Development of fisticuffs in Russia

The first information about fisticuffs in Russia can be found in the Gustin Chronicle dated 990, and in the chronicles of Nestor in 1069. One of the elements of the original national system of physical education that was taking shape at the time was two kinds of competitions in fisticuffs: mass battles "wall to wall" and single combat - "himself on his own" or "one on one".

Especially popular was the form "Wall to wall", in which the "own" and "alien" sides were strictly distinguished. "Wall to wall" - a kind of fist fight, when the fighters lined up and went into battle against each other with a dense wall. In each team, the Sotskys and the Tithes were distinguished. They built a wall, distributed the fighters to places in it, checked that there were no foreign objects in the mittens of the fighters. For the "laying" severely punished their own fighters. The number of fighters in each wall was the same. The wall had to be the same in age: peasants with peasants, young men with boys, boys and boys. In each "wall" there were 2-3 main, most powerful and dexterous fighters - "slaughterers", who rushed to where the wall began to weaken and surrender. The Sotskys and the Counts monitored the observance of the rules. The names of the Sotskys and the Tithes were reported to the police. From them was the main demand for the riots on the battlefield. Typically, the battle "wall to wall" was built in three stages. First boys went to the battle, they were replaced by bezessy unmarried youths, after the young men, men entered the battle. Before the single combat, the soldiers hugged and kissed three times.

The battle was considered complete if one of the "walls" could not withstand the onslaught and blows of the enemy turned to flight under the whistle and hooting of the audience.

Taking advantage of the popularity of the people in Moscow, battles were fought more often on the Cain mountain in China Town and under the old Kamenny or Troitsky bridges. Often in the battles took part fighters from persons of noble origin. Each side tried to break through the defense of the "wall" of the enemy, make confusion and panic, scare and dislodge from the battlefield. The retreating enemy regrouped and again walked the wall into the attack. Thus, the fight consisted of separate fights and lasted until one side was defeated and refused to fight.

Places for fighting were chosen traditionally in winter - on ice, in summer in the field. The first were always teenagers, followed by adults. In the people there were unwritten rules that were passed on from generation to generation. Fisticuffs fought either on "bare" fists, or in mittens. The blows were applied only face to face to the head, chest and stomach. The fallen did not beat. This is where our Russian proverbs and proverbs say: "They do not beat him up," "They do not go into fights," "They do not fight with force, but with skill." Who fell to the ground, was considered defeated. As a rule, they fought to the first blood, drunks were not allowed to fight. Prohibited footsteps and attacks from behind. It was also considered dishonest to go over to the side of the enemy for reward and gifts. Violators of the rules were punished.

Another kind of fistfight was a fight "himself on himself" - a duel between two fist fighters. This kind of pugilism existed in Ancient Rus as a dashing feast, an indispensable part of festive festivities. In addition, the fight "himself on himself" was also one of the methods of judicial proceedings of complaints, mutual claims of two people who were offended against each other. When it was not possible to establish neither the right nor the guilty, the "fist right" entered into force. Both disputants converged in the fight "himself to himself" and the winner was declared right, and the defeated one was guilty.

At its core, fistfights were truly a national kind of competition, a sport game, "good fun". All this was born of a healthy daring, a desire to measure heroic strength - "to part with one's shoulder, swing one's hand," without any malice and enmity. Fist fighters displayed great art. Outstanding in strength and skill, the people called "a reliable fighter." Many of them participated in both single battles and fistfights "wall to wall" and enjoyed great fame and respect.

From mouth to mouth people passed on the epics about the heroes of the young. So, for example, during the Tatar yoke before the Battle of Kulikovo, the Troitsky monks Alexander Peresvet and Oslyabl were known, possessing great heroic power. In the annals it is told how Peresvet won the single combat of the Tatar hero.

It is known that Peter I loved to amuse himself with fisticuffs and often organized them himself - "to show the Russian people's way" to foreigners.

Author М.N. Lukashov in his book "The Glory of the Former Champions" cites a historical fact about the duel of the grenadier from the suite of Peter I with one of England's strongest boxers. It happened during the visit of the Russian Tsar to England in 1698. At one of the receptions Peter I, one of the English nobles offered to arrange an English boxer's fight with one of the soldiers of his retinue for a money bet. The duel took place, the grenadier asked the Englishman the strongest bashing, the king won a mortgage and in conclusion ordered his grenadiers to show Russian fun - fist fight "wall to wall."

