English Champions: Daniel Knox

The story of the black prizefighter in America followed a much different path than it did in England. From the sport's beginnings in the United States, there was a distinct sense of exclusion. In England and Australia, black men, if deemed pugilistically worthy, were allowed to fight white men, in some cases even champions, without regard to their skin color. America, however, had a very different set of rules for her black participants. I should say, England allowed black fighters to fight white champions, but they were not allowed to win. It seems to me Australia was the land "fair play". The first recorded instance of black men fighting in an organized boxing event in the United States fully illustrates these variations.

On June 1, 1842, Dan Knox and Sam Briggs, both African Americans, fought under the revised London Prize Ring Rules at Hoboken, NJ for 18 minutes during which 7 rounds were fought. Knox won the bout and was thereafter called the "Colored Champion of New York". That such an appellation even existed speaks volumes of the way in which black athletes were already being treated in the United States. By that time black men had been fighting in England for over 40 years, and never once had they been reduced to fighting for a "colored title". Knox fought again the next year, defeating another African-American fighter simply called Butcher Mack, but was never heard from again. He and his "colored title" simply disappeared.

There were certainly black prizefighters active in the US, before and after Knox and Briggs fought their contest, but their battle holds a certain significance, for it was the first ever recorded in the American Press. Whether or not there was a subculture of black prizefighters is not known, however, it is clear that no African-American fought any white fighter of any note during these years. And after Knox's disappearance from the fighting scene, it would take another decade for the deeds and fights of another black man to make their appearance in the press of the day.

After Knox's disappearance from the fighting scene, it would take another decade for the deeds and fights of another black man to make their appearance in the press of the day.

----------------------------------------------------

Source is [url]Black Genesis by Kevin R Smith[/url]

Short, but there's just not much on Dan. As best I can tell it was Dan's title Morris claimed in 1878. The Colored HW Champion of NY. I believe Richard K Fox brought the idea of the title to prominence through his tournaments. Either way by the 1880s Godfrey had the World title back by the Police Gazette. I see Dan and Morris as similar to say Pipes or some such. Not a world champion, but part of the lineage that became world champions. CBZ recognizes English champs as just that, English. Same for American. The Colored lineage is mixed with non-champs who were pretty good. I see all three as equal. English, American, and Colored NY, are all champions whose lineage became major world titles.


[url]Heavyweight Champions from Ancient to Present[/url]

 

Oh, thanks bud, I believe that's one of the pitfalls of OCR. I'll look at the book and see what the original says to make sure, but I just read it a few hours ago so I'm pretty sure what it's meant to say is something to the effect of, no verbatim, Smith is not certain or can not prove in absolutes that there way a significant black prizefighting subculture, but in the 1850s Mollineaux Hewlett pops up which kind of suggests there was but it is possible Mollineaux Hewlett just had a lot of good ideas all his own.

Aaron Hewlett is pretty popular because he became a Harvard Professor. He made sparring popular in the black boxing community, advocated the use of gloves, and was generally seen as one of the best coaches around. He's a bit like Figg in that it's not his actual boxing that is his real legacy so much as his gym / amphitheatre. In Figg's case whether or not he ever used his fists is disputed, still not sure why myself but until I hear back from CBZ or IBRO I guess I won't know. In Aaron's case there is no dispute. Mollineaux Hewlett was advocating for the separation of sparring from prizefighting. He wanted boxing to become an exercise system and developed it in that direction. His impact was powerful despite his lack of championships.

He's a bit like Figg and a bit like Mace for the black boxing community in the States.

I'll edit the wording to fit Smith's original in a bit....I would have now but **** me I can't seem to find where I put the *******.

 

The same argument can be said about the original English title. It's early advancements are dubious, and who is and isn't seen as a champion is made up by whatever historians feel at the time of writing rather than a point of fact from their day, and any real importance came long after it's champions were outside the control of its founding authority. Mollineaux was hardly known in America and according to Figg's own publications in 1727 if you asked James Figg who the boxing champion of England is he'd've said John Gritton.

The Gazette made it's version of the title popular enough for others to adopt its title. Or are sporting clubs only the precursor to sanctioning bodies when they uphold a colorline? Same authorities, different promoters, it's a world title. That's like telling me I shouldn't include WBA regulars or some such.

I include the colored champions because it is the lineage that Jack Johnson came from. If you ask me any list that doesn't include the colored champions is disingenuous. There's only one reason Figg is even considered in the lineal discussion, he started it. Nowhere in his legacy about tour England does he ever mention or is ever mentioned to have ever even been considered as more than champion of england. He's not a champion of Europe, or of America and Europe, or even all of the island. He's the English, very regional, champion. The Venetian even whined about Figg not knowing was real boxing is. There was little to no "world" in his legacy. From him or at least his legend we get guys like Goss or Burke who were pretty legitimate world champions or at least English-America-Australia champions. It's the same, Dan Knox isn't important and his title isn't important on the world stage during his lifetime. By the time the Colored HW champion of the World is beating not just the lineal to both the English and American crowns but the retired unbeaten lineal as well he made Dan's legend just as Bob defeating the gondolier made Figg's.

