Greatest European fighter's of all time?

That's fair. Legitimate question here, despite it being somewhat contrarian; would nationalism during the British Empire be British in nature? Or to ask that differently, are citizens of the British Empire not British?

 

In these cases the deciding factor should be if one competed in European boxing which Lennox did and Tsyzu didn't.

 

The thing is during Fitzsimmons era Australia was the center of British boxing. Whether you were Australian or not thats where all the best boxers from the British world were from in the pre WW1 era. Australia wasn't just Australia during this period. It was boxing land.

The British have a seperate regional system than Europe but can compete for the EBU belt so there really isn't a correct answer to whether or not British fighters should be considered European.

 

I don't count amateur personally but theres nothing wrong with considering fighters in 2 categorys. Many a star fighter have fought in mutliple regional circuits whether that be American and British, British and European, European and American or British and African etc.

 

Yes. At this time Australia/New Zealand and Canada were basically viewed as an extension of Britain.

At this point Britain was the cultural center of the world and it wasn't at all clear the British would be dismantling their empire.

 

Incorrect.

Fitzsimmons nationality maybe debatable, however Great Britain is factually part of the continent of Europe now and was during Fitzsimmons career, therefore British people are European now as they were then, that's not debatable, it's an irrefutable fact.

 

Its an island it literally isn't an irefutable fact. An island whose foreign policy has been defined by not being part of and different than Europe for centuries.

Its very debatable. I understand the reasons you would consider them European in many ways they are in many ways they aren't. Its the very definition of arbitrary.

Also today commonwealth peoples aren't considered British. 100 years ago they totally were.

 

What relevance does Britian being an island have on which continent it belongs to? What relevance does it political policies have on what continent it geographically belongs to?

Cuba is an island with political policies compeltely independent of other North American countries. It's still part of the continent of North America.

Madagascar is an island, it's still part of the continent of Africa.

The Philippines is an archipelago, it's still part of the continent of Asia.

Great Britian is technically an archipelago, not an individual island, and it's part of the continent of Europe.

Britain is part of Europe. British people are European. That's not a matter of interpretation, any more than it is that Filipinos are from the continent of Asia. It's just fact.

Now if you ask whether British people think of themselves as European, that's another matter. But factually, they are from the continent of Europe.

 

Ted Kid Lewis
Marcel Cerdan

 

In terms of the definition an island by definition is seperate from a continent. Whether islands are part of the nearest continent, continents themselves or just "islands" is the very nature of arbitrary.

Theres also the matter of Europe not actually being a continent. Geographically Europe isn't a continent(its not a seperate landmass) it was made one because of the geopolitical relevance of the people that lived there. And it is what it is and I understand its a term of convenience but you're talking about undisputable facts.