During the reign of Catherine II in Russia, fisticuffs were very popular. Earl Orlov was considered an excellent fighter and himself repeatedly invited famous athletes to measure strength.

Even in the Laurentian Chronicle, written by the monk Lavrenty and other scribes in 1377, mention is made of the prohibition of fist fights. Among the various information from the history of Ancient Rus, one can find earlier references to the bans of the church. The fact of the curse by Metropolitan Kirill in 1274 and the threat of excommunication from the church of the fist fighters are described: "I learned that the Hellenic custom of the damned Hellenes is held: on divine feasts they fight with a whistle, cry and battle ... Yes they will be expelled from the sons of God's churches, these battles will be cursed this century and the future. "

Laws prohibiting fistfights were issued later in 1540, 1648, 1686. But despite the prohibitions, since 1690, fisticuffs have taken on a mass character.

Despite the constant bans of the church, the people continued to love fisticuffs. The period of development of capitalism in Russia was marked by the appearance of battles for money. The organizers were merchants and manufacturers. They hired fighters and let them down on each other, like cockfighting, betting and making mortgages.

http://www.libma.ru/sport/sovremennyi_boks/p2.php

Heavyweight Champions from Ancient to Present

 

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Russia.../ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

(Frederick Bruce) Thomas cabled Richard Klegin, an American promoter of sporting events in Europe, to suggest that they organize "a great tournament" that would start in Moscow on January 1, 1913. It would last a week, and the final "battle" for the heavyweight championship would be between Johnson and Sam McVey, a black American heavyweight then popular in Europe. All the matches would be held in Thomas's centrally located "Aquarium" entertainment garden, which could make arrangements to seat 10,000 spectators. Klegin immediately wired Johnson's manager with Thomas's offer: a certified check for $5,000, three round trip tickets to Russia, a chance to win a $30,000 purse in a match against McVey, and one third of the proceeds from the film of the fight. In today's dollars, this translates into a very nice deal — an upfront fee of around $150,000, another $750,000 if Johnson won, as was expected, and even more from the film.


The offer caused a sensation in the United States, and newspapers from coast to coast publicized it because of Johnson's notoriety, the large sums involved, and the exotic location. That the offer came from a black American entrepreneur also made the news. Johnson accepted, and announced that he was anxious to go. Thanks to Thomas, tsarist Russia was now beckoning to Johnson as a refuge from American racism.

Various complications prevented Johnson from leaving the United States until the summer of 1913, thus forcing Thomas to postpone his grand plans. Johnson also toured several European cities for close to a year before arriving in Moscow in mid-July 1914, or just two weeks before the Great War began.

 

I'm not real sure what you're trying to say to me, but I am curious what do you mean by verified?

 

So like a copy of a contract or some such similar nonsense?

 

Oh I see what's happened, "some similar nonsense" wasn't meant to be flippant or snarky or smart assery of any sort. I was really asking. It's a quote from the show Frasier, I just always enjoyed the wording. In the show he was legitimately asking if he and his cohorts were going out for burgers "or some similar nonsense" I totally see how you mean, but I honestly didn't intend to offend or discredit or argue in any sort. I'm in yer hands here.

I honestly don't know enough to have a strong opinion on the subject, I'm in the middle of forming that.

I'm honestly curious. Mostly because as you'll know quite a lot of boxing history is newpaper talk. Black Dynamite, the whole series, was plagiarised from Richard K. Fox's The Lives and Battles of Famous Black Pugilists. Which was itself more or less a collection of rather long excerpts from Boxiana, Pulistica, and the Police Gazette... owned by Fox.

So around 1920ish sanctioning bodies and sporting clubs really start to come in, is it safe to say it's also around that time records and accounts move from paper talk to legitimized by say a flyer for the fight or maybe a ticket stub or something else that substantiates the paper talk claims?

More directly, I wouldn't mind the ability to explain what is verification per era in my own threads. For my bread and butter I can explain, like the Ancients, super simple my man, if the foundation for the hellenic world and olympic committee recognize a champ so do my threads. If they don't I'll explain the reasoning provided by the authority on the matter, like Kleomedes and Ikkos, and why I disagree but I will more certainly at least make the attempt to acknowledge I am posting rebel history that doesn't agree with the official narrative.

So yeah my dude I am legitimately very interested evidence that suggests account X is very much on point. I mean, if you've a story that claims Y lost a tooth and you've the tooth all DNA tested and all, that's damn fine...all historians, pro or hobby, ought to be interested in that stuff.