Write here a rare opinion in boxing that is considered strange, but you agree with it

He was speaking slower and a bit less clearly, but that's real common with fighters.

 

I’d give Archie a chance at being the smaller and less experienced cruiser weight version of Holyfield as well as the aging declining heavyweight version of the early 2000’s. But a prime heavyweight Evander from about 1989 through most of the 90’s ? No.

 

I agree about the Bridger weightclass. That is just a money grab by the sanctioning body.

 

I believe you can only be the best of your era at best but not of all time.

 

Bridger makes more sense than Cruiser. It causes less carnage to existing weight classes and is better for the sport. But of course scrapping Cruiser and keeping Bridger isn't an option

 

I don’t know that I’ve seen this voiced as an opinion, but since it came up — I think enough decades down the road (probably after I’m long gone) people will look at bridgerweight the way cruiser is now.

Eventually a good enough guy will come along to legitimize it as being viable for guys who aren’t quite big enough for the monster-sized heavies we have today and demonstrate the same kind of abilities we’ve seen in past guys in the lower end of the 200+ pound range (a lot of greats in the past fit into this division) and then enough other good fighters will come along to consider it a worthwhile, viable and real division.

Early cruiser was snickered at — The Ring in I think the Randy Gordon era as editor would constantly make snide remarks about it (‘bigger than a breadbox, smaller than a battleship’) and belittle the champions, but it gained acceptance.

 

English ownership of boxing titles was largely propaganda

Most of the men through history called champions are not champions.

Plenty of world level champions through history are not actually world level as boxing wasn't even a worldwide sport.

John L is not the first gloved champion, an LPR champion, or a QB champion, or a world champion.

Nat Fleischer is not a historian of any kind but rather a fantasy author who plagiarized what little history he got factually correct.

Informed fans is an oxymoronic term. The same exact rag fans call "the bible of boxing" that is your great historian Fleischer's main body of work, also covered the very much scripted adventures of professional wrestling during while writing fabulous articles showing just how incapable the entire staff is of spotting the difference between a real and scripted fight. These are your sources for your arguments. Ratings created by fans of the equivalent of the 1930s version of The Undertaker. You lot are so seriously under informed you don't even know what the next page of the source you cite has to say.

I mean it's to the point where there's piles of books that were written that really are not worth a **** because no one did any independent research for **** until about the mid 2000s. Why do you think guys who started publishing in 06 repeated get the title "wrote the most informative and factual" on characters from the 19th and 20th centuries? Exactly, the information, the newspapers cited in these newer books, was already there but don't let that stop you from cherrypicked citations for spotty history from untrustworthy sources.

 

That's a spicy one. Would you mind expanding/clarifying? I'm not an expert on that period of boxing history so I would be really interesting in hearing who the first really was in your view.

 

At some point you just have to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re trolling.

 

No heavyweight before Liston would be ranked in the top 30 today

 

Sure bud, it is a matter of opinion so if you find you don't agree that's fine. I respect the curiosity.

Firstly it should be said I do recognize John as a champion, just none of the things folks tend to claim about him.


World Claim:
"World" boxing in John L's time is BE propaganda John L cashed in on and little else. If the USA + England because the full UK let alone Europe or any nation in Africa, Asia, or South America does not matter, means world to you, bud, that's fine. I am not first or last to express this. John L got this criticism in his time as well and ever since. He claims a world title for a fledgling sport that does not exist on the world stage. It's like calling the NFL's Superbowl trophy a world champion title. You could, if you like, but most of the world does not play football.

IMO boxing became a global sport relatively recently in the 1930s. The same decade that sees Joe Louis also sees Japan open a boxing academy. That is just my personal opinion and really what we're talking about is semantics and subjective aspects of facts of history. I do not stripe John L of being a champion, he's just not a world champion imo. He's a world champion when the world champion title meant US and English white Christian boxers.

The Queensberry Claim:
Here I will be brief; John L Sullivan has never won a Queensberry Rules match for the HW title. He only ever fought one QB match, that was against Corbett, who by all accounts gave John a spanking ... after he had a semi retirement of beer. TBF to the man.

