not, has done shit that can't be traced back to Wagner, so let's not paint Rogers with credit that he doesn't deserve. The idea of being "cocky" was around long before Rogers came to the dance (hell, Thesz used to do it on the east coast), and plucking one convenient example out of the air and yelling "pioneer" is frankly naive.

Even you're not so bold as to attempt to discredit how revolutionary the "Nature Boy" Buddy Rogers was. He was a heel above heels. He was Flair, Race, HHH, Orton, etc. before any of those guys were even IN the business. Being an artist - a believable bad guy - is a critical part of storyline success. It's what made Hogan vs Savage @ Wrestlemania 5 such a big match.

And Rogers did it in the kayfabe era. Meaning people believed him. There were no smark fans back then discussing how "great Rogers was because he was playing the heel character so well" the way we do today with Orton and Jericho. People HATED him, because he was so damn good at his job, and WWWF knew that people would want to see him lose that title. Being the first WWWF Champion in history legitimized his mouth, and people would pay to see his block knocked off.

I make use of the boldface there because as we get down the page you're going to claim that I presented no evidence as to why Rocca would have been a better choice. I thought you might have missed it last time.

No, I saw it. I just didn't feel the need to drone on for three pages responding to it right away. That's your job.

I thought you might have missed it last time. I have no desire to delude myself, Rogers did have a certain amount of momentum coming off of his NWA title loss to Thesz, but I hardly think that counterbalances Rocca being the second highest drawing wrestler (slightly behind Lou Thesz) in the country for over a decade. Surely a consistent proven track record counts for more than a hypothetical momentum advantage.

Since you've presented nothing in terms of evidence that these claims of Rocca's drawing power are true, I am actually going to just go along with it and trust you. But I have to ask - if Rocca was such a solid, drawing attraction, why was his ONLY major championship a short lived CWC International Title? Why never the WWWF, WWF, NWA, or AWA Title? He held the Montreal and Ohio AWA Titles, but never "the big one." He won the NWA Texas Title. But Thesz and Rogers BOTH were trusted with the biggest titles in two massive promotions.

Surely a consistent proven track record counts for more than a hypothetical momentum advantage.

You're claiming Rogers had no proven track record of drawing gates?

In 1961, the National Wrestling Alliance voted him NWA World Heavyweight Champion. On June 30, 1961, Pat O'Connor dropped the title to Rogers in front of 38,622 fans at Comiskey Park, a North American professional wrestling attendance record that lasted until the David Von Erich Memorial Parade of Champions in 1984. The ticket sells of $148,000 was a professional wrestling record for almost 20 years. The match, a two out of three falls match, was billed as the "Match of the Century". During the match, both men had gained a pinfall, when O'Connor missed a dropkick, hit his head, and Rogers pinned him to win the match.

From the same source:

When wrestling entered living rooms via the Dumont Network, Rogers became one of the biggest names in sports. Working primarily out of Columbus, Ohio for years, booked by promoter Al Haft, Rogers was a regular in Chicago and routinely sold-out the International Amphitheater.

And one more:

"Even though it was outdoors the roar of the crowd was so bad at times that we couldn't hear the referee," O'Connor is quoted as saying in the May 1964 edition of Wrestling Confidential. "I'd get a good hold on Rogers and start twisting, but even thought I could see his mouth open and that he was in pain, I couldn't hear him yell."

I think that will do for now.

Mondt and McMahon may have known this; but we know that Rogers turned out to be a massive failure.

Compared to Rocca, a wrestler whose career was more significant as a tag team wrestler than a singles wrestler, who couldn't hack it being in Sammartino's shadow and ran away from the WWWF?

This at least is a valid argument. If Rogers hadn’t been a catastrophic failure then the company probably wouldn’t have been forced to gamble with Bruno.

Forced to GAMBLE? Mondt had been grooming him for that spot because he knew what they had there.

When Bruno Sammartino was brought into the WWWF, Vince Sr. predicted that he would be a midcarder for two or three years at best. Toots called Sammartino the future of the company because people instantly liked and responded to him. Toots convinced Vince McMahon Sr. to build the company around Bruno Sammartino.

And as for Rocca...

During this time, Rocca worked briefly with promoter Kola Kwariani, who had just broken away from his partnership with Vince McMahon Sr. He was teamed with new wrestler, Bruno Sammartino. When business became weak, the pair was split up to wrestler each other in the hopes that business would pick up. Eventually McMahon Sr. took the New York territory back.

So Rocca teamed with Sammartino and couldn't make it work. It failed miserably. Yet Sammartino went on to be the longest reigning WWF Champion ever, sold out MSG more than anyone else in history, and is on the Walk of Fame. Who does that leave as the weak link? Yep - Rocca.

So wait, I presented my thesis on all of Rogers’s character issues and you shug them all off with a “so what”. Yet you’re going to try and use the exact same argument, based on a lone wiki quote, against Rocca? Hypocrisy much?

What I was stating here is that your argument is based around Rogers' attitude, yet you didn't seem to keen on pointing that same figure at Rocca. So all I was doing was subtlely pointing out your hypocricy. But since you've abandonned any of the tact I displayed, I'll do the same. You're a hypocrite if you think Rocca was the model employee, and that made him better than Rogers. I've already told you I though Rogers was a prick and a bastard, but I don't care. He was a champion worthy of the title.

__________________________________________________________________________

As I have already pointed out, at this point they did not see the future in Bruno Sammartino. At this time they saw the future of professional wrestling in Buddy Rogers, and I really don’t think I need to relay to you again exactly how that turned out?

Here, we have a case of Gelgarin conceding the entire debate to me by debating the wrong topic.

We're not really debating the result, are we? TM asked us to debate who the best choice for the first WWWF Champion from the Rio tournament was. You've just stated that the people who OWNED the company felt Rogers was the future of professional wrestler. That makes him the best choice. How it turned out is immaterial and irrelevant. Just because Chris Benoit committed suicide doesn't mean he was the wrong choice for ECW Champion at the time that call was made.

__________________________________________________________________________

This was dull and I don’t feel like taking it apart word by word.

Thanks for the compliment. And you're better off anyway, seeing as the last time you dissected my post word for word you basically handed me the debate on a platter.

You’ve listed a bunch of guys who were also dicks, and somehow assumed that this utterly negates Rogers’s problems. It doesn’t.

Oh, I know. But it does illustrate that pro wrestling history is PACKED with guys who were assholes but champions. And good champions. Guys who drew and succeeded and shaped the business.

Rogers was a very high risk choice to build the company round, and history flat out confirms that he didn’t work out because of the problems I have outlined above. Hogan and Austin may have been worth their problems for the money they drew, but the fact that Rogers only ever managed one, 47 second title defence, we can safely say that he was not.

But again, the question we're supposed to be debating isn't a matter of revisionist history. Observe:

Antonio Rocca vs Buddy Rogers: Who would you have had win the Rio De Janeiro “match-up”

I would have had Rogers win it because he had momentum, was a world-class heel, and was a solid draw in the Northeast. He had just finished a program with Lou Thesz and was a recognized name who could work as a heel against Bruno Sammartino.

EDIT: Due to history on this board, I probably ought to pint out that I in now way think that Irish is racist towards Italians; I was being ironical.

Oh I know. Don't worry, we're still buds.

 

[Gelgarin]

I am pacing myself. Allowing you to make a mistake. I know my case is rock solid, so why do I need to blow my load on a Monday? You may feel free to show your entire hand early if that's your technique.

Ahh; so you're planning on waiting till I have less time so you can spring information on me, a very convincing strategy. Not my style personally, but each to there own.

Was he the guy with the tobacco company baseball card that's worth a million bucks?

It would have been funnier if you'd asked if I was referring to the archbishop. Anyway, I don't believe for a second that you don't know who Gorgeous George is and if it turns out I'm wrong then you should commit his wikipedia page to memory and pretend that you know all along. Because otherwise its embarrassing.

Even you're not as bold as to attempt to discredit how revolutionary the "Nature Boy" Buddy Rogers was. He was a heel above heels. He was Flair, Race, HHH, Orton, etc. before any of those guys were even IN the business. Being an artist - a believable bad guy - is a critical part of storyline success. It's what made Hogan vs Savage @ Wrestlemania 5 such a big match. And Rogers did it in the kayfabe era. Meaning people believed him. There were no smark fans back then discussing how "great Rogers was because he was playing the heel character so well" the way we do today with Orton and Jericho. People HATED him, because he was so damn good at his job, and WWWF knew that people would want to see him lose that title. Being the first WWWF Champion in history legitimized his mouth, and people would pay to see his block knocked off.

That's a lovely little soliloquy... very like the one you made earlier. He was a good heel, yay. I was rather hoping we'd moved past that bit. If you really want I’ll cut my own of Rocca. It’s a totally asinine way of having this debate because we’re just throwing subjective claims around, but hay, I can dig it.

During the 1950’s Antonio Rocca was probably the most popular wrestler in the entire world. In terms of numbers drawn he is only slightly below Lou Thesz, without the latter’s advantage of holding the NWA championship, and miles ahead of the next best draw (Killer Kowalski for those interested). Rocca pioneered the high flying style in America that had a profound contribution towards taking wresting away from the sixty minute headlocks and towards the action packed product we see today.
I’m not going to waste much time spewing my personal opinions because they don’t matter. Rocca was phenomenally popular for an extremely long time, this means he was good at his job. It’s that simple.
Irish is trying to… well… basically lie about Rocca’s career, pretending that he was a career tag wrestling who didn’t spend a decade main eventing at Madison Square Garden. Personally I’m not convinced that even Irish buys this fallacy, but I’ll tackle it later on anyway… just because I’m generous with words like that.

No, I saw it. I just didn't feel the need to drone on for three pages responding to it right away. That's your job.

My my, we’re getting a little testy aren’t we. I didn’t think offering counterpoints to relevant information was the prerogative or only one individual in a debate. Then again, given the ability you are displaying to feign blindness whenever something you can’t deal with comes over the horizon, perhaps I am wrong.

Since you've presented nothing in terms of evidence that these claims of Rocca's drawing power are true, I am actually going to just go along with it and trust you.

A gentleman named Matt Farmer with access to a colossal collection of wrestling archives and free time was nice enough to validate this claim for me. He compiled from the archives a list of every gate exceeding 10,000 in recorded wrestling history. He then analysed from that data exactly how many times each of the major draws drew 10,000 people. The results for 1950-59 are as follows.

