Originally Posted by Duodenum
Yes, throws were indeed integral to the older rules, but not in boxing as it became popularized to a wide audience with the synchronized birth of motion pictures (and the history of moving films and modern boxing are indelibly intertwined). There's no great challenge, at least as I see it, in snaking an arm under an opponent's arm in a clinch, and then turning over to execute a rudimentary hip toss. Facing an opponent head on, and outpunching him, possibly striking him to the ground, is a more demanding feat to attempt, at least according to my way of thinking.
It seems to me that the objective should be to restore boxing to the structures which brought it to the height of popularity and public acceptance. How routinely are heads of state receiving boxing champions these days? Max Schmeling had audiences with both FDR and Hitler. Ali was received by U.S. presidents and Soviet dictators alike. WWE performers have long since surpassed boxers as cultural icons. Can boxing do anything to reverse that, and regain the stature enjoyed by today's most popular sports, and sporting stars? (Which boxing was, and champion boxers were, once upon a time, for a very extended period in civilization's recent history.)
Some of the bareknuckle champions were pretty skilled in wrestling--Hurst wsa a champion wrestler, if I recall (Cumberland/Westmoreland, presumably), Belcher was known as a technically proficient wrestler, and so was Tom Cribb. It took a good deal of expertise to toss these guys to the ground, and I imagine that, with the plethora of thowing arts today, fighters could get extremely skilled in the grappling portion of their game.