The Glove Claim:
Gloves were invented by the Greeks. Jack Broughton studied the Greek statues and assumed what the purpose of their soft leathers were for. This is before LPR even exists and before Broughton's Rules become any sort of staple for boxing conduct. I'm talking like 1728 bro is making up boxing gloves. Because he had no context his usage was not for training but rather trials. Which is similar I'll give you that but context is key. By the time of Daniel The Jew, 1780s, boxing glove are used for fighter to display their power on paying fans without cutting them. There are stories of nobleman paying to get chinned. Danny brought in ye olden defense, what it really was, was footwork and upper body movement from fencing. The Jew, being a Jew during the Spanish Inquisition, wasn't, ya know, loved by all Christians, his clientele ends up being fellow jews, blacks, and irish. Mendoza and Mendoza School Boxing would introduce the idea gloves could be used for sparring. By the 1820s those who could wow crowds with gloves on but got hurt with them off would spar in public displays, for points. This sport was born out of Aaron Hewlitt Molyneaux and Bill Fuller in America several decades prior to America becoming interested in LPR. Molyneaux would take care of the lower class clients while Fuller was free to attract elites. Both spread the culture of gloved boxing through America. in the 1830s America would host its first LPR championship match in Deaf Burke vs Sam O'Rourke for the HW crown. It was held in America because the champion, Jem Ward, refused to fight Burke. His list of reasons why is long enough to warrant its own book, including Burke, London born, white, english, christian, was not English enough. Because James Burke, Deaf Burke, was deaf. Sam was the Irish champion. The mixing of gloves and rules starts right away in America and does not end until Corbett, not Sullivan, ends the act of tailoring rules per fight. Picking and choosing what elements of LPR and gloved to follow starts in America before she even claims a champion of her own and does not end until Corbett ends it. 1830s-1890s American boxing features mixed rules. Not gloves, not bare, not LPR, not QB, mixed. Like MMA. Because American boxing is rooted in Rough and Tumble. Impromptu, rules agreed to on the spot, boxing. John L was not the first to beat a bare knuckler in gloves or the first to beat a gloved guy with bear hugs. He's the last of the mixed rules american champions, gloves included. When QB came across the pond all it did was give the mixed rules R&T based Americans more rules to play with during their articles of agreement.

The LPR Claim:
How to let me know you don't actually know too much about the era without saying those words; take a look at eras when rules were popular and pretend like those rules are ubiquitous across all regions during those dates. I'm going to make this even more bold. Not only did John L never fight an LPR match using strictly LPR rules for an LPR title but no contemporary source ever claimed he did. He was the American Boxing Champion. He fough the English boxing champion. They agreed on rules, came to a draw, and John's backer's bought the right to call John L world champion without being contested by the English. He doesn't even know what the term "Lineal Champion" means. He claims world champion of boxing. Not lineal, not heavyweight, not gloved, not QB. World champion of boxing. The entire fight with Fox is about rules and regulations and how John L won't be held down by them. He's a rebel, and a people's champion.


Summary:
Baby boxing was too small to realistically call the world title anything but propaganda. It was US+England whites.

Not an QB or LPR champion because he's a mixed rules cat whose entire career is mixed rules.

Not the first gloved champion because champions mixing gloves in their fights is common in America. Hell, Yankee Sullivan has a strong argument for first if mixing rules doesn't matter and all you need is a dude the entire nation looks to as best to pop on some gloves in a match that also allows some greco-roman wrestling in the agreed rules.







I don't see why we feel the need to frame him the way we have. Promise, John L wouldn't like the idea of lineal. He wasn't a traditionalist. He wasn't a rules lover. He was ****ing with Richard Fox's narrative and control over boxing. One generation later. As in as soon as John L died. Nat Fleischer would rip off Fox's entire business model, belts, rankings, articles, arbitrary authority given a market share by claiming historical authority to a public that wouldn't know any better for another hundred years. John's legacy becomes some ruffian barn burner who just uses gloves doe for no reason given. By shitty historians who fill in their obvious gaps with grandiose fanboyism. Nothing wrong with admitting the money men didn't control American boxing until Corbett became champion. He's the sell out, not John, and his whole entire motivation was keep black dudes away from the title.

