#3 ATG HW survey?

Boxing still existed in Greek, in the ancient games (which were 5 different ones like the Pythnic Games), although without gloves (but blom on the fists). The Brits just motivied a little bit the rules, but it was not a new inovation. Like the noodles are not from Italy but China.

Just that Olympic Games didn't exist is not the fault of Sullivan, who won everything available for him.

 

Yes, mine was a much stronger and more direct argument. Yours rests demographic trivia. Mine raises a stronger inference of racism than yours.

Look, if you want to ignore my point and insist that your words don't carry an obvious accusation when they're written in English (despite the fact that I know my own language and culture better than you do), feel free to keep telling people they might be unconsciously racist. You won't receive nice replies. Especially because you've already been told what the implication is, and you've ignored it.

You said Schmeling should be in the list of options. You said all sorts of other people should be in the list, too, including Corbett of all people. You excluded Baer.

 

Irrelevant. I'm saying that the organized sport that became modern boxing was British.

If you're claiming that British boxing descended from ancient Greek boxing, show me the historical evidence. Show me evidence that ancient Greek boxing continued as a living tradition in England for 1000+ years after the secession of Roman Britain.

Again, not relevant. My point was that there's lots of evidence that boxing was a small, undeveloped sport in 1882, compared with what came later. You're the one who brought up the Olympics as evidence that boxing was popular. But the Olympics didn't exist in Sullivan's time.

 

I know they probably won't recognize it as that hint, but I am annoyed when this threads get opened, which are pretty much the same as dozens before. It was meant as suggestion to reconsider about this selection and it seemed it got understood, otherwise wouldn't had asked me the opener how it should look differently. I think it was rather superficial made, not necessary by intend.

You still didn't read it careful, as you missed some parts out of the text: I pointed Schmeling and Corbett should be ahead of Burns and rather than whom in a top 15 (or 20). Just as I maintained it about Bowe.

 

Any kinds of sports which were done in the antique games were organized when.
The roots are there, Queensberry rules are not even the same as London Prize rules are bar knuckles, which were both applied in the 19. century (and still).
I don't show you anything, I know that boxing in general is not a invention of Brits and shared this information, if you believe me or not I don't care.
There were many different rules and you can claim Queensberry rules are from England, for what I would agree, but boxing is it not.

You lie; you mentioned first that boxing was partly illegal and not Olympic when Sulivan was active. Therefore I relied to the Olympic Games. By the way no sports were Olympic during Sullivans career...

 

Well, you said this:

I read this as saying that the thread starter should replace Burns (who is on the list of options) with Schmeling, Liston, Patterson, Corbett, or Wills instead. So Schmeling was one of the candidates to be put on the list.

I read carefully. Don't take this the wrong way, but your English isn't always 100% clear. I can usually get it right, but sometimes it's vague or says the opposite of what you mean.

Anyway, it sounds like you didn't intend to call the thread starter a racist, and I don't really have much of a dog in this fight. As I said, it's up to you whether you want to take my advice or not. I'm not the racism police.

 

The sport of modern boxing is from Britain. It's surreal that you're arguing about this. It's just a historical fact. Ancient Greek boxing is irrelevant since it died out in late antiquity.

Boxing *was* partly illegal in Sullivan's career. He was almost arrested multiple times for it. Police stopped his fights. Again, these are just historical facts.

I mentioned that it's an Olympic sport to show how big it is today. In reply, you brought up Athens in 1896. But that's after Sullivan's reign, so it's irrelevant.

 

Which just means these boxers have rather s hoot than Burns, partly due to they would have better chances to get (serious) votes, but also as them are higher rated. It doesn't mean anyone of these have to be in a (my) top 3, but that are a decent couple of names which make more sense.

While on achievements had Tunney and Jeffries more than Frazier too, just as ought to be Bowe ahead of Holyfield in my opinion.

The case I mentioned it (after editing) was just I wished it more balanced and not that it looks like boxing is just an black-men sports, or Anglo-American. It should be expended the radar here.

 

It are no different kinds; when shall have started modern boxing?
You might argue around 1870 (although Queensberry rules came maybe 1770), but I recognize as case for 1980 too or for 1920. This is just imaginary, but in reality exist only boxing (seperated in Olympic and prize boxing).