1950-1959
1. Lou Thesz 81
2. Antonio Rocca 80
3. Killer Kowalski 37
4. Miguel Perez 35
5. Billy Watson 31
6. Buddy Rogers 27
7. El Santo 22
8. T* Eduardo Carpetier 21
9. T* Hans Schmidt 21
10. T* Verne Gagne 19
11. T* Primo Carnera 19
12. T* Rikidozan 18
13. T* Jerry Graham 18
14. T* Pat O'Conner 17
15. T* Dick the Bruiser 17
T* Blue Demon 17

Dave Meltzar also did something similar (Based off of Farmer’s original work) in the August ’06 edition of WON. Meltzar’s system is crap, but he still gets Rocca down as the thirteenth highest draw in the history of professional wrestling. If you still want to dispute Rocca’s status as a draw then fine, but I’m just going to start snorting with laughter if you do.

But I have to ask - if Rocca was such a solid, drawing attraction, why was his ONLY major championship a short lived CWC International Title?

Short lived? Four years main eventing with the biggest title in New York and defending it successfully against guys like Thesz, Carpentier and even Rogers. Is this an attempt at spin on your part, or is it just ignorance? In 1963 when our decision takes place he was a proven draw who had been carrying the CWC/WWWF’s top title for four years against some of the best in the world. Try to write him off as a tag wrestler all you like, it ain’t working.

You're claiming Rogers had no proven track record of drawing gates?

Well thank for at least including the question mark Irish. No I did not claim that Rogers had no proven track record of drawing gates, I said he didn’t have a consistent one. That would be why he drew only one third of the numbers Rocca did when they were on level pegging. Rogers was only a top level draw when he was holding the NWA championship, which inflates the numbers anyone pulls.

You can throw out isolated incidents all you like. Rocca for example sold out the old Madison Square Garden a few thousand seats over it’s maximum capacity for his matches with Amazing Zuma (Nov.13 ’59 & Jan.02 ’60), and if you can identify Amazing Zuma off of the top of your head then you’re a better man than I, because those were the only main events he ever had.

Proper analysis of the figures flat out confirms that Rocca outdrew Rogers for the vast majority of their careers.

Compared to Rocca, a wrestler whose career was more significant as a tag team wrestler than a singles wrestler, who couldn't hack it being in Sammartino's shadow and ran away from the WWWF?

I think you’ve got your guys confused? It was Rogers who couldn’t stand being in Bruno’s shadow and walked out of the promotion. Bruno and Rocca were pretty close friends, to the point where Bruno took tremendous public exception to Thesz’s criticism’s of Rocca in his book.

Oh, and *s*******

Forced to GAMBLE? Mondt had been grooming him for that spot because he knew what they had there.

You’re selective vision is manifesting again. I’m pretty sure I already explained this. Perhaps if I quoted Wikipedia more it would be easier for you to understand.

Sammartino started working for Vince and Toots in 1960;

Sammartino's first match in Madison Square Garden in New York City was January 2, 1960 against Bull Curry

And left during his first year because Vince kept promising to push him and not delivering.

During his first year of wrestling, after tiring of low payoffs and broken promises, Sammartino left Vincent McMahon Sr.'s Capitol Wrestling Corporation

This didn’t work out, and he was back with Vince… only this time he was getting even less work and Vince was showing even less inclination to push him. So he packed has bags for San Fransisco

Sammartino found himself with even fewer dates and payoffs than the first time he wrestled for McMahon. He gave notice to McMahon that he was going to San Francisco,

Vince then got Bruno suspended from working in the US, so once again Bruno upped sticks and went to Toronto.

Sammartino found out that his suspension was due to his skipping a match he was booked for in Baltimore. He was also booked to wrestle in Chicago that same night. In his autobiography, Sammartino states that he believed McMahon set him up, by double-booking him and not informing him of his match in Baltimore, as a way of punishment for working for Kwariani.

Bruno didn’t come back to the WWWF until after Buddy Rogers had stated to flop, when Vince called him back and immediately put the strap on him.

Sammartino went back to work in New York. McMahon Sr. was having a tough time drawing fans with Buddy Rogers. After many weeks of phone calls with McMahon, Sammartino got a title shot for the WWWF World Heavyweight Championship) against Rogers.

Now I don’t know about you, but I don’t think ignoring a guy until he leaves the promotion on two separate occasions, getting him suspended from earning a living in the United States and then hireing him back because he’s got himself tremdously over in Canada really counts as grooming somebody. I’d call it a gamble personally, but I’d be happy to hear your views on the matter.

So Rocca teamed with Sammartino and couldn't make it work. It failed miserably. Yet Sammartino went on to be the longest reigning WWF Champion ever, sold out MSG more than anyone else in history, and is on the Walk of Fame. Who does that leave as the weak link? Yep - Rocca.

I think the name you’re looking for is Kwariani actually, not that it matters. Your trying to prove that Rocca didn’t draw again, which has already been shot out of the water. This was happening when Bruno was still a comparative nobody incidentally.

What I was stating here is that your argument is based around Rogers' attitude, yet you didn't seem to keen on pointing that same figure at Rocca. So all I was doing was subtlety pointing out your hypocricy. But since you've abandoned any of the tact I displayed, I'll do the same. You're a hypocrite if you think Rocca was the model employee, and that made him better than Rogers. I've already told you I though Rogers was a prick and a bastard, but I don't care. He was a champion worthy of the title.

You want to hand me a single example of Rocca being a problem. There isn’t one on Wikipedia, so I don’t imagine one will be forthcoming. Compared to Rogers massive negative history which, as I have already said, made him a huge risk with the strap… a risk that didn’t pay off.

We're not really debating the result, are we? TM asked us to debate who the best choice for the first WWWF Champion from the Rio tournament was. You've just stated that the people who OWNED the company felt Rogers was the future of professional wrestler. That makes him the best choice. How it turned out is immaterial and irrelevant. Just because Chris Benoit committed suicide doesn't mean he was the wrong choice for ECW Champion at the time that call was made.

I reject your premise. The question plainly asks who “we” would select, and I at least come with the benefit of hindsight. I know that Rogers’s massive attitude problems would lead to him becoming a frankly embarrassing flop, so I wouldn’t make that decision. Hell, Vince and Toots knew Rogers was a high risk champion because of his attitude, and the ensuing calamity only goes to show that under these circumstances they made entirely the wrong decision.

As for the high taste strategy of bringing up Benoit; if the people booking the show had reasonable reason to suspect that Benoit was going to perpetrate a murder suicide then booking him to win the belt would have been a ridicules decision. Alas they did not, so it is not really a relevant example.

Vince and Toots had more than enough evidence that Rogers was likely to pull some kind of shit, but they elected to put the strap on him anyway. History tells us that it was the wrong decision to make.

Your assertion that the decision that got made was automatically the correct one is utterly nonsensical.

Antonio Rocca vs Buddy Rogers: Who would you have had win the Rio De Janeiro “match-up”

I would have chosen Antonio Rocca because he was a world class face. A historically stronger draw, was carrying the momentum from holding the top title in New York, and because Buddy Rogers was a massive risk on account of his personal problems.

I suppose both our answers are justified, but history shows that my judgement of the situation would have been the correct one. Pretend it’s not relevant if you like, you kind of have to… otherwise it utterly sinks your entire argument.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Ahh; so you're planning on waiting till I have less time so you can spring information on me, a very convincing strategy. Not my style personally, but each to there own.

Nah, that has been done to me 2 or 3 times already. And I still went undefeated in those debates. I was merely saying I didn't see the need to use all of my ammo on day one. We have Tuesday - Friday to go, and I'm in the office most of those days. I'll need something to do.

It would have been funnier if you'd asked if I was referring to the archbishop. Anyway, I don't believe for a second that you don't know who Gorgeous George is and if it turns out I'm wrong then you should commit his wikipedia page to memory and pretend that you know all along. Because otherwise its embarrassing.

My my, we’re getting a little testy aren’t we.

Heh heh. You said testy.

Dave Meltzar also did something similar (Based off of Farmer’s original work) in the August ’06 edition of WON. Meltzar’s system is crap, but he still gets Rocca down as the thirteenth highest draw in the history of professional wrestling. If you still want to dispute Rocca’s status as a draw then fine, but I’m just going to start snorting with laughter if you do.

As I said originally, I am perfectly willing to buy the idea that Rocca was a big draw. AND immensely popular. I am certainly not trying to convince anyone that Rogers was popular. He was the exact opposite. Which, with the Sammartino star on the rise, made him a far better choice to be the first WWWF Champion. Best to go with the heel who would draw people in who wanted to see him lose to the eventual hero.

And it still begs the question - if Rocca was so popular and drew well, why wasn't he a more prominent champion? Why were the major belts always around the waists of guys named Thesz and Rogers?

That would be why he drew only one third of the numbers Rocca did when they were on level pegging. Rogers was only a top level draw when he was holding the NWA championship, which inflates the numbers anyone pulls.

One major point you're leaving out is that Rogers was a huge draw in the Northeast, especially New York, where Thesz was weak. Which, in turn, made him the best choice for the first title of a New York based championship.

Short lived? Four years main eventing with the biggest title in New York and defending it successfully against guys like Thesz, Carpentier and even Rogers. Is this an attempt at spin on your part, or is it just ignorance?

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I didn't call Rocca's reign short-lived, I called the title short lived. It didn't last long because it was phased out with the advent of the WWWF Title. I am merely saying that the credibility and history of the International Championship doesn't hold a candle to the NWA or WWWF titles.

Gelgarin, with all due respect, after the comment about the International Title, you really embarass yourself. I made the statement that Mondt, not McMahon, saw something in Sammartino. I even quoted it in my prior post - Mondt convinced McMahon to push Sammartino. So why you would try to refute my statement on Mondt with facts about McMahon is illogical.

Compared to Rogers massive negative history which, as I have already said, made him a huge risk with the strap… a risk that didn’t pay off.

I hope tomorrow you debate the actual topic. Which was - who would have had win? I'd still have had Rogers win. Hands down. The top heel fresh off the NWA Title in a fledgling promotion based out of the wrestler's strongest drawing territory? Yep, give me Rogers.

As for the high taste strategy of bringing up Benoit;

It's a perfectly congruent example, don't insult people by suggesting that discussing the incident is tasteless. It happened, it's part of history, no matter how unconfortable it makes you.

if the people booking the show had reasonable reason to suspect that Benoit was going to perpetrate a murder suicide then booking him to win the belt would have been a ridicules decision. Alas they did not, so it is not really a relevant example.