Cheers bro, you can disagree, clearly I'm not consensus. I won't be a dick about it.

 

I greatly appreciate that you realize my questions were out of genuine curiosity and not "gotcha" questions. That is often sometimes hard to convey over text. I know very little about that era, what little I do know comes from when I get bored and look at bareknuckle cyber boxing zone* records for fun which probably isn't the best way to learn about that era/eras. I knew that Deaf Burke existed but I had no idea that Jerm Ward ducked him because he thought Burke's deafness made him less English. I think you made a very compelling case and I learned a lot of stuff I didn't know before. This makes me interested in things like when did the idea of lineal champion come to be or when exactly the color line started but I should probably make those their own thread.

I mostly agree with the world argument. It never made sense to me why we count the color line white world champions as world champions but not the "colored" (unfortunate term but it is what it was called) champions. It feels like if you're going to count one, you need to count the other. I think a potential problem with the "not real world champions" argument is it becomes very hard to figure out when boxing started having world champions. As far as I know even today not every nation competes in boxing. Do we not world champions today then? If we just need a majority then when did the majority happen and can we even figure that out? What about the smaller weights? Do those not count as world champions because less nations compete there? That seems harsh. What about the 1960s where some countries didn't let people become professional boxers? I understand that your answer is probably something like "I don't know the exact number needed but it needs to be more than the white guys from only 4 countries, dumbass" and that's fair. It would be nice if there was a clearer answer tho. I agree that somewhere around the 1930s is a good answer, not only because of the slowly fading away colorline but also because the rules resemble modern boxing way more.

*I decided to look it up while typing and it seems like it doesn't exist anymore? That's kind of a bummer.

 

Mendoza unpopular?

1. bethnalgreenlondon.co.uk › daniel-mendoza-jew-east“Mendoza the Jew”: the boxing pioneer who fought antisemitism ...
   Jun 21, 2020 · The first boxer to receive royal patronage from the Prince of Wales, East End boxer Daniel Mendoza’s superstar status provided a positive representation of Jewishness at a time of rampant antisemitism.
   
   
2. en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Daniel_MendozaDaniel Mendoza - Wikipedia
   After the fight, the Prince of Wales, who would become King George IV, presented Mendoza with 500 pounds, in addition to the 500 pounds he had won in the match, and shook his hand in full view of the gallery. Mendoza used the money to open a boxing school in Capel Court.
   
   
3. www.thejc.com › news › featuresDaniel Mendoza, the boxing legend who raised the status of ...
   Oct 31, 2019 · This included the prince of Wales, who had rewarded Mendoza handsomely after an earlier fight. Indeed, the king himself, George III, was well aware of the “little black bruiser” as the Public...
   • Author: Wynn Wheldon
4. www.washingtonpost.com › history › 2023/09/25The Jewish prizefighter who helped invent modern boxing—in ...
   Sep 25, 2023 · Daniel Mendoza, an English boxing champion, changed the sport by approaching it with a scientific mindset and pioneering defensive techniques, in the face of antisemitism.
   
   
5. harryfreedman.substack.com › p › daniel-mendozaDaniel Mendoza - Harry Freedman's Jewish Histories - Substack
   Jul 28, 2023 · Daniel continued to fight professionally until he caught the eye of the Prince of Wales. Boxing was becoming fashionable; it was known as the Sweet Science, and Daniel’s distinctive, scientific style of tactical fighting was being talked about in high society.
   
   
6. reginajeffers.blog › 2013/04/30 › the-star-of-israelThe Star of Israel, Mendoza the Jew | Every Woman Dreams…
   Apr 30, 2013 · In a 1787 professional fight, Mendoza won both the bout and the patronage of the Prince of Wales (later George IV). Mendoza was the first Jew to have an audience with England’s King George III, which both elevated the Jew in London’s population.
7. BTW Congratulations in managing to work a knife into Fleischer's ribs yet again,that takes imaginative dexterity!
8. Hobby horse,horse hobby lol