How far Back Does Your Interest In Classic Boxing Go?

1920s onwards, so the last 100 years or so. I do go back to the 1900s and 1910s as well but I do feel the sport genuinely evolved from the 1920s with the rule changes that were brought in by The Walker Law. I can watch Tunney-Dempsey and identify that as the same sport that is happening today.

I’ve also no more interest in the bare knuckle era preceding the sport proper than I have in bareknuckle fighting today. To me, they’re essentially different sports, like squash is to tennis.

 

People will probably hate me, but Dempsey is as far as I go.

i saw Dempsey Firpo the other day, and I dont see anything special tbh. Just one dude getting destroyed

 

All of it. It's a fascination of mine seeing others' justifications though.

IMO some level of understanding of Greek boxing is absolutely necessary to understand bareknuckle.

Likewise, bareknuckle to Queensberry and though people don't hardly cut up the eras like this, I do think the pre-body QB rules era is special and different and explains why bodies exist pretty well. So, you kinda need it to really understand modern boxing.

That said, I've seen just heaps of "Modern boxing started with X" X usually being Dempsey. IMO, modern boxing starts with Joe Louis and those we call "World" champions prior to him are misnomers. He is your first world heavyweight champion.



For those who don't go very far back you might have read my post and thought this fool reckons you need all the boxing history to understand boxing today ... close but not all, some Russian wall history, euro church history, dueling history, rough and tumble, and pugni would certainly help, but you don't need them.






Otherwise your are always giving and accepting half-assed information. Simple things like gloves, I read all the time people just happy to accept Sully did that. Here y'all a little more educated and seem to at least know Broughton did that, some of you will know he did it by actively trying to figure out and mimic Greeks. I'll say again in new terms, the MAF who wrote the first ruleset you can still read did so while researching how the Greeks did it. Get me? Kinda need it if you're going to talk about Broughton to any depth beyond his record and Figg's venue.



On the flip side of this, I'll never be as well informed on any specific era as the boys whose main focus in a specific era. So, I don't think there is any wrongs. If you felt judged by my saying you need this or that, no bro, I just feel that way. I can accept you don't and even appreciate the fact that you don't feel the need to know about Greeks or Pugni or whatever to tell me about a bro who came a millennia later.




IMO

 

Frazier Foreman 1 my dad and I watching when I was 7.

 

Im not talking crap about Dempsey, I think he was ahead of his time, Luckily he isnt overlooked like Liston.

i would definatly pay good money to watch Dempsey fight, i just dont understand why in retrospect as a fight, not as an event, people hold Firpo/Dempsey in high regard.

honestly Dempsey beating up Willard was far more exciting and significant

 

First got interested in 1982- Holmes vs Cooney.

 

The real entertaining ones for me are the early 80s fights. Because I know I saw all of them live as they happened, except I was a kid so my memory is real spotty. Product of having a father who is a boxing fan.

Although Hagler Hearns is a real clear memory for me, despite being 7. I think because my father was so excited for the fight, showed me some taped fights he had of each man in advance, etc.

… and last weekend, we watched Dubois demolish AJ together. Ok so now I’m like 15 years older than he was in my early memories of watching boxing with him, but hey, I’m just happy we still can. And my daughters joined us. My 7yr old seems to have taken a bit of an interest lately even. She’s a big Usyk fan.

so anyway, finding old fights on YouTube from this era and realizing I remember parts of them is pretty awesome and nostalgic.