If the people booking the fake Rio tournament had reasonable reason to suspect that Rogers would be a short lived champion, I'd still have said "book Rogers as the champion." Because he was the top heel and would lose the belt to the top face.

My example was plenty relevant.

And are you so blind in this revisionist, high-sight feuled position of yours that you don't see that if Rocca had "won" the WWWF Title in Rio instead of Rogers that the coming of Bruno Sammartino and his legendary reign would have never happened? Has that ONCE crossed your mind???

Vince and Toots had more than enough evidence that Rogers was likely to pull some kind of shit, but they elected to put the strap on him anyway. History tells us that it was the wrong decision to make.

History tells us it was absolutely the right decision to make because it put the belt on a top heel who helped legitimize Bruno Sammartino as a hero and a top babyface. That, as a result, led to the WWWF and then the WWF becoming the quintessential power in professional wrestling. Seeing Bruno topple the hated Rogers, controversial though it all was looking back now, made people LOVE Sammartino even more. Had Rocca been the champion, that likely would have never happened, since faces didn't work against each other often at the time.

Your assertion that the decision that got made was automatically the correct one is utterly nonsensical.

Clearly, since the WWF obviously went on to become an epic failure.

I would have chosen Antonio Rocca because he was a world class face. A historically stronger draw, was carrying the momentum from holding the top title in New York, and because Buddy Rogers was a massive risk on account of his personal problems.

I suppose both our answers are justified, but history shows that my judgement of the situation would have been the correct one. Pretend it’s not relevant if you like, you kind of have to… otherwise it utterly sinks your entire argument.

Only took you 4 posts to finally address the debate question.

MY argument never sank. You've still yet to address this:

As I have already pointed out, at this point they did not see the future in Bruno Sammartino. At this time they saw the future of professional wrestling in Buddy Rogers, and I really don’t think I need to relay to you again exactly how that turned out?

We're not really debating the result, are we? TM asked us to debate who the best choice for the first WWWF Champion from the Rio tournament was. You've just stated that the people who OWNED the company felt Rogers was the future of professional wrestler. That makes him the best choice. How it turned out is immaterial and irrelevant.

You chose to deflect attention from your own assertion that the promotion owners felt Rogers was the future of the company by pulling the over-sensitivity card on my Benoit comparison, which was spot-on.

I'll give you another comparison. Clearly he Ultimate Warrior was a poor choice to be WWF Champion after Wrestlemania 6. So much so that Sgt. Slaughter took the belt off of him so Hogan could win it back. Hind sight being 20/20, Warrior was a horrific choice because of his personal and professional baggage - does that mean Hogan should have won at Wrestlemania 6? Nope. Right choice was still made, but eventually the title was put back on Hogan. Similar, IMO, to how Mondt and McMahon put the WWWF Title on Sammartino.

Try that one out.

 

[Gelgarin]

As I said originally, I am perfectly willing to buy the idea that Rocca was a big draw.

Rocca's exploits in the singles ranks are largely over exagerated.

He was a poor man's Bruno Sammartino.

he was little more than a tag team mainstay.

Rocca did not accomplish much in the WWWF.

Rocca, a wrestler whose career was more significant as a tag team wrestler than a singles wrestler

Is it fair to say that you've been turned around on these statements then?

I am certainly not trying to convince anyone that Rogers was popular. He was the exact opposite. Which, with the Sammartino star on the rise, made him a far better choice to be the first WWWF Champion.

You're just trying to wind me up right? You're not seriously going to make me explain the Bruno situation again.
When Vince and Toots decided to put the strap on Rogers, Bruno wasn't in the company, couldn't work in the US, and his star wasn't rising anywhere but Canada. The winner of the Rio tournament was not being chosen as a man to break in Bruno, he was chosen to be the face of the promotion; a task Rogers was horribly suited for, and failed miserably at.

And it still begs the question - if Rocca was so popular and drew well, why wasn't he a more prominent champion? Why were the major belts always around the waists of guys named Thesz and Rogers?

Wrestling Museum suggests that, much like Andre the Giant, Rocca didn't require the belt (his drawing figures certainly endorse this). Personally, I struggle to see the point in putting other titles on him, given that for "four years" he was busy main eventing at the garden with the CWC championship. Incidentally, your drastically underestimating the importance of the CWC International Heavyweight Championship. In pretty much everything but name and plates it was exactly the same as the WWWF championship we're talking about. They changed their title to mark the split from the NWA, but both belts were essentially filling the same role; that of the top title in New York.

One major point you're leaving out is that Rogers was a huge draw in the Northeast, especially New York, where Thesz was weak. Which, in turn, made him the best choice for the first title of a New York based championship.

What's Thesz got to do with this? Anyway, I thought I did talk a little about this, but perhaps I am wrong. This would be a very valid counterpoint were it not for the fact that Rocca was also a top draw in the north east. That decade where Rocca massively outdrew Rogers... most of the numbers for that came out of the north east. I don't have to remind you that Rocca was, for four years, carrying to number one championship in the north east.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I didn't call Rocca's reign short-lived, I called the title short lived. It didn't last long because it was phased out with the advent of the WWWF Title. I am merely saying that the credibility and history of the International Championship doesn't hold a candle to the NWA or WWWF titles.

Doesn't now? Possibly true, but only because people don't understand that, as I said earlier, it pretty much 'was' the WWWF championship.

Didn't then? Idiotic. The top title in a New York based promotion replaced with a new top title in a New York based promotion. Rocca had been a humongous draw in the area for four years, if you think his credibility suddenly evaporated because they discontinued the title he was holding... then you're a [derogatory term].

Gelgarin, with all due respect, after the comment about the International Title, you really embarass yourself. I made the statement that Mondt, not McMahon, saw something in Sammartino. I even quoted it in my prior post - Mondt convinced McMahon to push Sammartino. So why you would try to refute my statement on Mondt with facts about McMahon is illogical.

I really don't Irish. Believe me, I really don't. Observe.

You claimed that "Mondt had been grooming him for that spot". But Mondt and McMahon were working as a partnership. They'd been working as partnership when Bruno worked for them, and they did nothing with him, so he left. They'd been working as a partnership when Bruno came back, they did nothing with him, and he left again.
He'd been working in partnership with McMahon when Vince got Bruno suspended from working in the US.

You are correct that it was Mondt who made to call to put the strap on Bruno, but that call was made because Rogers had been a flop, not because he had been groomed for the spot, as you tried to insinuate.

Mondt contributed nothing to get Bruno over. Bruno was gotten over by Frank Tunny, which is why, evan after becoming the biggest star in wrestling, Bruno still took regular trips up to Tunny's territory in Canada (NWA territory from which he made hardly any money). Mondt did not groom Sammartino for Rogers's spot, he groomed Rogers for Rogers's, and Rogers failed miserably.

I'd still have had Rogers win. Hands down. The top heel fresh off the NWA Title in a fledgling promotion based out of the wrestler's strongest drawing territory? Yep, give me Rogers.

And he'd probably have fucked you over the same way he fucked over Toots and Mcmahon. I'd have picked the superior draw, coming hot off a run with the title 98% identical to the one I was trying to push, and also opperating in his strongest drawing territory. I also get the added bonus that my guy displayed no signs that he was going to totally fuck the promotion over with his unprofessional behaviour and appalling attitude.

If the people booking the fake Rio tournament had reasonable reason to suspect that Rogers would be a short lived champion, I'd still have said "book Rogers as the champion." Because he was the top heel and would lose the belt to the top face.

Unless your talking about putting the belt straight onto Rocca, then you didn't have the top face at the time. He was busy getting over in Canada because you'd had him banned from working in the US. I'd imagine he wasn't best pleased with you to tell the truth.

And are you so blind in this revisionist, high-sight feuled position of yours that you don't see that if Rocca had "won" the WWWF Title in Rio instead of Rogers that the coming of Bruno Sammartino and his legendary reign would have never happened? Has that ONCE crossed your mind???

I did talk about this actually. As memory serves I said that I considered the logic of triggering a likely catastrophe on the chance that something great might come out of the wreckage to be "twisted".
Bruno was a fortunate side effect of Rogers being a massive fuck up, that really doesn't make Rogers a good choice.

History tells us it was absolutely the right decision to make because it put the belt on a top heel who helped legitimize Bruno Sammartino as a hero and a top babyface. That, as a result, led to the WWWF and then the WWF becoming the quintessential power in professional wrestling. Seeing Bruno topple the hated Rogers, controversial though it all was looking back now, made people LOVE Sammartino even more. Had Rocca been the champion, that likely would have never happened, since faces didn't work against each other often at the time.

Had Rocca been champion we don't know what would have happened, other than that the WWWF would have been headed by a more consistent draw, a less temperamental character and wouldn't have been forced to start panic booking a few weeks into its existance. That makes Rocca the sensible choice. Whether or not Bruno, or anyone else for that matter, made it huge in the aftermath is pure speculation. This decision we're debating has nothing to do with a strong man who used to work from the company and is panned from performing in the US, it's about Rogers and Rocca.

Clearly, since the WWF obviously went on to become an epic failure.

So the WWF has never made a bad decision in it's entire existence?

I'll give you another comparison. Clearly he Ultimate Warrior was a poor choice to be WWF Champion after Wrestlemania 6. So much so that Sgt. Slaughter took the belt off of him so Hogan could win it back. Hind sight being 20/20, Warrior was a horrific choice because of his personal and professional baggage - does that mean Hogan should have won at Wrestlemania 6? Nope. Right choice was still made, but eventually the title was put back on Hogan. Similar, IMO, to how Mondt and McMahon put the WWWF Title on Sammartino.

It's a simple cost benefit analysis. You look at the potential positive and negative results, and the likelihood of each happening, and deduce if the risk was worth it.

The benefit of putting the strap on Rogers was that you got a great heal who might be able to draw almost as well as Rocca (Wikipedia tells us that this didn't happen), as oppose to likely negative consequences of being fucked over by your champion, being forced into panic mode a few weeks into your promotions conception, and having to rely on risky booking decisions.

I don't think Rogers was worth it.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Since this debate has gotten quite heated, as well as very deep in terms of the amount of copy/reply we've done, I want to offer my opinion as to what the summary of the debate is thus far:

1. TM asked us whom we would have had win the fictional WWWF Championship tournament - Buddy Rogers or Antonino Rocca.

2. Gelgarin, with the right to choose his side first, contends that Rocca should have won on a count of the fact that Buddy Rogers is an ass.

