English Champions: Ned "The Pipe-Maker" Sutton

Like with the Peartree and Whitaker threads, there just isn't much on Sutton. I've exhausted Pugilistica and Boxiana and even found some paper sources. Not lazy work, just ain't much can be said.

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

Sporting Magazine (1817): “Neither Ned Sutton, Tim Buck, nor Bob Stokes, could resist his skill and valour. Figg had never been defeated but once, and then by Sutton.”

Sutton was the only person to defeat Figg. It is worth noting that Sutton appears to have nearly won another fight as the Champion Figg received a severe wound, but convinced the umpire that he inflicted this against himself. Courtesy of Doctor James Byron (1726):

“And swam down the river from Thames to Gravesend; Where lived Mister Sutton, pipe-maker by trade, Who hearing that Figg was thought such a stout blade, Resolved to put in for a share of his fame, And so sent to challenge the champion of Thame. Figg struck the first stroke, and with a vast fury, That lie broke his huge weapon in twain I assure you; And if his brave rival this blow had not warded, His head from his shoulders had been quite discarded. Figg armed him again, and they took t’other tilt, And then Sutton’s blade ran away from its hilt; The weapons were frighted, but as for the men, In truth they ne’er-minded, but at it again. Such a force in their blows, you’d have thought it a wonder Every stroke they received did not cleave ‘em asunder. But the upshot on’t was, that at that very bout, From a wound in Figg’s side the hot blood spouted out; Her ladyship then seemed to think the case plain, But Figg stepping forth, with a sullen disdain, Shew’d the gash, and appealed to the company round, If his own broken sword had not given the wound. Well, they both took a drain, and returned to the battle, And with a fresh fury they made their swords rattle; While Sutton’s right arm was observed to bleed, By a touch from his rival, so Jove had decreed; Just enough for to; show that his blood was not icor, But made up, like Figg’s, of the common red liquor. So Jove told the gods he had made a decree, That Figg should hit Sutton a stroke on the knee. Tho’ Sutton, disabled as soon as he hit him, Would still have fought on, but Jove would not permit him; ‘Twas his fate, not his fault, that constrained him to yield, And thus the great Figg became lord of the field.”

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

I know, skint, but like with Peartree I've not exhausted everything so maybe this will get a bump in time with new shiny info. I've exhausted everything free to me though so if your gonna give it a shot be prepared for that.

I should say, every participant of a boxing or fencing match was called a ‘champion’. A person who fought with their bare fists was a ‘pugilist’. There is no record of Figg being a pugilist. The way I see it boxing and fencing were still too intermixed for the times to see them as separate as we do. They recognize the difference between sword and fist of course but seem to have no issue with calling swordsman champion boxers or champion over pugilists. I suspect this has to do with 'fencing with fists' and how the English public perceived the Christian ban of the sport, but that's just speculation, I don't know for sure. So if you're wonder what the heck is some sword toting fools doing on a list of boxing champions that's why. The first champion and his first rival were swordsman not pugilists. It's not until Gondolier comes to challenge Figg specifically with fists does boxing become a fistic or fist centered sport. Best I can tell, fist, club, and sword were rounds in a boxing match that could be agreed on. Like a choose your weapon sort of thing. So, it's kind of like the LPRR years that are coming what with these boxers who are not punch first fighters bur rather grapplers. Instead of LPRR's grapplers Figg and pre-Figg featured some sword and stick.

Thanks buds.


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

Edit- added PipeMaker moniker just to add some pizazz to the title. He wasn't referred to as the pipe maker it's just a point of fact. I'll delete it if it seems dishonest to yas.

 

I believe the issue is verification. I am not telling you that book is a poor resource at all, but when a respected author from the present day tells me there is no verified account I take it to be true until forced by the evidence to accept the authority was mistaken. Mostly because there just are not many primary sources.

In these cases what I usually do is contact someone I believe can tell me if it's a solid source that's been overlooked or if it's a well known source that's been deemed unsatisfactory. Boxrec, CBZ, IBRO etc. Can't hurt to ask an expert. I've not had time myself to look so I'll just tell you what to look for and if you think it's worth having an authority look at it, do it. They're going to want to see some for of connection to a primary or some kind of third party verification. It can't just be claimed in the book, the book must point to where the claim comes from. It doesn't have to say in it's pages what the source is you just have to find a source it's obviously based on. That's not true for every book, but books written centuries after a fact you have to have something from the time to verify it's not a tall tale. Usually authors are honest just mistaken at worst.

That said, for sometime I have wondered if this hasn't been a long line of lazy research due to respected historians telling people not to look. I was going to tackle "verification" later but since it came up; I am not sure that modern historians look past the lines in Pugilistica that explicitly state everything beyond what I have in the OP was already lost to time by Henry's time. So if you start with Boxiana and Pugilistica you have the two most respected sources telling you look no further, and it works. I didn't as I admitted in my first paragraph, I just took Henry and Chris etc for their word and moved on.

So, there may be a case or record of Sutton and Figg boxing, I don't know. What I know is I've been told over and over again not to believe anything beyond the sword fight. I have no issue adding relevant info from this book to the thread though. If I can not verifie those bit's I'll just say so and provide the info all the same.

I'll check Fistiania in a bit to see if that mentions any sort of structure to sutton-figg. Ya know it's curious, I knew about the sword, cudgel, and fist rounds thing but I can't honestly say from where, that's not in Boxiana or Pugilistica and if Fistiania says nothing then I have to wonder if that's solid information or just my understanding from unverified resources.

If you want someone who absolutely can give you a direct yes or no go to the international boxing research organization. I may myself once I've gone through the book.

Nice find by the way, some of it seems very familiar, can't say right now if I've read it, it in sections across the net, or just something similar but it is a really nice read in the ye oldey fashion.

 

Well I'll be dipped, and here had I not noted that I was just adding it because I felt it added to the title I woulnd't've ever known he was actually referred to as "pipemaker". I was just, ya know, referencing his job.

Very cool bud, I appreciate it.

I'll edit up these threads so that the first post has the information you guys bring for a better flow for the next guy to read.

I didn't honestly anticipate so much help coming from the forum itself. No other forum has ever even tried to add anything. Very cool guys, I really appreciate it.