text:
Talk:Euchre

Regions where Euchre is played
A recent edit to the first section that lists places where Euchre is popular added Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania to the list. This leads me to wonder, in what specific areas of the United States people play Euchre? We don't need a huge list of every single place, just a more specific and accurate description. I know that Euchre is played in the mentioned areas, as well as Indiana and Wisconsin, and is played as far south as Cincinnati. I think it would be more accurate to say that Euchre is played in the "Great Lakes Region" instead of "Midwest", since that term would imply the inclusion of places like Kansas and Missouri, but the Great Lakes already includes Western New York and Pennsylvania. Windsorwindsor1 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I think you're correct in this. It would be nice to find a source saying so, though! William Pietri (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

We play it quite a bit here in Missouri, Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.235.66 (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

>Article says, ..."areas as well as some other areas of the Midwest (especially areas with significant populations of German-Americans who settled in these areas during the 19th century." This implies German-Americans brought the game to the Mid-West. Specifically, which German-Americans brought the game to the mid-west?  Where are the reference(s) for making such a statement? There are no references to be found that the Amish play euchre or brought the game of euchre to the mid-west. There are German-Americans in South Carolina, Virginia and North Carolina, that also migrated from PA but today do these peoples play euchre?  …

The statement cited about appears to be conjecture and a leap of faith. For example, there are German-Americans in certain areas of Texas, yet do these German-American in Texas play euchre? There are Alsatian-Americans in and around New Orleans since the early 1700s, [look up the history of the French settlements of New Orleans] do they play euchre today? I think you shall find the answer to be "no" to both of these questions. --72.82.61.90 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.61.90 (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I removed this statement. It says that Euchre is declining in popularity in the USA, but then it goes on to say that it's most predominantly played in some certain state.  If Euchre is declining in popularity in the USA, it naturally follows that the most predominant place that it is played in the entire world is not likely to be in the USA.  Plus as you say, it can't be sourced.  Plus, a following of the game in one particular state is not important enough (on a global level) to be in the opening paragraphs. Nzseries1 (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Not true. Let's say there are 25 people worldwide who play it in Year 50--20 in the US and 5 in Guineau-Bissau.  In Year 51, there are only 17 who play it in the US and 6 who play it in Guinea-Bissau.  In Year 52, it's 16 and 10, and in year 53 it's 14 and 12.  Even though it's declining in popularity in the US and actually gaining popularity in Guineau-Bissau, it's still predominantly played in the US.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 06:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 * To anyone that does not live in the states, Wikipedia came seem very Americentric. For example, in Australia, there is less of a following (it seems) of Euchre in Western Australia than say Tasmania. Why isn't this in the opening paragraphs as well? Even if the claims regarding followings on a per state basis are true, they aren't really important enough to appear in the first paragraph, as Nzseries1 says. But the fact of the matter is that this information is not sourced, and I doubt whether anyone really has tallied the relative popularities of what is mainly a folk game in individual states, and even if it was sourced, it is not the position in the article to say it. Emperor Dalek (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Btw, there could be mention of this game being highly popular amongst Mennonite circles. It's one of our "Mennonite" games along with Dutch Blitz. Of course, I don't have any sort of official source for that. 70.68.121.31 (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

When I read this article some years ago, I recall mention being made of a difference in play specific to central Ohio, which I remember being considered 'the standard way' when we played the game like fiends in high school in Columbus in the 1970s. I don't see that reference anymore (I think it may have had to do with terminology or some such--was it the way we tended to say "bar" instead of "bauer"?), but reading through the article now, it all now seems pretty standard to the way I learned it.leeeoooooo (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Standard (32-card) versus 24-card Euchre
I live in Michigan and most people here learn how to play euchre before they reach grade 6 in school. I was always under the impression the game was derived from Bid Whist, though players don't bid on a number of tricks, per se but whichever team calls trump needs to take a minimum of 3 tricks (out of 5) to earn 1 point. Other empirical knowledge that's probably not appropriate for the article: the original game uses all four suits of 7, 8, 9, 10, J, Q, K and A, but commonly only 9, 10, J, Q, K and A are used because that's half a pinochle deck. i.e. you get 2 non-standard 24-card euchre decks when buying a single pinochle deck, which typically ends up being less-expensive than destroying 2 poker decks for 2 'full' euchre decks (once you've used them for euchre, they're no good for poker because the 2,3,4,5 and 6 are essentially 'marked' by having a different amount of wear & tear). Most people who've never played with the 7s and 8s do miserably playing with a full euchre deck at first (alternate meaning/origin of the phrase "not playing with a full deck"?), because the extra 2 trump, and extra cards with which to ruff A and/or K non-trump leads to keep K or Q for later non-trump leads, drastically changes the 24-card strategy. Darr247 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Terminology Original Research
As I said in my edit summary, I removed quite a lot of terms because they appear to be original research. The entries left are ones that I thought were unlikely to be challenged. I think it's better for us to have a short list until we can find some sources rather than trying to maintain an ever-expanding list full of colloquialisms. In my opinion, this is in line with Wiki's policies on original research, although obviously it's up for debate if someone wants to challenge my bold edit.