3. IC25, with the opening post, contends that Rogers is the logical choice because of his status as the top heel in pro wrestling at the time and a man coming off a lengthy NWA Title run.

4. Gelgarin stated that Rogers' WWWF Title reign - the first title reign in the history of what would become the WWF and is now the WWE - was a disaster, and due to that hindsight, was the wrong choice.

5. IC25, following the original debate question explicitly, states that the idea that Rogers' title run was short and controversial is irrelevant, and that Rogers still would be the best choice since he was the heel who helped lend credibility to Bruno Sammartino, and by putting Bruno over, helped launch the longest male World title reign in pro wrestling history.

6. Gelgarin contends that Rogers wasn't as solid of a draw as Rocca, despite evidence that Rogers was, in fact, one of the highest drawing heels in history and held attendance records for decades. Gelgarin also conceded the fact that Toots Mondt and Vince McMahon Sr. felt that Rogers was the future of the pro wrestling business, which would seem to be a major reason he was the right choice to be the first champion.

7. IC25 contends that, without Rogers winning the first WWWF Title, the Bruno Sammartino era would have likely never happened.

How's that sound thus far?

 

[Gelgarin]

Spin-tastic Irish. Spin-tastic.

This is a farcical exercise, but I'll do my own.

1. TM asked us whom we would have had win the fictional WWWF Championship tournament - Buddy Rogers or Antonino Rocca.

2. Gelgarin, with the right to choose his side first, contends that Rocca should have won on a count of the fact that Buddy Rogers is a cunt.

3. IC25, with the opening post, contends that Rogers is the logical choice because of his status a really good heel, and a man coming off a lengthy NWA Title run. He also tries to lie about Rocca's importance and popularity in order to discredit him.

4. Gelgarin provides statistics to display that Rocca was a three times bigger draw than Rogers. He contends that Buddy Rogers attitude problems made him an unfit choice to build a promotion around, and validates this claim to displaying what a massive fuckup Rogers turned out to be.

5. IC25 contends that anything that happened after Rogers was crowned the champion (predictable or not) is irrelevant to this debate. He then makes a massive hypocritte of himself by immediately following that by talking about how Rogers failure as champion let to the rise of Bruno Sammartino (something that, unline Rogers's failure, couldn't have been predicted at the time).
Irish also provided some extremely isolated evidence in an attempt to counter the statistics offered by Gelgarin earlier on.

6. Gelgarin further expands on his drawing statistics to, once again, show Irish that Rocca was a better draw than Rogers. He also corrects a number of glaring inaccuracies in Irish's comments regarding Bruno Sammartino, most notably by pointing out that Vince and Toodts were not grooming Bruno to take over, and that Bruno wasn't even with the company at the time.
Gelgarin also "conceded" the fact that Toots Mondt and Vince McMahon Sr. felt that Rogers was the future of the pro wrestling business, which would seem to be extremely good evidence that it is possible for Vince and Toots to make an incorrect judgement.

7. IC25 once again contends that, without Rogers winning the first WWWF Title, the Bruno Sammartino era would have likely never happened. He also tried to cover up some of his early inaccuracies regarding Rocca's status as a draw. He contends that any decision made by the WWF automaticially should be considered the correct one.
He also tries to convince readers that Rogers's status as a draw in New York should contribute towards the question.

8. Gelgarin calls Irish out on the lies he tried to spread about Rocca. He once again explains the difference between considering Rogers's failure (something that could easily be foreseen) and the rise of Bruno (a fortunate consequence that nobody planned).
Also, Gelgarin informs Irish that Rocca (as displayed by the drawing history) pulled better gates in New York than Rogers.

9. Irish, in order to formulate a quick response and get out of offering counterpoints to most of what Gelgarin has said, provides a short, slanted and generally inaccurate review of the discussion so far.

10. Gelgarin satirizes Irish's previous post and suggest that he scroll back up and continue the debate.

Well wasn't that a waste of time. No get back to work.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

3. IC25, with the opening post, contends that Rogers is the logical choice because of his status a really good heel, and a man coming off a lengthy NWA Title run. He also tries to lie about Rocca's importance and popularity in order to discredit him.

I never lied. Not once. Rocca was a legend, but he's not the legend Rogers was. Most of Rocca's success and notability came from his tag team ranks.

And Rogers wasn't just a "really good heel," he was a legendary heel. One of the difinitive heels in wrestling history. He drew ire from crowds most wrestlers never dreamed of. He inspired so many, and he's one legend who is consistently on the tounges of many fans when the all time greats are discussed.

4. Gelgarin provides statistics to display that Rocca was a three times bigger draw than Rogers. He contends that Buddy Rogers attitude problems made him an unfit choice to build a promotion around, and validates this claim to displaying what a massive fuckup Rogers turned out to be.

It took you three posts to provide numbers. Your original posts consisted of the equivalent of "trust me, Rocca drew." Which made me think maybe you were alive in the 60's. When you finally did provide statistics, you put some numbers next to names and didn't mention a source.

Incidentally, this was after I told you I'd gladly concede that Rocca was a strong, popular draw at the time, and that I'd still go with Rogers.

I also reminded you that a bunch of wrestlers who were terrific champions were also bastards. You make it sound like Rogers was the only one.

5. IC25 contends that anything that happened after Rogers was crowned the champion (predictable or not) is irrelevant to this debate. He then makes a massive hypocritte of himself by immediately following that by talking about how Rogers failure as champion let to the rise of Bruno Sammartino (something that, unline Rogers's failure, couldn't have been predicted at the time).
Irish also provided some extremely isolated evidence in an attempt to counter the statistics offered by Gelgarin earlier on.

Not so much. My argument is that your contention of Rogers being a "bad" champion shouldn't influence the decision to make him the champion. And the Sammartino as champion argument was partially a result of Rogers, a huge heel, BEING a champion.

6. Gelgarin further expands on his drawing statistics to, once again, show Irish that Rocca was a better draw than Rogers. He also corrects a number of glaring inaccuracies in Irish's comments regarding Bruno Sammartino, most notably by pointing out that Vince and Toodts were not grooming Bruno to take over, and that Bruno wasn't even with the company at the time.
Gelgarin also "conceded" the fact that Toots Mondt and Vince McMahon Sr. felt that Rogers was the future of the pro wrestling business, which would seem to be extremely good evidence that it is possible for Vince and Toots to make an incorrect judgement.

You're overlooking the fact that I also provided numerous statistics, as well as an editorial from someone who lived through some of Rogers matches, as proof of Rogers drawing power.

I also pointed out, with other examples, that just because a champion doesn't pan out long term doesn't make him the wrong choice. And that having a heel in place to eventually put over a top face - in this case a returning Sammartino - made a world of sense.

7. IC25 once again contends that, without Rogers winning the first WWWF Title, the Bruno Sammartino era would have likely never happened. He also tried to cover up some of his early inaccuracies regarding Rocca's status as a draw. He contends that any decision made by the WWF automaticially should be considered the correct one.
He also tries to convince readers that Rogers's status as a draw in New York should contribute towards the question.

My contention that the Sammartino era never would have happened with the belt on a face like Rocca instead of a heel makes a world of sense. I am also arguing that the WWWF made some smart decisions in their infancy, which, judging by their long term success, is sensical. Had WWWF screwed up the initial year, do you think they would have done as well? Honestly?

8. Gelgarin calls Irish out on the lies he tried to spread about Rocca. He once again explains the difference between considering Rogers's failure (something that could easily be foreseen) and the rise of Bruno (a fortunate consequence that nobody planned).
Also, Gelgarin informs Irish that Rocca (as displayed by the drawing history) pulled better gates in New York than Rogers.

What lies? That he was a ring legend and a popular wrestler who, outside of 4 years with a forgotten title, was largely a tag team performer who didn't stick around long. Great guy, but Rogers was better.

9. Irish, in order to formulate a quick response and get out of offering counterpoints to most of what Gelgarin has said, provides a short, slanted and generally inaccurate review of the discussion so far.

I did it because my summary was easier to read than being buried under your prior posts. And my summary was damn funny. Any an accurate representation of my arguments thus far.

10. Gelgarin satirizes Irish's previous post and suggest that he scroll back up and continue the debate.

Ah the hyperbole. Mildly entertaining.

 

[Gelgarin]

So you're just refusing to address post #11 are you? That's fine, given how it sinks your Sammartino argument, I'd try to sweep it under the rug as well.
That being said, your hide under the bedclothes routine is leaving me with noticeably fewer inaccuracies to point out. I debated simply quoting post eleven and leaving it at that, but you've shown such desperation to avoid dealing with that collection of "things you said that were wrong" that trying to force the issue is likely only to waste more time.

By all means feel free to prove me wrong, but I don't think that's likely.

I never lied. Not once. Rocca was a legend, but he's not the legend Rogers was. Most of Rocca's success and notability came from his tag team ranks.

He drew bigger, for longer. He held the top belt in the promotion for four years. I'm not going to waste time outlining this further. Keep trying to con people with this tag team mainstay falsehood, but the numbers don't lie.

Not so much. My argument is that your contention of Rogers being a "bad" champion shouldn't influence the decision to make him the champion. And the Sammartino as champion argument was partially a result of Rogers, a huge heel, BEING a champion.

I'm quite bright. I read books sometimes and seldom play video games that involve shooting things. I don't have a clue what that was about. I've already conceded that Bruno as champion was a lucky coincidence that stemmed from Rogers's failure. My contention is that, as I have said several times before, a lucky break stemming from a disaster does not make causing the disaster a smart decision. Chairman Mao would have left a much more favourable legacy otherwise.

You're overlooking the fact that I also provided numerous statistics,

You provided evidence of one show, which proved nothing but my assertion that his drawing record was inconsistent. You also provided a truly laughable statistic about Rogers selling out the Chicago Amphitheatre a few times, which would be real impressive but for the fact that, prior to its demolition, it only seated 9000 fans. Forgive me for not falling over in amazement.

My figures don't rely on isolated incidents; they catalogue each man's entire drawing history over a ten year period and clearly conclude that Rocca was a much, much better draw.

I also pointed out, with other examples, that just because a champion doesn't pan out long term doesn't make him the wrong choice. And that having a heel in place to eventually put over a top face - in this case a returning Sammartino - made a world of sense.