But it is not relevant if it is now an Olympic sports, as it couldn't be at Sullivan career. So it has absolute to relation about the size of boxing (popularity). It is like arguing Johannes von Guttenberg had no great impact with his invention because he didn't win a Nobel award...

 

No earlier than Figg.

The sport comes out of London Prize Ring boxing, which in turn came from Broughton's rules. That's the sport that became boxing. That's what the rest of the world inherited its list of champions, its rules, and its techniques from. That's the tradition Sullivan came out of, and defended his belt under. That's the tradition literally all of Sullivan's opponents came out of.

 

At the time of Leonardo da Cuttri and Ruy Lopez was chess quite more different (the figures and promoting), but I regard them still among the greatest players. Or Phillip Stamma wrote in the 18 century some of the most important theories, just as a Portugese Pharmacian at the end of the 16. century.

Boxing is boxing; something what was already found can't be new created and it was not totally forgotten in the time between. It is not like wrestling were you seperate in freestyle and Greek-Roman style (which is still competed and not forgotten).

 

Yeah, and chess theory in modern, de la dama chess began with guys like Ruy Lopez. You don't see most modern chess players studying chess positions or theory originating from Persian or Indian medieval chess. Modern chess descends from a Renaissance style of chess with a very strong queen piece, just like modern boxing descends from the English prize ring.

Furthermore, chess theory didn't ever die out. Ancient Greek boxing did. I've never seen evidence of a living lineage between Greek boxing and English boxing. They're separated by a thousand years. English boxing developed independently.

It was invented independently. Again, I've seen no evidence that Greek boxing persisted in England 1000+ years after the fall of Rome.

And that English version of boxing is the one that globalized to the rest of the world.

Greco-Roman wrestling is a French folk style. It has no connection to Greece or Rome.

 

You have the patience of a Saint, and then some CT. So good with wayward spirits.

 

Nothingless would I rate Leonardo da Cuttri and Ruy Lopez de la Vega in the top 20. As you are a kid of your time and limited to it. They were the most successful players in the first documented competitions (in the 16. century), like later the Italian Greco and Philidor or la Bourdonnais.
I even regard Morphy as the best player of all time, as he has an outstanding winning-rate in handicap matches (like with a rook less) and masters, also that he won against any leading player (apart of Howard Staunton how avoided a single competiton and only played in a two players team match vs. him).

Britain has a lot of Roman influence (they gave the name Londinium), to their coltoure and language, as England and a part of Scotland were some centuries occupied and the peoples were mixed. Even your king Arthur is based on a Roman general, who is burried in Split, Croatia, who had the name Lucius Artorius Castus. Some of the juristic terms are also from when and Curiculum Vitae is actual also Latin.

I think Greco-Roman style was used in the antique Greece, there were the same rules and maybe even similar in Egypt. It was probably refound in memory of it, as the first president of the IOC was very keeping on the tradition of the old games, he even gave medals in poems (in what heself won gold), which was actual an idea of Lucius Domitius Nero.

 

He's not really "my" King Arthur. I'm American.

Anyway, Roman influence on Britain in the year 500 doesn't have anything to do with a style of British fistfighting from the year 1700.

If you're going to argue that Greek boxing got popular in Britain and survived there for twelve centuries before resurfacing with Figg, you need to give evidence. Show me evidence of a continuous tradition of Greco-Romano-British boxing in the year 300, 700, 900, 1200, 1500, and so on.

My understanding is that they just took an existing French folk style and called it "Greco-Roman" as a tribute to the ethos of ancient Greece and Rome. They were big on classics back then. Again, I've seen no evidence of direct descent from the classical world.

It's actually very common for martial arts styles to claim ridiculous lineages. Ninjutsu, hwarang-do, taekwondo, and other styles will say that they go back to the Middle Ages, or the ancient world. None of it has ever been confirmed. As far as we can tell, they often only go back to the mid 19th century. Modern (British) boxing is actually exceptionally old compared to most other combat sport traditions. And even British boxing is only about three and a half centuries old.