It's my firm opinion that those who grandize the Figg years as if they were any more than in-house WWE style events and in turn minimize guys like Knox, Hewlett, and Grant have a clear agenda regardless of if it's clear to themselves. It's the beginning of a title, none of them are glamourous or respected on the world stage, not even in the modern era. It's only when it's black does that matter though.

 

Well of course he does, all there are are English sources on the matter. Figg's not popular in Russia, he's not popular in Germany or France and in Veneto apparently when that culture mixed with the English they didn't think much of Figg.

I understand Godfrey and Egan and Henry think the world of Figg, and I'm not at all bothered by whether or not the man actually boxed I kind think that's besides the point really as it is his legacy either way. What's fishy about the birth of English boxing is the fact that everyone who was champion or might maybe considered champion or some historian wants to claim may have been champion up until Slack were all in-house Figg boys. You don't even get a brand split until Taylor or codified rules until the last pupil of James gets the title.

That said, my goal isn't to downplay any legacy. All I'm saying if you choose to be a dick and label something as unimportant just because it's beginnings aren't praised and presented as anything other than dubious then son, you've not even tried to be a critical dick about the legacy being spoon fed to you.

Even Figg's most famous fight is a dubious victory. He had to convince the umpire he caused his own injury. The the next step in the famous Figg legend is the battle of Whittaker and the Venetian ending with the Venetian not being happy with the officiating the match. Then you've a slew on in-house fights that go exactly as Figg predicts. All coming from the tail of a traveling show akin to a circus. There's nothing glamorous about early English boxing outside it's continued presentation. Which I do agree with exalting, it is the origin story, but I don't agree with pretending like some origins deserve more one-sided presentations while others should enjoy exaltation near mythic levels.

You might say to me but Hammer Figg's pretty early to have a global or even European impact. Sure, but that didn't stop the Ancients from being known in empires outside their own, why did it Figg? Because the truth is no one gave a damn about him outside of the English just like no one gave a damn about Daniel outside of black american fighters.

 

1. I agree, that's true. Doesn't mean historians don't use it as we understand it today and there by are not being paragandist with the term.

2. These two are kind of paired. I feel like I'd just be restating my previous point. For example look how the dates on Ward and Burke, I know you know those guys. Look at the dates that CBZ recognizes Ward and Burke. They're not logging who was seen as the champion at the time, they're logging who they see as champion. They have Burke crowned after the Byrne fight. You know what happened after the Byrne fight, Ward was still the champion and Burke went on a fundraising campaign to fight him. So, respectfully, no, that's bull****. Who is logged as champion when and why does not have anything to do with the consensus of the time but rather the consensus of the present.

3. That's funny, are you telling me the establishment didn't see the black boxing community in America as a legitimate community? Well yeah. The English press doesn't praise American boxing for Hyer. The American press doesn't praise English boxing for Cribb. Which, c'mon this bull**** y'all are spinning about a lack of colorline...sure they allowed black fighters to fight. Did they allow them to win? Did they allow any foreign fighters to win on their soil? From the American black boxing community's perspective the title is obviously very popular. One shouldn't expect the London Times to be glowing over a community they don't respect being promoted by a rival paper. From the perspective of the clubs it must have had some importance because the title didn't stay in the hands of dives for very long. From the accounts of the black men it seems very much to me Fox did as good a job one could expect considering how against american black boxing the world was.

4. Nonsense, it is where all their theories come from. The sport changes, the ballet is different, but Mendoza's affect on the american black boxing community can't be discounted because you can see it to this day. Moves and counters, has a big mouth for the press, and comes out not just winning but taking a lot of money and not taking much damage. Did I describe Floyd Mayweather or Mendoza School? Trick question init? Describes both. Just to clear, yeah I'm aware Mendoza didn't counter well that was Richmond. Richmond attended Mendoza School, I'm not talking about how Mendoza fought I mean what he taught others to do. It's still in play, just because a guy can't grab you by the hair doesn't mean Mendoza doesn't hold weight in every single boxing state to this day.

5. Outside of the copied passage which has the date, location, time, and rounds all that's in Black Genesis is the purse for $50. Dunno if that can help you find it. I could list his entire bibliography, if you're interested, but the likely ones that stand out...the one's I'll be chacking are the New York Clipper and The Brooklyn Eagle. Outside of that there's nothing regional, so if it's a book reference that'll be a pain. I'll check Sundowners for a mention.

 

Fixed, the Hewlett mention was the OCR pulling from the next page. It's weird that it worked out to almost make sense, but it was an amalgamation sentence. The original only alludes to Aaron, it doesn't name him.....I might edit it in though.