Actually you tried to insinuate that Sammartino was being groomed for the position, but I'm glad you've let go of that fallacy. And when 'not working out long term' means fucking you over a couple of weeks in, then sticking around just long enough to fuck you over again before heading for the hills' it absolutely makes him the wrong choice. Especially when you've just broken away from the NWA, are facing heavy threats from Jim Crockett and have a limited talent pool to work with.
Letting that happen through gross negligence is completely and utterly the wrong thing to do.

My contention that the Sammartino era never would have happened with the belt on a face like Rocca instead of a heel makes a world of sense. I am also arguing that the WWWF made some smart decisions in their infancy, which, judging by their long term success, is sensical. Had WWWF screwed up the initial year, do you think they would have done as well? Honestly?

I have no idea, and neither do you. All I know is what 'did' happen, which was them making a bad call on Buddy Rogers, getting thrown into panic mode and gambling on Sammartino and the rest being history.

Just because it all worked out in the end doesn't mean that every step along the way was the correct one, and Rogers quite obviously wasn't.

What lies? That he was a ring legend and a popular wrestler who, outside of 4 years with a forgotten title, was largely a tag team performer who didn't stick around long. Great guy, but Rogers was better.

There you go again with that tag team rubbish. You clearly have no interest in listening to me, so I'm going to let the WWE speak for themselves. Please note the point where it talks about how he was the main event even when NWA champion Buddy Rogers was on the card.

Before it was ever known as WWE, the World Wrestling Federation, or even the World Wide Wrestling Federation, Antonino Rocca was the top Superstar in the company. Back then, it was simply the Capitol Wrestling Corporation, and Rocca was the star of the show, drawing packed houses throughout the Northeast for Vincent J. McMahon.

The reasons were simple. He was the most dynamic performer the business had ever seen up to that point. His arsenal of aerial maneuvers would be considered amazing even by today’s standards; back then, he was a legitimate phenomenon. Hurricanranas, flying dropkicks, victory rolls and flying body presses dazzled 1950s audiences used to seeing athletes who almost never left their feet. His signature move, the Argentine Backbreaker (known to newer fans as the Human Torture Rack) also brought crowds to a frenzy.

The ethnic factor also played a big part. Rocca was of Italian heritage and hailed from Latin America, making him a drawing card for two of the New York area’s largest populations. His fan following was passionate, as is evidenced by the famous riot that erupted at Madison Square Garden on a night in 1957 when Rocca was busted open by Dick the Bruiser.

Rocca began his career as a teenager, training under the legendary Stanislaus Zbyszko. In the United States, he began his career in Texas, but was quickly brought to New York in the late 1940s by Joseph “Toots” Mondt, the kingpin of wrestling in the Big Apple. Mondt shared Rocca with other promoters in the region, including a newcomer from Washington, D.C. named Vincent J. McMahon. Eventually, McMahon managed to convince Rocca to join his troupe full-time. This, along with his use of television, allowed McMahon to gain enough leverage to become the major player in the territory.

Although Rocca never held a World Championship, it really didn’t matter. In arenas like Madison Square Garden, he was such a big deal that his matches were always main events, even if the NWA World Champion was also competing on the card; the Argentine acrobat was the man the people came to see. During this period, only Gorgeous George was a bigger star, and on the East Coast Rocca was the uncontested king.
In the late 1950s, Rocca formed a partnership with Puerto Rican Superstar Miguel Perez, and the duo became the first holders of the United States Tag Team Championship, the title that would eventually evolve into today’s World Tag Team Championship.

By the time the World Wide Wrestling Federation was created as an independent entity outside the NWA in 1963, Rocca had already given way to Bruno Sammartino as the company’s top Superstar. In the 1970s, he returned to the World Wide Wrestling Federation as an announcer, calling the action with a very young Vincent K. McMahon. He did this right up until his untimely death in 1977.

Antonino Rocca is sometimes left off lists of the greatest Superstars in WWE history, simply because he was around before the letters were. But Rocca was the first major Superstar promoted by the McMahon family, and no such list would be complete without him. In 1995, then-WWE Champion Diesel posthumously inducted Rocca into the WWE Hall of Fame, cementing his place amongst the elite.

You still going to tell me that the best part of his career was as a tag wrestler?

That appears to be it. Try to say something fresh... it's starting to get repetitive having to keep hammering you with the same points over and over again.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

So you're just refusing to address post #11 are you? That's fine, given how it sinks your Sammartino argument, I'd try to sweep it under the rug as well.

I'd be happy to. But, you made another request, which I will oblige first.

Try to say something fresh...

After shameful fumbling through your so-called "facts," many of which remain uncited, you're now taking the masochistic, borderline emo route of begging for MORE punishment? Fine then, let's start fresh. I have more ammo.

To better organize this, and since there's been some issue with whether to make the decision with what we know how or based on what McMahon and Mondt knew then, I am going to split my argument into "foresight," which puts us back in time and focuses on why Rogers was the best choice at the time, and then "hindsight," which gives us the benefit of changing history based on how it played out.

Foresight

A brief timeline of Rogers from Obsessed with Wrestling shows several reasons why the momentum carried by Rogers heading into the formation of the WWWF was reason enough to name him the "winner" against Rocca.

• June 30, 1961: Buddy Rogers defeated Pat O'Conner to win the World Heavyweight title in Chicago.
  
• July 18, 1961: Buddy Rogers defeated Mike Paidousis to retain the NWA World Heavyweight title in Orlando, Florida.
  
• July 19, 1961: Buddy Rogers defeated Boris the Great Malenko to retain the NWA World title in Jacksonville, Florida.
  
• August 18, 1961: Buddy Rogers defeated The Sheik in a Best 2/3 Falls match at the Cincinnati Gardens.
  
• ~~~Buddy Rogers took the deciding third fall by using his figure-four leglock on the challenger to retain the NWA title.
  
• August 18, 1962: Bobo Brazil defeated Buddy Rogers to win the NWA World Heavyweight title when Rogers was injured.
  
• ~~~Bobo Brazil refused to accept the Championship, but was awarded the title after Rogers was cleared by doctors.
  
• October 30, 1962: Buddy Rogers defeated Bobo Brazil in the rematch to reclaim his NWA World Championship.
  
• January 24, 1963: Buddy Rogers lost a controversial match to Lou Thesz in Toronto, Ontario.
  
• Buddy Rogers was awarded the first WWWF title, but several Northeastern promoters disputed the loss.

So in the course of an impressive 2-year NWA Title Reign, Rogers (who, according to BuddyRogers.net, defended the belt 5 days per week) feuded with and defeated Pat O'Connor, The Great Milenko, The Original Sheik, and Bobo Brazil. Not a bad list of rivals.

But what happened in 1963 that made Thesz's win over Rogers controversial? Simple. The NWA voted to take the belt off Rogers and placed him into a one-fall match against Thesz. What's wrong with that? NWA Title Matches were 2-out-of-3 falls at the time. Thesz, in a way, perpetrated one of the original pro wrestling screwjobs on Rogers, who dropped the belt losing only one fall.

THAT is why the WWWF was originally formed. Because Rogers was screwed. Many - including McMahon Sr. and Mondt - felt Rogers was STILL the recognized World Champion. So, as a result, they made him THEIR World Champion. It made perfect sense, especially for a promotion in the Northeast where Rogers was, arguably, king.

Rogers as champion gave the WWWF instant credibility, which Antonino Rocca, as good as he was, wouldn't have been able to provide. The NWA World Title was the recognized top championship in pro wrestling at the time. Rogers' act, claiming he was the true World's Champion, was emulated later by his nicknamesake, Ric Flair, who is also the only other man in history to hold both the WWF and NWA World Titles.

Let's allow the words of Irv Muchnick to resonate with what Rogers means to professional wrestling at the time, shall we?

I never knew this in such detail, but it turns out that Sammartino left the Northeast the first time on bitter terms after refusing to go along with programs designed for the exclusive enhancement of the newly invading Buddy Rogers.

And that clinches it for me: Rogers was, hands down, the most internally influential pro wrestler of the last century. Probably all time. He was at the epicenter of just about every scenario, trend, and tipping point of the industry as it took the shape it has today.

The only wrestler rivaling Rogers for sheer influence, however, was Hulk Hogan. In my mind, Buddy gets the nod over Hulk, who definitely maxed out on his talent, had charisma to burn, and could draw with the best of them for big shows. But Hogan was a pure vessel of his times, plopped down in the middle of an epochal dynamic wrought by cable TV and generational turnover.

Rogers did something more formidable: he embodied generational turnover, through force of will, non-stop backstage politics, and a gift for drawing sellouts almost anywhere at almost any time.

I once asked my late uncle, Sam Muchnick, who he felt, across six decades of putting together wrestling shows, were the most reliable names to install on the marquee. "There were three," Sam said without hesitation. "Jim Londos, Andre the Giant, and Buddy Rogers."

Londos worked in an era, the 1920s and 30s, that simply doesn't translate today. Andre, while undeniably huge at the box office, was a novelty act. Of the troika, only Rogers' fortunes resonated in the context of every key territorial fight in modern wrestling. And that's what I mean by internally influential.

Sam Muchnick understood all this as well as anyone. When he began running opposition to Tom Packs in St. Louis right after World War II, Sam struggled; if not for the help of Jack Pfeffer, the early Muchnick promotion would have had a hard time scraping together talent. Attendance was not good. It was the Buddy Rogers-Don Eagle sellout in 1949 that set the stage for St. Louis as an international wrestling capital for a quarter of a century. Without Rogers, there's no Muchnick legend, and without Muchnick, the National Wrestling Alliance, if it had existed at all, would not have been nearly as cohesive or rational.

Rogers himself didn't get tapped for the NWA championship until 1961, replacing the smooth but universally unmarketable Pat O'Connor. And it was during that period that the original Nature Boy's role as the industry's ubiquitous hub-and-spoke of controversy and change got cemented. What completes that picture is the news from the Sammartino interview of last week that it was Buddy and his entourage who effectively drove Bruno from New York to Northern California to Omaha and then, broke and broken, briefly back to a construction gang in Pittsburgh.

I can remember him packing Kiel Auditorium with Johnny Valentine, John Paul Henning, and others. There was still magic. Simply put, Rogers wrote the book on classic heeldom, which he executed not with his mouth, not with his eyes, but with moves and mannerisms. These included, but were not limited to, his strut. Trust me when I say that if others had shared Rogers’ intuitive genius for controlling a crowd, they would have similarly flaunted it.