And to answer another editor's question, yes, I am trying to find sources. I actually thought it would've been easy to do so, but have not found anything so far that I think qualifies for WP:RS. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

 * The good old ever-going debate again on what is and what isn't OR. You were not here in 2008. There's no American Euchre Federation to rule the game and establish parameters through which we could say this is it and this is not. Card games migrate from one place to another, so how to tell the difference between your Euchre and theirs ? The same happened on the Lobster War when you deleted things based on your believe that there isn't any reliable source out there. Bold ? Alright, why don't you go to the Poker page and start deleting the OR there ? C'mon, be bold ! Krenakarore  TK 05:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 * So...did you have anything constructive to add here? -- Fyrael (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, you forgot WP:NOTHOW. Krenakarore  TK 06:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Well, no. I'm not trying to make this article read like any of the things in that list. I'm trying to make it read like an encyclopedic reference. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Redundancies.
This article is rife with redundancies. The terminology section, for example, merely repeats terms already established in the "Deal" and "Play" sections. Speaking of which, those two sections are decidedly repetitive. (And the "Play" section also contain a bit too much advice-type material, but I digress.) seems we need to go through the article and trim repetitive material. oknazevad (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging Euchre game variations and Euchre variations into Euchre. There may have once been an incomplete merge of the first variations' page into the second if the talk page there ias correct. Three pages are too many, perhaps. A merger of the variation content into Euchre would not cause an article-size or weighting problem. —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping. —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This talk again ? It was split like this more than a decade ago. Will we go back to that or we move ahead ? Krenakarore  TK 01:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. What we have is a mess. —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that we have a mess, but am not sure a triple merger is the answer. Like Poker, Euchre has a very large number of variants; these are currently listed at Euchre game variations, mostly uncited. I proposed at that talk page to reorganise the article to only include recognised variants notable enough to be cited in WP:RS; I gave a list of over 20 variants and there may well be more. That is too long a list to append to the main Euchre page and some will warrant their own article. Of course, it would make sense to have a brief summary of variants here with links to their main articles.
 * I think there would be merit in merging Euchre variations, either into this one or into Euchre game variations or both provided sources can be found for the material.
 * Finally, it might make sense to move Euchre game variations to Euchre variants since 'variant' tends to mean a different game within the same close family, whereas a 'variation' tends to refer to a more minor rule change that doesn't fundamentally change the overall game. Bermicourt (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry but "a mess" is something quite subjective. Really, all this has already been discussed to exhaustion twice in 15 years. There was not only a split, because Euchre was a real "compendium" then, and that's not our purpose here. Other variants had been turned into articles, and that´s not our purpose here. First 2005 did the job, than me, than Hans Adler, than a guy from France who focused on Shredding games, than Countakesh did a marvelous cleaning in all this playing-card field of ours here. WP:RS was brought up to that conversation as well. All three articles have changed minamally over the years, and cleaned, but I must agree with Bermicourt once "'variant' tends to mean a different game within the same close family". Euchre is in itself an article about the game. Variations and their variants, and their rules, is another connected to the first. Euchre game variations and Euchre variations are different things. One deals with variations of the game, and the second with changes in rules from place to place as for the same variation. How to merge the two should be the case here. Krenakarore  TK 12:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for the context —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a three-way merge is a non-starter. Should we snow close this proposal and open a discussion about what to do with the two variations pages on their talk pages? —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed Krenakarore  TK 16:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Chating with players
How? 120.17.87.11 (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Dead men tell no tales...
There is a statement in the "Origins and popularity" section that reads;
 * "Eucre is briefly mentioned as early as 1810 by Piomingo, a Chickasaw chief, being played..."

