Back To The Primitive: Boxing In Its Purest Form Is Two Gladiators Going To War.

Seems an awesome thread that ill have to try and get my head around at some point

Much love for the Sep shout (though the only 2 albums i ever loved were Beneath the Remains and Arise)

Ahhh i get you - primitive - hence that particular Sep track

Like i said i will read if i can get some help to actually concentrate

 

Just going back to ancient Rome, can I feed Deonkeycus to the lions?

 

deonkeycus wilderius.

 

i agree with this thread but hit and not get hit doesnt necessarly mean running...being in a position where you can hit yout opponent and he cant hit you is the ultimate skill of boxing

 

And no weight divisions. Get rid of the midgets. If you cant fight with the big boys don't get in the ring. We need to go back to primitives. Divisions per 3 pounds in the midget divisions is a joke!

 

Good thread. I think adding 3 more rounds for Championship fights might upset the applecart and make some fighters fight more and run less. Or how about fighters fight round after round until some wins. Unfortunately there may be some pesky dying and all that.

 

Wow, CST really letting out his inner fascist.

If you want to look at the history of boxing and fighting as a sport or spectacle you have to actually historicise it: England in the 18th century to the US in the early 20th century when modern boxing developed was a far different society than Ancient Greece and Rome through to Medieval Russia. The codifications adopted with the Marquis of Queensberry rules showed that Enlightenment England had a concern for respect, equality, and safety in sport. It was a changing world, and boxing wouldn't have become boxing if it didn't progress in that world. The rules that you say don't mean much in fact meant and still mean a lot. They acknowledge that boxing isn't just fighting. They would never have been adopted in the past ages that accepted pure violence or revenge as part of society. They also express an openness to further codification for the sake of competitive fairness. Boxing grew in the 19th and earlier 20th centuries not because the rest of the world found an acceptable release for violence, but because the rest of the world aspired to the progressive values of England and later the US. The Soviet development of boxing was a complete divergence of the Russian inner pagan or whatever it is you fantasise about, and was rather part of the Soviet Union's adoption of progressive values as they modernised.

 

I think Holyfield did an interview where he said he went to 3 big fights in 2015 Wilder vs Stiverne, Jennings vs Klitschko and Pacquiao vs Mayweather and concluded that the hit and not get hit element of the sport has turned into dont get hit and occasionally try and hit

something like todays fighters are so interested in defense that the offense part suffers.

I dont know if I agree with him entirely but Holyfield was in the unique position of having to get into dog fights with larger men surrendering most advantages

 

Whilst I agree that slick/sweet science fighting is just one style of boxing and not the be all and end all, the claim that people of past generations are some type of fearless warriors with little regard for self preservation is probably not true.

From the writings of people from past millennia that we are lucky enough to have today, it paints a different picture of boxing and battles on the battleground or in the arena than what we are generally lead to believe. Homer in the Iliad describes boxing and wrestling as tactical affairs involving the participants sizing up their opponent, initiating an attack, whilst being weary of a counter, and then retreating. Gladiator bouts were far from the offensive minded, quick, brutal affairs depicted in the film Gladiator or the TV series Spartacus. They were notorious for going on for hours and action was few and far between prolonged periods of "having a look at the opponent".

As for war, it is nothing like the free for all, fast paced melees we see in Game of Thrones or sword and shield films. They appear to generally involve two flanks of opposing fighters taking part in what we Brits call "handbags at ten paces", where a lot of goading takes place until someone tentatively steps forward for a cautious attack.

It would be appear that, by and large, then, just as now, us humans do not like pain and we have a healthy sense of self preservation. Obviously you get the odd nutter with little to no survival instincts, which is an absolute joy, but it seems that through the ages, be it war, fights to the death or organised, sanctioned fighting, history has far more Andre Ward's than it does Margarito's.