The rest of my argument is familiar history. When Vincent J. McMahon’s New York group wouldn’t release Rogers for enough dates for his NWA champion commitments, and when he kept missing bookings due to outside-the-ring injuries (including the broken hand when Karl Gotch and Bill Miller jumped him in the dressing room in Columbus), Muchnick summoned Thesz back for an emergency sixth title run. The World Wide Wrestling Federation was born, with Rogers winning “a tournament in Rio de Janeiro.” And Sammartino returned from Canadian exile to become an American ethnic icon and a wrestling living legend.

Inside the ring, Rogers doesn’t come off too well in these stories. Thesz warned him, before the Toronto NWA title change, that they could do it “the easy way or the hard way.” In the Meltzer-Alvarez interview, Sammartino recalled that, before the famous 48-second Madison Square Garden match, Rogers was set up for a double-cross that Bruno had too much integrity to follow through on; instead, at the referee’s too-quick bell for a backbreaker submission, Bruno brusquely whispered to Buddy, “Sell it!”


But there’s a world of difference between being the best wrestler ever and the most influential. Who else in the history of this crazy industry could ever have found himself in the position of doing two tectonic-shifting jobs, within months of each other, that together and forevermore relined the wrestling map?

Only Buddy Rogers.

For all of the beliefs that Rogers was a bastard, or as you put it, a "cunt," that was certainly true. But come on, Gel, you and I research so much for the forums - you know that the pro wrestling business fosters actions like that. From Gotch assaulting Rogers, Thesz threatening him in the ring, and Sammartino screwing Rogers out of the WWWF Title - is Rogers always truly the bad guy? Or is history just being unkind to the villain?

I have plenty more, but I have to go do some work. I will be available to post again, probably tomorrow. I await your response to this post.

 

[Gelgarin]

After shameful fumbling through your so-called "facts," many of which remain uncited, you're now taking the masochistic, borderline emo route of begging for MORE punishment? Fine then, let's start fresh. I have more ammo.

So which facts are you challenging then? I think I've backed the majority of my claims up, as oppose to your strategy of simply making information up, then trying to shift focus when I bring your ignorance to light.

First you made up that Rogers was the better draw and that Rocca was a "poor man's Bruno Sammartino" and that he was "only a tag wrestler". Then I provided booking figues and you back peddled from the issue.
Then you started promoting the preposterous lie that Toots Mondt was grooming Bruno to take the title off of Rogers. This time I used Wikipedia, your own bastion of knowledge, to utterly discredit you. Shockingly you back peddled from this as well.
Now your trying to open up a new front by claiming that Rogers was in some was 'screwed' out of the NWA title. I can't help but wonder where you'll run to when I discredit this line as well?

But what happened in 1963 that made Thesz's win over Rogers controversial? Simple. The NWA voted to take the belt off Rogers and placed him into a one-fall match against Thesz. What's wrong with that? NWA Title Matches were 2-out-of-3 falls at the time. Thesz, in a way, perpetrated one of the original pro wrestling screwjobs on Rogers, who dropped the belt losing only one fall.

THAT is why the WWWF was originally formed. Because Rogers was screwed. Many - including McMahon Sr. and Mondt - felt Rogers was STILL the recognized World Champion. So, as a result, they made him THEIR World Champion. It made perfect sense, especially for a promotion in the Northeast where Rogers was, arguably, king.

You know I actually feel bad blowing a hole in this... pointing out a person's inaccuracies is one thing; but you're asking me to ruin kayfabe for you. You are aware that that's what the whole thing was right?

Rogers, the unprofessional dickweed, was refusing to drop the belt, so Sam Muchnick and Toots Mondt worked out a compromise where he would loose the title but remain looking strong.

Rogers was hesitant about dropping the title, so promoter Sam Muchnick put in place two safeguards to guarantee Rogers' cooperation. First, the match was only one fall, out of the ordinary since most title matches were two out of three falls until the mid-seventies. The second safeguard was his threat to give Rogers' bond (the NWA Champion was required to pay a $25,000 deposit the NWA Board of Directors before being given the title; the deposit was returned to the wrestler after losing the title) away to charity. Thesz won the match and the title.

It was a work. The WWWF was going to splitting from the NWA on good terms so it was a convenient arrangement for them. The only people who in any way got screwed were the NWA, who suffered the consequences of putting your title on Buddy Rogers.

As for the claim of Rogers being 'arguably' the kind of the North East... I say that it was Rocca. The drawing figures say that it was Rocca. The company themselves say that it was Rocca... the only person who thinks Buddy Rogers was the top guy over there is you, and given the reliability of your information, I don't think that counts for much any more.

So in the course of an impressive 2-year NWA Title Reign, Rogers (who, according to BuddyRogers.net, defended the belt 5 days per week) feuded with and defeated Pat O'Connor, The Great Milenko, The Original Sheik, and Bobo Brazil. Not a bad list of rivals.

It's not particularly mind blowing to tell the truth. In 1960 Sheik was best known for throwing fire and hiding under a bus because he was scared of Lou Thesz. Brazil, for all the barriers he should be credited for breaking, wasn't very big news either. Pat O'Conner was the only particularly big name there, and I don't think feuding with him a couple of years ago really carries that much in the way of credibility. Certainly less than a decade of main eventing Madison Square Garden, often ahead of the NWA champion, often times alongside the names you just listed.

For all of the beliefs that Rogers was a bastard, or as you put it, a "cunt," that was certainly true. But come on, Gel, you and I research so much for the forums - you know that the pro wrestling business fosters actions like that. From Gotch assaulting Rogers, Thesz threatening him in the ring, and Sammartino screwing Rogers out of the WWWF Title - is Rogers always truly the bad guy? Or is history just being unkind to the villain?

Sorry... what? I'll give you Gotch, but Thesz threatened him with a shoot because Rogers was refusing to drop the belt, against the express wishes of the NWA. As for Sammartino... I haven't got a fucking clue what you're on about there. I'll leave you to invent something for your next post... it's about time you scuttled away to a new front. Just to keep us mildly on track though...

Rocca draw better, was more popular in New York and didn't come with Rogers's list of massive dissadvantages.

Next!

 

[IrishCanadian25]

So which facts are you challenging then? I think I've backed the majority of my claims up, as oppose to your strategy of simply making information up, then trying to shift focus when I bring your ignorance to light.

You posted a list of names and numbers which apparently represented drawing power. I'll find it...it's on page one. I was just wondering where you found the information, because I'd like to read up on it as well. Seems like a good source, I'd like to know what that source is. Sort of like how I quote the web pages I find my info on.

First you made up that Rogers was the better draw

No, I said Rogers was a very big draw at the time. I didn't have any numbers on who outdrew who, so I make no claims as I cannot back them up. I did, however, state some of Rogers major matches and how they set attendance records that stood for 25-30 years, especially the NWA Title win over Pat O'Connor at Comiskey Park.

that Rocca was a "poor man's Bruno Sammartino"

My opinion. I've always felt that way about Rocca. Both men were immensely popular in the Northeast because of their Italian immigrant heritage and working class style. Rocca had a small fraction of Sammartino's success and legacy, so I call Rocca a poor man's Bruno Sammartino, much how I'd call Buddy Rose and Greg Valentine a poor man's Buddy Rogers and Ric Flair.

and that he was "only a tag wrestler".

You're very good at misquoting me and misrepresenting my statements, you know that? Let's see what I actually said:

Antonino Rocca holds a win over Rogers in a CWC International Heavyweight Championship tournament, which was a precursor to the WWWF Title we are discussing here.

Aside from that, Rocca's exploits in the singles ranks are largely over exagerated. He was a popular wrestler in New York because he was an athletic Italian-American immigrant with a great singing voice. He was a poor man's Bruno Sammartino. And he was little more than a tag team mainstay despite his popularity. I compare Buddy Rogers to Ric Flair. I compare Rocca to Greg Valentine.

Yes, I feel Rocca's singles success is over-exagerated. I stand by that. But Rocca is not "just a tag team wrestler." Hell, before you even posted, I brought up the fact that Rocca was the CWC International Champ.

Then I provided booking figues and you back peddled from the issue.

Since you did not provide the source, for all I know, you just assigned random numbers to names. Here's your statement:

A gentleman named Matt Farmer with access to a colossal collection of wrestling archives and free time was nice enough to validate this claim for me. He compiled from the archives a list of every gate exceeding 10,000 in recorded wrestling history. He then analysed from that data exactly how many times each of the major draws drew 10,000 people. The results for 1950-59 are as follows.

I searched for this source, but honestly I couldn't really find it, so if you could give us a link where we can find this "evidence," I'd very much like to check it out myself.

Then you started promoting the preposterous lie that Toots Mondt was grooming Bruno to take the title off of Rogers.

Hmmmm...

When Bruno Sammartino was brought into the WWWF, Vince Sr. predicted that he would be a midcarder for two or three years at best. Toots called Sammartino the future of the company because people instantly liked and responded to him. Toots convinced Vince McMahon Sr. to build the company around Bruno Sammartino.

Thanks for playing.

You know I actually feel bad blowing a hole in this... pointing out a person's inaccuracies is one thing; but you're asking me to ruin kayfabe for you. You are aware that that's what the whole thing was right?

Rogers, the unprofessional dickweed, was refusing to drop the belt, so Sam Muchnick and Toots Mondt worked out a compromise where he would loose the title but remain looking strong.

That seems to be a matter of conjecture on different sites. With so many conflicting stories from Rogers, Thesz, Sammartino, Mondt, McMahon, etc. it's hard to know exactly what happened here. But still, Rogers had the NWA Title taken from him and placed back on Thesz, then went to the newly formed WWWF. Which returns me to the original debate question as to WHOM, Rogers or Rocca, should have been the first WWWF Champion.

Let's say for a second that you're right and the NWA Title one-fall fiasco ws truly a work to allow Rogers to still "look strong." That seems to suggest that the former NWA World Champion, who had just kayfabe "been screwed" out of the NWA Title, would be the perfect choice to be the first ever WWWF Champion. He wasn't off a decisive, clean loss to Thesz - he was off a tainted loss. Why, then would Rocca win the title, other than your "Rogers was a douche" argument?