I find this statement—and the reputed sourcing—very suspicious, as our card-playing Indian chief had been dead for about 11 years at that time. Perhaps someone with the book can re-verify, or remove, as they see fit. Pinging. Regards, GenQuest  "scribble" 22:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 * ... but they may publish a book posthumously. That is one explanation, but having reviewed the source, I think it may be a different person from the one described in the Piomingo article in Wikipedia (assuming that is right). His book does not call him a Chickasaw chief, but a headman and warrior of the Muscogulgee Nation. So I've changed the text and also added a link to the book so you can read it for yourself. Bermicourt (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 * According to other sources Piomingo was in fact author John Robinson writing under a pseudonym. I have added this in square brackets to the source reference. It doesn't alter the fact that Eucre was being played in the US as early as 1810 and probably earlier. Meanwhile Jucker is testified in the German Palatinate in 1792, so could still be Euchre's ancestor. Bermicourt (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Euchre


text:
Overlock

An overlock is a kind of stitch that sews over the edge of one or two pieces of cloth for edging, hemming, or seaming. Usually an overlock sewing machine will cut the edges of the cloth as they are fed through (such machines being called sergers in North America), though some are made without cutters. The inclusion of automated cutters allows overlock machines to create finished seams easily and quickly. An overlock sewing machine differs from a lockstitch sewing machine in that it uses loopers fed by multiple thread cones rather than a bobbin. Loopers serve to create thread loops that pass from the needle thread to the edges of the fabric so that the edges of the fabric are contained within the seam.

Overlock sewing machines usually run at high speeds, from 1000 to 9000 rpm, and most are used in industry for edging, hemming and seaming a variety of fabrics and products. Overlock stitches are extremely versatile, as they can be used for decoration, reinforcement, or construction.

Overlocking is also referred to as "overedging", "merrowing", or "serging". Though "serging" technically refers to overlocking with cutters, in practice the four terms are used interchangeably.

History
Overlock stitching was invented by the Merrow Machine Company in 1881. J. Makens Merrow and his son Joseph Merrow, who owned a knitting mill established in Connecticut in 1838, developed a number of technological advancements to be used in the mill's operations. Merrow's first patent was a machine for crochet stitching, and the Merrow Machine Company still produces crochet machines based on this original model. This technology was a starting point for the development of the overlock machine, patented by Joseph Merrow in 1889. Unlike standard lockstitching, which uses a bobbin, overlock sewing machines utilize loopers to create thread loops for the needle to pass through, in a manner similar to crocheting. Merrow's original three-thread overedge sewing machine is the forerunner of contemporary overlocking machines. Over time, the Merrow Machine Company pioneered the design of new machines to create a variety of overlock stitches, such as two- and four-thread machines, the one-thread butted seam, and the cutterless emblem edger.

A landmark lawsuit between Willcox & Gibbs and the Merrow Machine Company in 1905 established the ownership and rights to the early mechanical development of overlocking to the Merrow Machine Company.

Throughout the early 20th Century, the areas of Connecticut, US and New York, US were the centres of textile manufacturing and machine production. Consequently, many overlock machine companies established themselves in the Northeastern United States.

In 1964 several engineers and managers at one Japanese manufacturer redesigned the industrial serger they were currently manufacturing as a smaller, lighter model intended for home use. They presented their concept to their employer, and after it was rejected they quit and formed the Juki Corporation.

Nick Tacony, founder of Tacony Corporation, introduced machinery for producing the overlock stitch (so called "baby lock") to the United States market. This allowed sewing enthusiasts to produce clothing with finishing seams like those made by industrial garment manufacturers.

Terminology
In the United States, the term "overlocker" has largely been replaced by "serger". However, in other parts of the world such as Australia and the UK, the term "overlocker" is still in use.

