Gunboat Smith: "There's something radically wrong in todays boxing."

[McGoorty]

Originally Posted by Marchegiano

Yeah man. Authentically tough.


It's weird because if you ask people who have nothing to do with fighting it seems like common knowledge that men from the past were simply harder more manly men. However, fight fans convince themselves that fighting evolves with technology, and "fighting science". Also most fans learn about the sport backwards. You come in at the present, and watch back catalog until your satisfied. This gives you a poor handle on the evolution of the sport. If you start with the Spartans and take a historical account of boxing from the beginning to today it becomes pretty obvious that a fighter removed from his time and placed 100 years closer to now will kill most of who he meets. Boxing in the beginning was a means to strengthen solder's resistance to blows to the skull. In the beginning one solder would throw and another would take until KO'd. If you were taking blows your goal is to simply last. This gave the Spartans a knowledge most other generals today don't know. They knew exactly who could take what and who could give what. What it means to you is there used to be 135lb boxers that could take blows from 200lbers all day...no exaggeration, no bull****. There's a very good reason why weight classes don't come until the 1800's. It's crazy obvious given how far that'd be from the norm today that 135lbs of Spartan kills today's 135lber.


Our skulls only need about 80 to 100 psi on a knuckle to break or crack today because we do NO skull training. it takes about 130 to 135 psi to crack a Roman skull. These tidbits are hard to come by( reliable sources anyhow) and I dunno how hard the skull of a Spartan would be, but Roman and Spartan boxing are very similar and very much serve the same purpose.

If you let got of formal meet and agree fighting and take it back even farther. There is quite a long period of time where we are not the only man on the planet, but we are the weakest. Any Homo Sapien that went toe to toe with a Homo Ecrectus, a Neanderthal, or Homo Ergastor would surely murder a man today. We used to fight our mentally inferior physically superior cousins all the time. Only know weapons being spears(sharp stick!) and hand axe(sharp rock!) means most fights were hand to hand, and unarmed happened quickly. I doubt very many would box a living Neanderthal.

Best post I've read in weeks, it's obvious you are back in full swing Marchegiano. You write with skill and you know what you are talking about, ancient history is my favourite subject. Even Roman nobility were as tough as nails, very few men in history were tougher than men of the calibre of Gaius Julius Caesar, Gaius Marius, Quintus Sertorius, Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Marcus Porcius cato (that Cato who hated Caesar) and Lucullus. Men of iron, Caesar was a little fellow, about a Featherweight, in a bare hands fight to the death he'd KILL todays Welterweights, probably KILL Brock Lesnar in a minute,..... do I hear any Trolls laughing ???????..... well they shouldn't,.. here was a General and Dictator (in a Roman Republic sense) who was usually, THE FIRST man into battle, in fact, no self respecting General of true quality up to the great undefeated Great General, John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough would not take part in battle. A General who did so had no respect from their troops and usually led to defeat.--------------------------- As for the Spartans, they are virtually unsurpassed in the history of War and unsurpassed in toughness, it was a DISGRACE to return home from a defeat in battle, mothers told their sons to come home on their sheilds rather than to surrender or to run away,.............. The Romans were the masters of Total War, when they won a battle,..... it was THE END for that race, or nation, or religion, they EXTERMINATED ALL Opposition, if you didn't beat the romans once you dissapeared from history.------------------------------ The point I'm making is, only the HARDEST men, women and children survived. Boxing was not a sport in any modern sense of the word, it was way too serious to be a game, losing a bad option, especially to a Spartan and most Greeks, if you didn't win at the Olympics back then, you were NOT WELCOME back home,.. EVER............................ Boxing went underground after the fall of the Roman Empire because life was even harder and was not a viable spectator sport,....... it was purely Military activity until James Figg turned up and became popular enough with the Bigwigs to be allowed to spread the sport through England and teaching members of the public the basics of boxing,..... for a small fee of course.

[McGoorty]

Originally Posted by jabsRstiff

"This "evolution" is an ignorance birthed out of a lack of knowledge of the sports history."

Excuse me? You have the wrong guy with that statement. My knowledge of the sport and its history is just fine.

The evolution is plain to see. Is it drastic? No, it's subtle....and there's a reason it took place.

Don't take offense. I appreciate the pioneers of the sport as much as the next guy, but I'm not gonna ROMANTICIZE with them the way I think you and some others here do.

And I still say that it's because that old film does not represent anything like what they actually looked in action, and sometimes what looks to be film blotches is actually like that on their bodies is because of the amount of blood splashing about,...... the old film hides 80 % of whats going on. Another thing that disadvantages the old timers is the fact that just for them to be on film means they were old men by the time they started rolling the cameras...... It's not Jim Corbett's fault or any of the others, that 99% of all fights from that first 1897 film until the late 1940's were never filmed..... It's even worse if you follow Cricket or Rugby League or any other sport,.......... Boxing is actually lucky to have as much film from those days,...... and only because Boxers were the most popular sportsmen. It's a pity there are boxing fans who don't appreciate this.