In 1960 Sheik was best known for throwing fire and hiding under a bus because he was scared of Lou Thesz. Brazil, for all the barriers he should be credited for breaking, wasn't very big news either. Pat O'Conner was the only particularly big name there, and I don't think feuding with him a couple of years ago really carries that much in the way of credibility.

How who's making shit up? You're claiming that the original Sheik and Bobo Brazil aren't the legends we know them to be, and for no reason other than your own personal opinion, that feuding with the great Pat O'Connor was not worth anything? This is ridiculous. The 30,000+ people who packed Comisky Park to see Rogers defeat O'Connor certainly seemed to find it credible, especially when you re-read what I posted about the commentators not being able to hear themselves over the crowd noise.

Oh, and I would figure that EVERYONE was scared of Lou Thesz in the 60's. Hell, I'm scared of Lou Thesz NOW. If he were in a diabetic coma I'd still not go within 5 feet of him unless I was calling him "sir." But I'm not debating the merits of Lou Thesz. He's in a class all his own.

As for Sammartino... I haven't got a fucking clue what you're on about there. I'll leave you to invent something for your next post...

I don't need to make anything up. I already posted AND cited the Irv Muchnick interview previously. You know, if you actually read my posts, you may not be so quick to misrepresent EVERYTHING I've said so far.

In the Meltzer-Alvarez interview, Sammartino recalled that, before the famous 48-second Madison Square Garden match, Rogers was set up for a double-cross that Bruno had too much integrity to follow through on; instead, at the referee’s too-quick bell for a backbreaker submission, Bruno brusquely whispered to Buddy, “Sell it!”

It's a terrific read on Buddy Rogers, and can be found here:

http://www.f4wonline.com/content/view/9865/105/

Rocca draw better, was more popular in New York and didn't come with Rogers's list of massive dissadvantages.

Rocca lacked the influence that Rogers had on professional wrestling, and he wasn't nearly as polarizing as Buddy was. I'll make this comparison, and you tell me what you think. In modern terms, Buddy Rogers was Randy Orton, and Antonino Rocca was Jeff Hardy. Rocca was one of the original spot-monkeys of pro wrestling, which was often criticized by peers, even by those who respected Rocca as a person.

Take this clip from a shoot interview done with Bruno Sammartino, in which Rocca comes up as a topic. Parts of the interview can be viewed on http://www.wrestlingperspective.com/71.html

Let me interrupt you for a second. Looking through your book, you had a couple of good things to say about Rocca, but you were also critical of him.

But about the Latin-type (lucha-libre style) and a little jealousy. I was speaking of his talent. I'm not speaking of the person and what type of person he was. Before I became a professional wrestler and saw him, I was quite impressed with those acrobatics moves. When I got to be a wrestler and saw him all the time, at that point, as impressed as I had been, I felt there was too much of that and not enough wrestling as far as I'm concerned. But to this day, I've always said I'm told they are great acrobats and fine, I believe it. But he used to do things that were quite amazing. He'd be standing there and make a leap and he'd be on your shoulders. He could do it from almost a standing position and boom, he'd be on your shoulders. It was quite amazing. Yeah, there are guys who will criticize me for different things I've done in the ring, my style. That's okay. I have no problem with that.

Rocca was an acrobat, a talented spot-monkey. I certainly have no issue with that, but before you laud Rocca as this terrific wrestler and champion, realize that even the great Bruno Sammartino was critical of Rocca's style.

On the other hand, you've very accurately pointed out that Lou Thesz was no fan of Buddy Rogers as a person. You get no dissent from me there. But I like to say that the greatest compliment you can receive is the respect of someone who hates your guts. The following statement comes directly from Lou Thesz's book "Hooker:"

"Buddy Rogers had a natural feel for his audience". While he didn't fully trust him, Thesz goes as far as to call Rogers "the best performer our business ever had."

So let's look at our debate question this way. Here's how I see it:

Rocca: Amazing talent, terrific athlete. Brought Italian-American and Latino fans to MSG in droves. Often headlined shows, but never held a recognized World Championship in singles competition. Helped popularize high flying maneuvers and the lucha style in the ring despite some criticism from fellow wrestlers. Aside from Sammartino, Rocca may have been the biggest babyface before Hulk Hogan.

Rogers: Terrific athlete, revolutionized the concept of the "heel" or the "bad guy" in professional wrestling. Inspired such talents as Ric Flair in terms of ring work, attitude, and promotion. Sold out gates in St. Louis, Chicago, Baltimore, New York, and many smaller venues as well. First man ever to hold both the NWA and WWWF Titles. The man credited with being possibly the best all time in reading a crowd and making them hate him. Not respected as a person backstage because of his attitude and ego, though often respected by his peers and enemies for his ability to work a crowd and draw a gate. Often paired with Lou Thesz in areas where Thesz was a weaker draw in order to sell out shows.

Gelgarin, this is professional wrestling we're talking about here. Rocca was as popular as Rogers was hated, and fans came to see them both. But at the end of the day, pro wrestling is entertainment, and Rogers was the man who was in tune with the audience. That alone made him THE best choice to win the first ever WWWF Championship, regardless of the "baggage" he brought. If title reigns were predicated on a lack of professional drama, you'd have to go back and strike out two-thirds of the title reigns in WWF history.

Give me the guy who knows what the crowd wants and works them with perfection - give me the guy who cuts a promo, breathes the business, and draws people in to the character. THAT is the guy I want as champion.

 

[Gelgarin]

You posted a list of names and numbers which apparently represented drawing power. I'll find it...it's on page one. I was just wondering where you found the information, because I'd like to read up on it as well. Seems like a good source, I'd like to know what that source is. Sort of like how I quote the web pages I find my info on.

I didn't think posting a link to another internet wrestling forum whilst debating with the admin of this one was a particularly good career move. If you want the link I've happily dig it out and PM it to you, I just figured that since you 'twice' said that you were happy to accept that information, that you weren't going to make a big deal out of its validity at the last second to try and nick a couple of points.

No, I said Rogers was a very big draw at the time. I didn't have any numbers on who outdrew who, so I make no claims as I cannot back them up. I did, however, state some of Rogers major matches and how they set attendance records that stood for 25-30 years, especially the NWA Title win over Pat O'Connor at Comiskey Park.

No Irish, you claimed that Rogers drew better than Rocca. Look.

Rogers drew better as a heel than Rocca did as a face.

Now to me that rather looks like either an extremely elaborate sequence of typos, or you saying something that went on be proved not to be true... then trying to claim you never said it in the first place.
Rocca was the bigger draw, we shouldn't be debating this any more.

You're very good at misquoting me and misrepresenting my statements, you know that? Let's see what I actually said:

OK.

he was little more than a tag team mainstay despite his popularity.

I already countered that with information on his decade of main eventing at the Garden. His hall of fame article which talks about how he main evented ahead of NWA champion Buddy Rogers and by presenting evidence of his four year singles reign with the top title in the north east.
If you want to go back and try to cover up your earlier comments then be my guest; but remember, to cover your tracks you've got to fall behind. (I rearranged that sentence about fifteen times, and it still doesn't sound cool)

Yes, I feel Rocca's singles success is over-exagerated. I stand by that. But Rocca is not "just a tag team wrestler." Hell, before you even posted, I brought up the fact that Rocca was the CWC International Champ.

And tried to pass the biggest title in the North East off as unimportant as memory serves.

Let's say for a second that you're right and the NWA Title one-fall fiasco ws truly a work to allow Rogers to still "look strong." That seems to suggest that the former NWA World Champion, who had just kayfabe "been screwed" out of the NWA Title, would be the perfect choice to be the first ever WWWF Champion. He wasn't off a decisive, clean loss to Thesz - he was off a tainted loss. Why, then would Rocca win the title, other than your "Rogers was a douche" argument?

Because he was a bigger draw? Because he was main eventing at the Garden ahead of Buddy Rogers when he was the real NWA champion? Because he was one of the greatest faces of all time and the future generation of wrestling fans adored him?
And yes... because Buddy Rogers was a douche.

When Bruno Sammartino was brought into the WWWF, Vince Sr. predicted that he would be a midcarder for two or three years at best. Toots called Sammartino the future of the company because people instantly liked and responded to him. Toots convinced Vince McMahon Sr. to build the company around Bruno Sammartino.

And I've already used quoted from Wikipedia to flat out prove that that couldn't be true. That Bruno was ignored by the promotion twice, and when they made the decision to put the strap on Rogers he not only wasn't part of the company, but couldn't even work in the US.
It's one of those awkward arguments I've kept putting forward that you've been trying to avoid dealing with.

How who's making shit up? You're claiming that the original Sheik and Bobo Brazil aren't the legends we know them to be, and for no reason other than your own personal opinion, that feuding with the great Pat O'Connor was not worth anything? This is ridiculous. The 30,000+ people who packed Comisky Park to see Rogers defeat O'Connor certainly seemed to find it credible, especially when you re-read what I posted about the commentators not being able to hear themselves over the crowd noise.

Actually reading comprehension will quite clearly display that I agreed Pat O'Conner was a big deal. Are Brazil and Sheik a huge deal today? Yes. Were they then, not so much; and even if they were, they'd been feuding with Rocca as well, so it's rather a moot point.

Oh, and I would figure that EVERYONE was scared of Lou Thesz in the 60's. Hell, I'm scared of Lou Thesz NOW. If he were in a diabetic coma I'd still not go within 5 feet of him unless I was calling him "sir." But I'm not debating the merits of Lou Thesz. He's in a class all his own.

Agreed. Although Charlie and he were really really nice during his later years.

Rocca was an acrobat, a talented spot-monkey. I certainly have no issue with that, but before you laud Rocca as this terrific wrestler and champion, realize that even the great Bruno Sammartino was critical of Rocca's style.

Even the great Bruno Sammartino... as in just about the only guy in the business more hostile to the development of professional wrestling than Lou Thesz . Look at today's business and you'll see that it holds much more in common with the fast paced work of Rocca than the ten minute headlocks of the true old school legends. Rocca was ahead of his time, and I don't think we're going to try and hold that against him.

Now, time for an underscore line.

_________________________________________________________________


Closing Arguments

I rather doubt that we've both got time to get another round of posts in, so I'll let you have the final word and post my closing arguments here.

When the playing field is level and the analysis objective, the decision between Buddy Rogers and Antonio Rocca is really not that hard.

On the one hand you have Buddy Rogers, a popular (with some of the crowd at least), reasonably drawing heel with momentum coming from having just dropped the NWA championship.
Rogers also had a massive list of major attitude problems which I have contested made putting the strap on him a very high risk manoeuvre... and therefore the wrong choice. History validates my assumption, because putting the strap on Rogers led to everything the WWWF didn't want to happen.