Types
Overlock stitches are classified in a number of ways. The most basic classification is by the number of threads used in the stitch. Industrial overlock machines are generally made in 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 thread formations. Each of these formations has unique uses and benefits:

 * 1-thread: End-to-end seaming or "butt-seaming" of piece goods for textile finishing.
 * 2-thread: Edging and seaming, especially on knits and wovens, finishing seam edges, stitching flatlock seams, stitching elastic and lace to lingerie, and hemming. This is the most common type of overlock stitch.
 * 3-thread: Sewing pintucks, creating narrow rolled hems, finishing fabric edges, decorative edging, and seaming knit or woven fabrics.
 * 4-thread: Decorative edging and finishing, seaming high-stress areas, mock safety stitches which create extra strength while retaining flexibility.
 * 5-thread: In apparel manufacturing, safety stitches utilizing two needles create a very strong seam.

Two- and three-thread formations are also known as "merrowing" after the Merrow Machine Company.

Additional variables in the types of overlock stitches are the stitch eccentric, and the stitch width. The stitch eccentric indicates how many stitches per inch there are, which is adjustable and can vary widely within one machine. Different stitch eccentrics create more or less dense and solid-looking edges. The stitch width indicates how wide the stitch is from the edge of the fabric. Lightweight fabrics often require a wider stitch to prevent pulling.

Adding extra variation in stitch types is the differential feed feature, which allows feed to be adjusted; extra-fast feed creates a ruffled or "lettuce-leaf" effect. Finally, some merrowing machines contain parts to roll the fabric edge into the stitch for added durability.

Formation

 * 1) When the needle enters the fabric, a loop is formed in the thread at the back of the needle.
 * 2) As the needle continues its downward motion into the fabric, the lower looper begins its movement from left to right. The tip of the lower looper passes behind the needle and through the loop of thread that has formed behind the needle.
 * 3) The lower looper continues along its path moving toward the right of the serger. As it moves, the lower thread is carried through the needle thread.
 * 4)  While the lower looper is moving from left to right, the upper looper advances from right to left. The tip of the upper looper passes behind the lower looper and picks up the lower looper thread and needle thread.
 * 5) The lower looper now begins its move back into the far left position. As the upper looper continues to the left, it holds the lower looper thread and needle thread in place.
 * 6) The needle again begins its downward path passing behind the upper looper and securing the upper looper thread (the needle goes between the metal and the thread) . This completes the overlock stitch formation and begins the stitch cycle all over again.

Uses
Overlock stitches are traditionally used for edging and light seaming. Other applications include:

 * Sewing netting
 * Butt-seaming is used for joining the ends of piece goods.
 * Flat-locking
 * Edging emblems
 * Purl stitching
 * Rolled hemming
 * Decorative edging

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Overlock


text:
User talk:J4vier

Sound design
Hi,

I know it was a while ago but in 2004 you made some contributions to Sound design. I'm just going through and trying to add citations; do you remember where the information about sound design in India and China circa 3000BC came from? Or any of the other information you supplied? It's all great stuff, I'm just wondering where to find references for it.

cheers, Spoonriver (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

La Movida, La Bola de Cristal
Hello,

I have seen your articles and your modification to the Alaska page, they are nice although a bit short (I can't lecture you about that, mine are short as well, heh).

Don't you think we should move The Crystal Ball to La Bola de Cristal? I think the original name should apply here.

I think also that La movida should be capitalized and moved to La Movida. And another suggested move: The Basque Ball to Euskal Pilota.

Don't take my corrections personally, I'm just trying to make wikipedia better. Tell me what you think.

Best regards, xDCDx 15:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

About La movida you made me hesitate, after checking google, many people uses it without capitalization. Now I'm not sure what would be best.

About The Basque Ball I'm a proponent for moving all movies to their original names, rather than the titles used in english speaking countries. I have post a comment in Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28movies%29, let's see what people has to say.