[Marchegiano]

very impressive McGrooty. They shot from the hip, no viewing lens, and cranked at the same time. A camera operator in say the 20's is more an aficionado than most full production studio's whole crew. "speed" is the worst thing to try to judge given the speed of the two boxers would be controlled by how fast the operator cranks his camera. Long fights tend to get slower, crowds are really the only way to tell if the fighters have slowed, or if it's the camera man who's tired.....crowds don't tire.

I didn't mean to offend, Jabs, I can be a bit brazen but it's a natural evil derived from trying to be blunt and honest. However, I don't see were you've discredited the general claim. Boxing is not an evolving sport it's a circular sport. it chases it's ass.

[McGoorty]

Originally Posted by Marchegiano

very impressive McGrooty. They shot from the hip, no viewing lens, and cranked at the same time. A camera operator in say the 20's is more an aficionado than most full production studio's whole crew. "speed" is the worst thing to try to judge given the speed of the two boxers would be controlled by how fast the operator cranks his camera. Long fights tend to get slower, crowds are really the only way to tell if the fighters have slowed, or if it's the camera man who's tired.....crowds don't tire.

I didn't mean to offend, Jabs, I can be a bit brazen but it's a natural evil derived from trying to be blunt and honest. However, I don't see were you've discredited the general claim. Boxing is not an evolving sport it's a circular sport. it chases it's ass.

Thanks MARCH', with you around I have to keep putting in some real good posts, sometimes I thoroughly research and take notes, and sometimes I know enough to just rattle things off the top of my head (most are of this thought), I'll come up with an idea for a thread, then if it doesn't get going, I'll research for that subject, then they usually take off. Like I said before, this place needs your skills and knowledge, your information is in great detail and it mostly comes straight off the top of your head. Maybe Chemists have to think in the abstract and improvise like I have to when playing guitar,............... ............ Keep up the good work Marchy.

[Mugwump]

Originally Posted by McGoorty

Best post I've read in weeks, it's obvious you are back in full swing Marchegiano. You write with skill and you know what you are talking about, ancient history is my favourite subject. Even Roman nobility were as tough as nails, very few men in history were tougher than men of the calibre of Gaius Julius Caesar, Gaius Marius, Quintus Sertorius, Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Marcus Porcius cato (that Cato who hated Caesar) and Lucullus. Men of iron, Caesar was a little fellow, about a Featherweight, in a bare hands fight to the death he'd KILL todays Welterweights,

Caesar was unquestionably a great general (second only to Alexander the Great, IMO) - but I don't see any evidence to suggest he was an extraordinarily gifted fighter. Ditto the rest (a ragtag bunch of tyrants, criminals and freebooters - with the possible exception of Cato). Let's not forget that the documentary evidence surrounding these characters is dubious to say the least. Historians such as Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius (especially) were forever sexing up the narrative. I recently read Caesar's own account of his campaign against the Gauls and it was the most obvious piece of propaganda designed to gain him popularity amongst the senate.

Big claims require big evidence.

[McGoorty]

Originally Posted by Mugwump

Caesar was unquestionably a great general (second only to Alexander the Great, IMO) - but I don't see any evidence to suggest he was an extraordinarily gifted fighter. Ditto the rest (a ragtag bunch of tyrants, criminals and freebooters - with the possible exception of Cato). Let's not forget that the documentary evidence surrounding these characters is dubious to say the least. Historians such as Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius (especially) were forever sexing up the narrative. I recently read Caesar's own account of his campaign against the Gauls and it was the most obvious piece of propaganda designed to gain him popularity amongst the senate.

Big claims require big evidence.

