Charles Manson? Well, He Was a Good Musician.
#PWHS #Article #CharlesManson #SerialKillerSyndrome #Legacy #GlorifyOrNot
March 9, 1970 - Stevens Point Journal
Recently on the group page of PWHS, a small argument broke out over whether to mention a wrestler's personal habits and deeds when discussing his/her career history. The camps were divided along the lines of "Yes-if he/she was vermin in reality, we need to know that." and "No, all I care about is his/her career, and it doesn't matter what they did outside of the ring."
This brought up an interesting point: Just how much does a wrestler's true self affect or reflect on the type of character that they portray in the ring? How much of a wrestler's personal life should be factored into the judgment making process when assessing their place in history?
In the territorial days of wrestling, a wrestling character wasn't invented by a 20-something writer who only reads comic books and watches movies. Back in the territorial era, a wrestler was usually responsible (either fully or partially) for coming up with a gimmick to sell themselves to the fans.
The gimmick could be anything from a charismatic style on the microphone, to something as simple as a foreign object hidden in a mask or a boot or a glove. But by and large, the best gimmicks almost always reflected the true personality of the wrestler-just exaggerated greatly for dramatic effect. Killer Kowalski was one of the greatest heels in the history of the business. He took his verbosity and his hard-driven work ethic and exaggerated both so that he came off as a driven, non-stop monster whose only intent was to injure. Lou Thesz believed that a leader should look like a leader, so his wrestling character was of the ultimate champion in word, deed and appearance. Shawn Michaels had an obnoxious personality to many people when he was a young man, and so that became exaggerated and fans saw "The Heartbreak Kid".
But what about the guys that were reprehensible in real life? Did their true character show through? From the start, let me say that this will not resemble an expose in any way shape of form. The evil deeds of the men that will be mentioned are easily found with a basic Internet search. Any juicy information that a reader may want to obtain can easily be obtained elsewhere.
Bob Sweetan
Probably the "poster boy" for this topic. A vile and revolting human being whose acts were nearly unspeakable at one point in history. In the ring, whether he was a heel or a face, Sweetan came across as a nasty, mean and cruel person. Was his ring character an exaggerated reflection of the real person?
Don Eagle
The darling of the fans in the 1950;'s and the first "television Indian" to hit it big in the business. Always a face, Eagle had a tumultuous life outside of the ring and several bad incidents with girlfriends and ex-wives and was connected to an unsolved murder on tribal lands.
Yet he was a hero to all for many, many years. Did *his* ring persona in any way reflect the man behind the headdress? It is very hard to say for certain.
Grizzly Smith
One needs only to read interviews with Jake "The Snake" Roberts, or his half-sister Rockin' Robin Smith to understand the brutality of this man. Yet, he was a lifelong face on wrestling cards-most famously as one of the Kentuckians.
Was he a good guy or simply pretending? How convincing was his portrayal? If a man does evil things, can he also have a good side or at least pretend to have a good side?
Fabulous Moolah
The self-made and self-proclaimed greatest woman wrestler in history. Yet history has not treated her well as more and more revelations emerge about the manner in which she built and maintained her empire.
By the time she was employed by WWE, her image was that of a grandmotherly type who could still kick butt of need be. Vince McMahon loved Moolah and made sure that she looked great no matter what. But was she great? Was she evil? Did she fall somewhere in between the two extremes?
Buddy Rogers
A true legend in the business. Yet as popular and infamous as he was with the fans from the 1940's through the 1980's, Rogers has very few supporters from within the wrestling business itself. His methods and tactics in getting to the top made him very few friends. Should he be judged solely on his ring efforts, or judged also on the manner in which he treated people in the business?
Bruiser Brody
For a long time, to say anything negative about the man who was murdered by a fellow wrestler while on tour in Puerto Rico was a taboo not to be broken. There are still people who will defend every, single action that Brody took during his career as justifiable. Yet this man burned as many territories as he saved. He was not always a good man, yet his murder has martyred him to the extent that even today, to state his shortcomings brings angry retorts from his devotees.
Chris Benoit
This man, more than any other, was the idol of the Internet Wrestling Community. So many "smart marks" lived and died by Benoit, that when his death and infamous actions surrounding that death occurred, far too many people felt trapped between the idolization that they held for him as a worker, and the revulsion and shock that they felt because of his final hours on Earth. So how is he to be ultimately judged?