About Alaska, allow me to tecommend you giving her a chance, Fangoria's latest two albums, Arquitectura Efimera and Naturaleza Muerta are really beautiful, and very diffenent from her Alaska y Dinarama/Alaska y los Pegamoides era. :)

Image:Cunylogo.jpg
Hello, J4vier. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Cunylogo.jpg) was found at the following location: User:J4vier. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The French (band)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The French (band), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of The French (band). Dr Tobias Funke (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Breakinggodsheart.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Breakinggodsheart.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Spharen III.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Spharen III.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — ξ xplicit  23:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alexandre de Fisterra

The article Alexandre de Fisterra has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Lots of claims, no reliable sources. As indicated in the talk page, the unsourced claims are disputed.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alexf(talk) 12:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:J4vier


text:
Stanislaus Zbyszko

Jan Stanisław Cyganiewicz (April 1, 1879 – September 23, 1967), better known by his ring name Stanislaus Zbyszko, and frequently referred to in the contemporary English-language press as Zbysco, was a Polish strongman and professional wrestler. He was a three-time World Heavyweight Champion in the United States during the 1920s. The surname Zbyszko was a nickname given to him by friends due to his bravery as a child. The name originates from a fictional medieval Polish knight in the historical novel The Knights of the Cross by Henryk Sienkiewicz, published in 1900. Stanislaus Zbyszko was the brother of Wladek Zbyszko (1891–1968).

Early life
Stanislaus Cyganiewicz was born on April 1, 1879, in Jodłowa near Kraków, Poland. He studied music, philosophy, and law while growing up in Vienna, Austria. Standing 5 ft 8 in (1.73 m) and weighing 260 pounds, Cyganiewicz joined the Vindobona Athletic Club while in college, where he developed a strong physique. He also participated in the Sokol, a Polish patriotic gymnastic society focused on the physical, mental, and cultural advancement of its members, as well as promoting discipline and patriotism. Towards the end of the 19th century, Cyganiewicz entered the wrestling industry after defeating an experienced grappler at a local circus in Poland. He was then recruited to Berlin by a local promoter. Inspired by strongman George Hackenschmidt, who had become Europe's premier grappling star, Cyganiewicz pursued a career in wrestling. He was introduced to professional wrestling by the Polish grappler Władysław Pytlasiński, who became his mentor.

Wrestling career
Over the next few years, Cyganiewicz gradually established himself among Europe's fastest-rising Greco-Roman wrestlers while competing in various tournaments. By 1903, Health & Strength listed him among the continent's leading heavyweights. He eventually adopted the ring name Stanislaus Zbyszko. In 1906, he battled Russia's "Cossack" Ivan Poddubny to a two-hour draw and later won a prestigious tournament in Paris by outlasting Georg Lurich and Constant le Marin.

He was brought to England by Charles "C.B." Cochrane, previously Hackenschmidt's manager, and engaged in prominent matches against Turkey's "Champion of the Bosphorus" Kara Suliman at the London Pavilion and the Gibbons music halls. A major controversy arose when it was revealed that Suliman was actually Bulgaria's Ivan Offtharoff, employed by Zbyszko and Cochrane, marking one of the earliest public revelations of wrestling's "theatrical hoaxes". As Zbyszko started to compete more often in England and the United States, he transitioned to catch-as-catch-can freestyle wrestling, alternating between grappling styles as he traveled between continents and countries. Already billed as Europe's Greco-Roman champion, he was recognized among the world's top catch wrestlers after fighting Frank Gotch to a one-hour draw in November 1909 in Buffalo, NY. The following year, he achieved notable victories over Dr. Ben Roller and the Terrible Turk Youssuf Mahmout, solidifying his reputation among the world's elite grapplers. He set up a highly anticipated rematch with Gotch at the Chicago Coliseum on June 1, 1910, for the undisputed World Heavyweight Championship. However, Gotch pinned Zbyszko in just 6.4 seconds, which led to controversy and protests from Zbyszko.

Despite the controversial loss, Zbyszko was regarded as one of the premier wrestlers in the world. He then faced the challenge of India's undefeated champion, the Great Gama, in the finals of the John Bull World Championships in London on September 10, 1910. The match ended in a draw after nearly three hours, with Zbyszko employing a defensive strategy. The two were set to face each other again on September 17, 1910, but Zbyszko did not appear, and Gama was declared the winner by default. Over the next decade, Zbyszko competed in Europe while his younger brother, Wladek Zbyszko, established himself among the top stars in the United States.