I Know a real lot about Caesar, and his commentaries indeed had a political bent to it, but he wasn't the true baddie then, the real snakes and villains were Cato's friends in the senate, it is a very complex story, and the events that brought him to the fore had their origins before he was born. There is much evidence of Caesars individual prowess as a soldier. He became a senator for the second time at just 17, he was earlier a senator as a young boy when he was the flamen Dialis, which made him automatically a senator. But, as Flamen Dialis he could never be a so;ldier, so SULLA released him from his preistly duties, and Julius was able to enter military service, no longer a senator. Apart from that position as the holiest of holies, the only way for a Patrician to become senator was to become a 30 year old and finally a man. There was one shortcut,................. the grass crown, given only to a commander of a cohort or more who not only risked his life in the most dire of situations, BUT to singlehandedly save the entire army from certain defeat into decisive victory by himself. Caesar did this at age 17 or maybe 18 at the siege of Mytilene. As a result, his own troops ( a cohort ) crowned him on the field of victory with a literal grass crown, He became a senator on the spot, not only that, but from that day onward, every time he entered the senate, every man-jack of them had to stand up and give him an ovation as per the laws of the senate,........................................... ........ .................. well this seems to be a first, a mere boy,...... and even his mortal enemies had to clap everytime the youngster came in,................. and Caesar probably rubbed their noses in it,... and may explain that streak of vanity,.................Now as for some of those others, most of them were physically superior and in pure hand to hand combat. As for Gaius Marius he is the second greatest General and soldier in Roman history and was built like a bear (Poet ?) and so was Quintus Sertorius, if you saw the bust of him, you would KNOW he was a warrior instantly, as the scar on one side of his face and the missing eye will testify,,,,, Sertorius would MANGULATE ANY MAN alive today, he was about as hard a killing machine as has ever lived, trust me, I know a little about this subject, Sertorius was also a Genius at being a General, unlike Caesar, he was not interested in politics, at least until they forced him to by declaring war on him just as they did 30 years later when the TOTAL Package came along. Julius Caesar is always bracketed with Alexander, but they had completely different circumstances, Alexander was born to power, heir to the throne. Caesar was at a disadvantage from birth, his life always under threat, He had to start from an impoverished family. Caesar climbed to the top purely through genius,....... great ability with a sword (or you'd never have ever heard of him), and unswerving belief that he was simply in a class of his own,..... and you know what ???....... HE WAS !!!!!

[Marchegiano]

LOL, look at that ****. Sir, it is you who is the asset to this forum. We are the head rattling ancients of the section I suppose. The ghosts at least must prefer us given we're their only line of defense round this *****. Holy is Apollo.

I dunno maybe I didn't communicate properly. Any Roman in charge of solders can not only box, but instruct. Caesar is no exception. In fact he was a prodigy. I don't think I've successfully communicated the importance Roman's placed on boxing. You could not move through ranks w/o boxing being part of the trial. In short no Roman general is a bad boxer. They are all top rank boxers of their time. Otherwise they'd never make it. These earth salting fellas were no joke.

[McGoorty]

Originally Posted by Marchegiano

LOL, look at that ****. Sir, it is you who is the asset to this forum. We are the head rattling ancients of the section I suppose. The ghosts at least must prefer us given we're their only line of defense round this *****. Holy is Apollo.

I dunno maybe I didn't communicate properly. Any Roman in charge of solders can not only box, but instruct. Caesar is no exception. In fact he was a prodigy. I don't think I've successfully communicated the importance Roman's placed on boxing. You could not move through ranks w/o boxing being part of the trial. In short no Roman general is a bad boxer. They are all top rank boxers of their time. Otherwise they'd never make it. These earth salting fellas were no joke.

Too right mate, Could you imagine coming face to face with Marius or Sertorius, or maybe even scarier,.... Spartacus, or that Greek who was the greatest PanKration champion of several Olympic Games. And it wasn't just Romans either. Just imagine facing down Ghenghis Khan, or those Viking Berserkers, particularly that Huge Viking That held off the Saxons on Stanford Bridge for several minutes on his own, you know the guy, the one that some clever Mercian or Wessexman floated under the bridge to stick his spear right up the Norsemans Khyber pass,.... well I don't think that guy's named has come down to us but he sounds as if he was kinsman to Hardrada, obviously he was the prime example of a Berserker. Man it was a hard world then, what with Romans, Alemmanni, Vandals, Magyars, Vikings, Angles, Marcomanni, Mongols, Tartars, Salian Franks, Parthians, Ostrogoths and other walking nightmare machines, I wonder which way one should turn,...................................... I think I'd find a cave high up in the Alps and Hide,.................... and then there was the Spanish Inquisition..

[Mugwump]