On the other hand you have Rocca, a more popular, better drawing face with momentum coming from having just dropped the top singles title in New York.
Rocca also came free of Rogers's massive list of negative qualities. He didn't have a history of refusing to work, refusing to drop titles, refusing to compete in full length matches, refusing to travel and upsetting performers and promoters alike.

If you're basing your decision on which man was a pretty good heel, then you'll probably want to pick Buddy Rogers.

However; if you want the better draw: it's Rocca.
If you want the better prospect: it's Rocca.
If you want the better attitude: it's Rocca.
The question asked us who we would pick, and I would make the better choice: it's Rocca.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I didn't think posting a link to another internet wrestling forum whilst debating with the admin of this one was a particularly good career move. If you want the link I've happily dig it out and PM it to you, I just figured that since you 'twice' said that you were happy to accept that information, that you weren't going to make a big deal out of its validity at the last second to try and nick a couple of points.

Please post the link. You're not advertising, you're backing up a post. If anyone were foolish enough to infract, it'd be reversed. You're not saying "check out this cool site," you're saying "here's where I got the information that I am basing my opinion on." It's 100% kosher.

Now to me that rather looks like either an extremely elaborate sequence of typos, or you saying something that went on be proved not to be true... then trying to claim you never said it in the first place.
Rocca was the bigger draw, we shouldn't be debating this any more.

Well, I still maintain that Rogers was a better draw. And you and I are pulling supporting information from different sources, so we need to leave it as "IC25 thinks Rogers drew better and Gelgarin thinks Rocca drew better, both have statistics, so we'll agree to disagree." I did assert that Rogers was a better draw, I'd just forgotten how forthright I'd been with it. I stand by it.

If you want to go back and try to cover up your earlier comments then be my guest; but remember, to cover your tracks you've got to fall behind. (I rearranged that sentence about fifteen times, and it still doesn't sound cool)

That's ok, not everybody can be cool.

And tried to pass the biggest title in the North East off as unimportant as memory serves.

Evidence that the CWC International Title was a big deal is hard to come by. It's hardly memorable - much like Rocca's reign. 98% of wrestling fans would have no clue the title existed - most wrestling fans understand and respect the fact that "Nature Boy" Buddy Rogers was the first WWWF Champion.

Because he was a bigger draw? Because he was main eventing at the Garden ahead of Buddy Rogers when he was the real NWA champion? Because he was one of the greatest faces of all time and the future generation of wrestling fans adored him?

I've also not found much to support Rocca as a draw outside of New York. Not only was Rogers an immense Northeast draw, but he drew very well in the Mid-West and Pacific Northwest. Rogers had a far greater reach and significantly more mainstream attention and reputation than Rocca did. Again, I have no problem with Rocca, I just don't feel he's in Rogers' league.

Actually reading comprehension will quite clearly display that I agreed Pat O'Conner was a big deal. Are Brazil and Sheik a huge deal today? Yes. Were they then, not so much; and even if they were, they'd been feuding with Rocca as well, so it's rather a moot point.

I keep forgetting that you were alive back then.

This was the statement I was reacting to:

Pat O'Conner was the only particularly big name there, and I don't think feuding with him a couple of years ago really carries that much in the way of credibility.

Sure, you said he was a big name, but then claimed that the match booked as "Match of the Century" didn't carry much credibility. Ludicrous.

Even the great Bruno Sammartino... as in just about the only guy in the business more hostile to the development of professional wrestling than Lou Thesz . Look at today's business and you'll see that it holds much more in common with the fast paced work of Rocca than the ten minute headlocks of the true old school legends. Rocca was ahead of his time, and I don't think we're going to try and hold that against him.

Rocca merely was among the first to bring the Mexican lucha style to the US. Sure, we owe him for that. But we owe vastly more to Buddy Rogers who revolutionized the way heels work in the ring, and THAT is far more prominant now then Rocca's style.

On the one hand you have Buddy Rogers, a popular (with some of the crowd at least), reasonably drawing heel with momentum coming from having just dropped the NWA championship.
Rogers also had a massive list of major attitude problems which I have contested made putting the strap on him a very high risk manoeuvre... and therefore the wrong choice. History validates my assumption, because putting the strap on Rogers led to everything the WWWF didn't want to happen.

On the one hand, you have Rogers, often referred to as the greatest heel of all time and as the man who paved the way for how the pro wrestling antagonist would work for generations to come. He inspired the likes of Ric Flair, Harley Race, Buddy Rose, and countless others. Despite being limited in terms of pure wrestling skill, Rogers' ability to connect with a crowd and tell a story was second to none. Nobody matched his charisma in the ring until Billy Graham and Hulk Hogan came along, both of whom took cues from Rogers ability to work a crowd.

On the other hand you have Rocca, a more popular, better drawing face with momentum coming from having just dropped the top singles title in New York.
Rocca also came free of Rogers's massive list of negative qualities. He didn't have a history of refusing to work, refusing to drop titles, refusing to compete in full length matches, refusing to travel and upsetting performers and promoters alike.

On the other hand you have Rocca, a popular ethnic attraction who stayed in the New York area because that was where he was able to draw crowds due to his connection with Italian Immigrants and Latinos. He held one major singles title, which today, nobody remembers, and after Bruno Sammartino usurped Rocca's place as top babyface, he went and hid in the tag team divison and eventually left the WWWF to go to Japan and do very little. An amazing, acrobatic athlete, Rocca did not have the crowd connection that Rogers did, and though he came with less baggage, he lacked Rogers' polarizing presence that made Buddy Rogers the perfect choice to be a first champion.

However; if you want the better draw: it's Rocca.
If you want the better prospect: it's Rocca.
If you want the better attitude: it's Rocca.
The question asked us who we would pick, and I would make the better choice: it's Rocca.

If you want the better draw IN MORE THAN JUST ONE REGION, it's Rogers.

If you want the better crowd connection, which is sort of a major part of pro wrestling, it's Rogers.

If you want the polarizing figure whose influence spanned generations and inspired countless other hall of famers, it's Rogers.

The question asked us who we would pick, and I would make the better choice: it's Rogers.

 

[CH David]

Fucking criminy guys. That was one hell of a debate. I just want to clarify, IC, are you calling the match at Old Comiskey Park a sellout? Because during that time frame, seating capacity was between 44,500-50,000 seats, and according to wikipedia, that particular match drew 38,622 fans. Yes it was an attendance record for years, but I'm just curious on your meaning if it was a sellout or not. Now, onto the judging.

Clarity: I can't take away points from this debate due to spelling or grammar. I would feel dirty if I did. This a clear debate from both sides.

Point: Split

Punctuality: Both were on time.

Point: Split

Informative: This is where a point will actually be awarded. While both of you put up some good statistics, even if I actually believe Gelgarin's stats more, IC25 had more sources to go with them.

Point: IC25

Emotionality: I could actually feel that Gelgarin believes that Buddy Rogers is a "cunt", and IC, while getting heated, it seemed like you just didn't have the passion to tear into Rocca like Gelgarin did with Rogers. Although I don't know how well you could tear into a babyface like Rocca.

Point: Gelgarin

Persuasion: This is a tough call. Both are very good arguments. Great information and statistics. As I write this I am constantly saying "Oh yeah, Rogers, oh yeah Rocca". This is fucking difficult. We have the benefit of hind-sight, which makes it seem like the Rogers choice was for the best for the company. But there had to be a possibility that Bruno said no to coming back after what Vincent J. McMahon did, wouldn't there? I am going to have to go with Gelgarin on this one, on the basis that Rocca was popular, a good worker, before his time with the lucha-style, at least in the US, and didn't cause much of a headache behind the scenes, that would cause for a situation like Rogers did, no matter how good the outcome may have been.

Point: Gelgarin

I reiterate that this was one hell of a debate, and one that was very difficult to judge.

CH David scores this Gelgarin 3, IC25 2.

 

[Mr. TM]

Well I finally got through this massive thing, you guys call a debate. It was a very good read. I have a feeling I will be seeing you two going at it once more. I have a hard time giving points away in this one, but I will try to make sure the points go to the best person in each category, without splitting too many points.

Clarity Of Debate: IC was the clearest debater in this debate, it was close, but IC came out on top.

Punctuality: CH David points out that you were both on time, so I will neglect this point.

Informative: You guys put up a ton of information. It has to be because two of the best debaters were going at it here. This much information against any other person, and it would have crushed them. Gelgarin, you were able to bring up a ton of information here, and IC, you were able to bring up a broad amount of information in many areas of your debate. I think that did you well for your base, and you get the point Chris.

Emotionality: This is usually a sure bet for both of you, so deciding this point is a hard task. IC, you were great with your usual emotion, but I feel as though you didn't put as much in, as compared to your other work in this debate and in reference to what I know you can do. Gelgarin, you had incredible passion here, and from my understanding, you aren't even a huge Rocca fan, so that shows how good you were here. You get the point here.

Persuasion: Who persuaded me? I look at this from two ends. One, I am a huge fan of his. Really came to life when I started to watch his matches during Shocky's tournament. My lineof study is history, so I also look at this from a historical standpoint, such as changing one part of history, and I know that things would be different now. IC had that broad information here, but Gelgarin stamped his tower of knowledge on one key point that really got my attention. His drawing ability. That is how Gelgarin pursuaded me. He gets this point.

TM rates this 2 points Gelgarin, 2 points IC.

Edit: Sorry messed up

 

[Miko]

Fucks sake guys chill out, I've got a job and a fucking life, most of which was taken up reading that massive thing.

Clarity Of Debate: I got through IC's posts easier I suppose, although in all honesty it could've gone the other way

Point: IC25

Punctuality: Split

Point: Split

Informative: It would probably be fair to split the point again, but fuck fair, the length of this debate wasnt fair, I leaned towards IC with clarity, I lean towards Gelgarin with information

Point: Gelgarin

Emotionality: You both did well here, this is how you win me over, IC you won me over here

Point: IC25

Persuasion: As someone who's knowledge of old school doesnt go beyond the rise of Hulkamania I was at a loss, after reading your posts I think Gelgarin did the better job of convincing me here, thats not to say I wasnt leaning IC's way occasionally

Point: Gelgarin

I score this one

IC25 - 2.5
Gelgarin - 2.5