In 1927, it was announced that the Great Gama and Zbyszko would face each other again. They met for a highly anticipated rematch in 1928 in Patiala, which resulted in a draw when Gama threw Zbyszko in 42 seconds.

Championship controversy
By this time, the industry had begun a gradual shift towards works; and Stanislaus Zbyszko was eventually recruited back to the U.S. by the "Gold Dust Trio" of Strangler Lewis, Billy Sandow, and Toots Mondt. Though now in his early 40s, Zbyszko was booked to defeat Lewis for the World Title on May 6, 1921; but his reign was ultimately a bust at the box office, and he relinquished the title back to Lewis on March 3, 1922. Around this time, a disagreement caused Joe Stecher to split from the Gold Dust Trio promotion, thus forming a separate wrestling faction. Zbyszko remained with the Trio, who were promoting ex-football player Wayne Munn as a charismatic new champion. In order to build up Munn's credibility, the Trio booked him to successfully defend the title against Zbyszko on April 15, 1925; however, Zbyszko had secretly accepted a payoff from Tony Stecher (Joe's brother/manager) to switch to their company. Consequently, Zbyszko betrayed the Trio by turning the match with Munn into a legitimate shoot, pinning the non-wrestler again and again until the referee was forced to award the title to the 47-year-old veteran, who then dropped the title to Stecher a month later to complete the ploy. This was one of the last times a World Title changed hands legitimately; and the legacy of this conspiracy was momentous, as it would be decades before promoters would ever feel comfortable putting their title on a non-wrestler again, thus fueling the support for expert "hooker" Lou Thesz to serve as a champion throughout the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.

Retirement
In 1928, Zbyszko received a lucrative offer to wrestle the Great Gama in a rematch of their bout from 18 years earlier. Despite both men being past their primes, the match reportedly drew 60,000 fans and saw Great Gama defeat Zbyszko in 40 seconds. Following this match, Zbyszko retired and began scouting wrestling talent in South America, where he discovered Antonino Rocca, a multi-talented athlete who became one of the sport's biggest stars.

From their farm in Missouri, the Zbyszko brothers trained future legends Johnny Valentine and Harley Race. Stanislaus also had a supporting role in the movie Night and the City (1949). Director Jules Dassin cast Zbyszko for his authenticity as a wrestler. Dassin recalled that Zbyszko was a "beautiful, cultured, multilingual man" who embodied the image of a wrestler from his youth. Zbyszko often expressed his dissatisfaction with the industry's evolution into a form of showmanship.

Stanislaus Zbyszko died of a heart attack on September 23, 1967, at age 88. He was praised by Strangler Lewis as one of the best legitimate wrestlers of all time. In tribute, his surname was later adopted by Larry Zbyszko.

In 1983, Stanislaus Zbyszko was inducted into the National Polish American Sports Hall of Fame.

Championships and accomplishments

 * George Tragos/Lou Thesz Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame
 * Class of 2010
 * International Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame
 * Class of 2021
 * Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame
 * Pioneer Era inductee in 2003
 * Wrestling Observer Newsletter
 * Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame (Class of 1996)
 * Other titles:
 * World Heavyweight Championship (Catch as Catch Can version) (3 times)
 * World Greco-Roman Heavyweight Championship

title: Stanislaus Zbyszko


text:
Kasperi Salo

Kasperi Salo (born 3 October 1979 in Kerava) is a male badminton player from Finland.

Salo played badminton at the 2004 Summer Olympics in men's singles, losing in the first round.

title: Kasperi Salo


text:
User:Chinasaur/monobook.css

/* Hide the footer */
 * 1) footer { display: none; }

/* Hide the donation notice */
 * 1) siteNotice { display: none; }

/* Hide the "From Wikipedia..." notice */
 * 1) siteSub { display: none; }

/* Change diff to be protanope friendly */ table.diff { background:white; } td.diff-otitle { background:#ffffff; } td.diff-ntitle { background:#ffffff; } td.diff-addedline { background:#ccffcc; } td.diff-deletedline { background:#ffffaa; } td.diff-context { background:#eeeeee; } span.diffchange { background-color:blue; color:white; font-family:verdana; }

title: User:Chinasaur/monobook.css