There are no easy nor universally accepted answers for these questions. The business which we all love is based upon fictionalized and exaggerated dramas, using athletes who portray people that they are not. In a business built on fiction, exaggeration, kayfabe and the like-where does reality fit into the equation? Should reality be a factor in determining how we look at these people in sum total?
Not sure? Well look outside of wrestling to other venues. O.J. Simpson was one of the greatest football players in the history of that sport. Yet today, he is never mentioned as a football legend. Simpson's name is exclusively associated with crime, murder and deception.
Pete Rose-a great baseball player, will likely never be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame because of his gambling activities that tarnished his image. Bill Cosby is currently mired in the middle of a sexual assault controversy, with new allegations emerging daily. When it is all said and done, will people remember Bill Cosby as a legendary comedian, or as a pervert and sexual abuser (should the allegations be proven true)?
Roscoe Arbuckle was a film star of the teens and twenties. He was put on trial for the alleged rape and murder of an extra during a party held in San Francisco during the age of Prohibition. After two hung juries, a third jury unanimously acquitted Arbuckle of all charges. No substantial proof had been given that Arbuckle had done anything immoral, illegal or illicit-save for having prohibited alcohol at his party. Yet despite his acquittal, Arbuckle was banned from films and his career died. After a decade-plus battle to re-enter the motion picture industry, Arbuckle was able to make a few talking short films in the 1930's. He died weeks after filming completed on the last of those films. Was Arbuckle judged solely on his body of work? No, he wasn't. Despite his innocence, he wound up being judged harshly by public opinion and now, his name is referred to (often falsely) as what happens when you fall from grace.
My personal opinion: Wrestlers-like all people-are not one dimensional. What they do outside of the ring should have a bearing on how they are seen in a total summation of who they are and their place in history. No one can ever deny the greatness that was O.J. Simpson on the football field, but time and perspective have erased that knowledge. Because of his personal actions, the man's entire career has been erased symbolically. So, yes-a person's actions away from the wrestling ring should and DO have an impact on how they are judged in history.
Your thoughts?
This brought up an interesting point: Just how much does a wrestler's true self affect or reflect on the type of character that they portray in the ring? How much of a wrestler's personal life should be factored into the judgment making process when assessing their place in history?
In the territorial days of wrestling, a wrestling character wasn't invented by a 20-something writer who only reads comic books and watches movies. Back in the territorial era, a wrestler was usually responsible (either fully or partially) for coming up with a gimmick to sell themselves to the fans.
The gimmick could be anything from a charismatic style on the microphone, to something as simple as a foreign object hidden in a mask or a boot or a glove. But by and large, the best gimmicks almost always reflected the true personality of the wrestler-just exaggerated greatly for dramatic effect. Killer Kowalski was one of the greatest heels in the history of the business. He took his verbosity and his hard-driven work ethic and exaggerated both so that he came off as a driven, non-stop monster whose only intent was to injure. Lou Thesz believed that a leader should look like a leader, so his wrestling character was of the ultimate champion in word, deed and appearance. Shawn Michaels had an obnoxious personality to many people when he was a young man, and so that became exaggerated and fans saw "The Heartbreak Kid".
But what about the guys that were reprehensible in real life? Did their true character show through? From the start, let me say that this will not resemble an expose in any way shape of form. The evil deeds of the men that will be mentioned are easily found with a basic Internet search. Any juicy information that a reader may want to obtain can easily be obtained elsewhere.
Bob Sweetan
Probably the "poster boy" for this topic. A vile and revolting human being whose acts were nearly unspeakable at one point in history. In the ring, whether he was a heel or a face, Sweetan came across as a nasty, mean and cruel person. Was his ring character an exaggerated reflection of the real person?
Don Eagle
The darling of the fans in the 1950;'s and the first "television Indian" to hit it big in the business. Always a face, Eagle had a tumultuous life outside of the ring and several bad incidents with girlfriends and ex-wives and was connected to an unsolved murder on tribal lands.
Yet he was a hero to all for many, many years. Did *his* ring persona in any way reflect the man behind the headdress? It is very hard to say for certain.
Grizzly Smith
One needs only to read interviews with Jake "The Snake" Roberts, or his half-sister Rockin' Robin Smith to understand the brutality of this man. Yet, he was a lifelong face on wrestling cards-most famously as one of the Kentuckians.
Was he a good guy or simply pretending? How convincing was his portrayal? If a man does evil things, can he also have a good side or at least pretend to have a good side?
Fabulous Moolah
The self-made and self-proclaimed greatest woman wrestler in history. Yet history has not treated her well as more and more revelations emerge about the manner in which she built and maintained her empire.
By the time she was employed by WWE, her image was that of a grandmotherly type who could still kick butt of need be. Vince McMahon loved Moolah and made sure that she looked great no matter what. But was she great? Was she evil? Did she fall somewhere in between the two extremes?
Buddy Rogers
A true legend in the business. Yet as popular and infamous as he was with the fans from the 1940's through the 1980's, Rogers has very few supporters from within the wrestling business itself. His methods and tactics in getting to the top made him very few friends. Should he be judged solely on his ring efforts, or judged also on the manner in which he treated people in the business?
Bruiser Brody
For a long time, to say anything negative about the man who was murdered by a fellow wrestler while on tour in Puerto Rico was a taboo not to be broken. There are still people who will defend every, single action that Brody took during his career as justifiable. Yet this man burned as many territories as he saved. He was not always a good man, yet his murder has martyred him to the extent that even today, to state his shortcomings brings angry retorts from his devotees.
Chris Benoit
This man, more than any other, was the idol of the Internet Wrestling Community. So many "smart marks" lived and died by Benoit, that when his death and infamous actions surrounding that death occurred, far too many people felt trapped between the idolization that they held for him as a worker, and the revulsion and shock that they felt because of his final hours on Earth. So how is he to be ultimately judged?
There are no easy nor universally accepted answers for these questions. The business which we all love is based upon fictionalized and exaggerated dramas, using athletes who portray people that they are not. In a business built on fiction, exaggeration, kayfabe and the like-where does reality fit into the equation? Should reality be a factor in determining how we look at these people in sum total?
Not sure? Well look outside of wrestling to other venues. O.J. Simpson was one of the greatest football players in the history of that sport. Yet today, he is never mentioned as a football legend. Simpson's name is exclusively associated with crime, murder and deception.
Pete Rose-a great baseball player, will likely never be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame because of his gambling activities that tarnished his image. Bill Cosby is currently mired in the middle of a sexual assault controversy, with new allegations emerging daily. When it is all said and done, will people remember Bill Cosby as a legendary comedian, or as a pervert and sexual abuser (should the allegations be proven true)?
Roscoe Arbuckle was a film star of the teens and twenties. He was put on trial for the alleged rape and murder of an extra during a party held in San Francisco during the age of Prohibition. After two hung juries, a third jury unanimously acquitted Arbuckle of all charges. No substantial proof had been given that Arbuckle had done anything immoral, illegal or illicit-save for having prohibited alcohol at his party. Yet despite his acquittal, Arbuckle was banned from films and his career died. After a decade-plus battle to re-enter the motion picture industry, Arbuckle was able to make a few talking short films in the 1930's. He died weeks after filming completed on the last of those films. Was Arbuckle judged solely on his body of work? No, he wasn't. Despite his innocence, he wound up being judged harshly by public opinion and now, his name is referred to (often falsely) as what happens when you fall from grace.
My personal opinion: Wrestlers-like all people-are not one dimensional. What they do outside of the ring should have a bearing on how they are seen in a total summation of who they are and their place in history. No one can ever deny the greatness that was O.J. Simpson on the football field, but time and perspective have erased that knowledge. Because of his personal actions, the man's entire career has been erased symbolically. So, yes-a person's actions away from the wrestling ring should and DO have an impact on how they are judged in history.
Your thoughts?
Unique content strictly for the Professional Wrestling Historical Society.
Charles Manson? Well , He Was a Good Musician.
Author: Harry Grover.
Published: March 1, 2015.
Article: #81.
Editor: Jimmy Wheeler.
Charles Manson? Well , He Was a Good Musician.
Author: Harry Grover.
Published: March 1, 2015.
Article: #81.
Editor: Jimmy Wheeler.
Other articles by Harry can be Read Here.