Originally Posted by McGoorty

I Know a real lot about Caesar, and his commentaries indeed had a political bent to it, but he wasn't the true baddie then, the real snakes and villains were Cato's friends in the senate, it is a very complex story, and the events that brought him to the fore had their origins before he was born. There is much evidence of Caesars individual prowess as a soldier. He became a senator for the second time at just 17, he was earlier a senator as a young boy when he was the flamen Dialis, which made him automatically a senator. But, as Flamen Dialis he could never be a so;ldier, so SULLA released him from his preistly duties, and Julius was able to enter military service, no longer a senator. Apart from that position as the holiest of holies, the only way for a Patrician to become senator was to become a 30 year old and finally a man. There was one shortcut,................. the grass crown, given only to a commander of a cohort or more who not only risked his life in the most dire of situations, BUT to singlehandedly save the entire army from certain defeat into decisive victory by himself. Caesar did this at age 17 or maybe 18 at the siege of Mytilene. As a result, his own troops ( a cohort ) crowned him on the field of victory with a literal grass crown, He became a senator on the spot, not only that, but from that day onward, every time he entered the senate, every man-jack of them had to stand up and give him an ovation as per the laws of the senate,........................................... ........ .................. well this seems to be a first, a mere boy,...... and even his mortal enemies had to clap everytime the youngster came in,................. and Caesar probably rubbed their noses in it,... and may explain that streak of vanity,.................Now as for some of those others, most of them were physically superior and in pure hand to hand combat. As for Gaius Marius he is the second greatest General and soldier in Roman history and was built like a bear (Poet ?) and so was Quintus Sertorius, if you saw the bust of him, you would KNOW he was a warrior instantly, as the scar on one side of his face and the missing eye will testify,,,,, Sertorius would MANGULATE ANY MAN alive today, he was about as hard a killing machine as has ever lived, trust me, I know a little about this subject, Sertorius was also a Genius at being a General, unlike Caesar, he was not interested in politics, at least until they forced him to by declaring war on him just as they did 30 years later when the TOTAL Package came along. Julius Caesar is always bracketed with Alexander, but they had completely different circumstances, Alexander was born to power, heir to the throne. Caesar was at a disadvantage from birth, his life always under threat, He had to start from an impoverished family. Caesar climbed to the top purely through genius,....... great ability with a sword (or you'd never have ever heard of him), and unswerving belief that he was simply in a class of his own,..... and you know what ???....... HE WAS !!!!!

A slave was disadvantaged from birth. Caesar certainly wasn't. Whilst the Julii family had hit hard times, they were nevertheless ranked as one of the most established in the patrician class with lineage stretching back into antiquity. Even without money that name had an awful lot of clout - and Caesar used every inch of it.

Look, I don't dispute the veracity of ancient Roman historians. But I do question the facts on which their evidence is based. It's impossible to know for sure whether even half of what writers such as Tacitus left for us is even remotely true. Back then historians were in no way obliged to concentrate solely on events as they happened. For instance, you'll struggle to find many instances of Roman historians disputing the maxim that Rome never fought a war for anything other than good reason.

Let's not forget that Rome around the time of Caesar was a rough place. Today in the West just about anyone can write a scathing critical history of somebody or another without fear of reprisals. Back then telling the truth (warts and all) could get you killed. Especially if your subject was a certified loonball such as Sulla, Tiberius or Caligula. Consider what happened to Cicero for having a little fun at Mark Antony's expense.

4,000 years is a long, long time. Yes, I'm sure your average Roman centurion was a formidable foe. And in a gladiatorial battle against unskilled and/or inexperienced fighters of today they would be the undoubted favourite. But in a boxing ring - where they would enter with no experience whatsoever (experience of fistfighting is NOT boxing experience) fighting against guys who have eat, drunk and slept boxing for 20 or more years) they would be soundly thrashed.

Let's not fall into the trap of thinking these guys were supermen with adamantium re-enforced bones. They were not. For all his achievements Caesar (like Alexander, Hannibal, Atilla the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Richard the Lionheart & Saladin) was a man. Flesh and blood. You think he can go toe-to-toe with a Ray Robinson or a Stanley Ketchel with no experience and leave victorious? All I can say is let me know when the fight is on and I'll wager all my points against your man.

[McGoorty]

Originally Posted by Mugwump

A slave was disadvantaged from birth. Caesar certainly wasn't. Whilst the Julii family had hit hard times, they were nevertheless ranked as one of the most established in the patrician class with lineage stretching back into antiquity. Even without money that name had an awful lot of clout - and Caesar used every inch of it.

Look, I don't dispute the veracity of ancient Roman historians. But I do question the facts on which their evidence is based. It's impossible to know for sure whether even half of what writers such as Tacitus left for us is even remotely true. Back then historians were in no way obliged to concentrate solely on events as they happened. For instance, you'll struggle to find many instances of Roman historians disputing the maxim that Rome never fought a war for anything other than good reason.

Let's not forget that Rome around the time of Caesar was a rough place. Today in the West just about anyone can write a scathing critical history of somebody or another without fear of reprisals. Back then telling the truth (warts and all) could get you killed. Especially if your subject was a certified loonball such as Sulla, Tiberius or Caligula. Consider what happened to Cicero for having a little fun at Mark Antony's expense.

4,000 years is a long, long time. Yes, I'm sure your average Roman centurion was a formidable foe. And in a gladiatorial battle against unskilled and/or inexperienced fighters of today they would be the undoubted favourite. But in a boxing ring - where they would enter with no experience whatsoever (experience of fistfighting is NOT boxing experience) fighting against guys who have eat, drunk and slept boxing for 20 or more years) they would be soundly thrashed.

Let's not fall into the trap of thinking these guys were supermen with adamantium re-enforced bones. They were not. For all his achievements Caesar (like Alexander, Hannibal, Atilla the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Richard the Lionheart & Saladin) was a man. Flesh and blood. You think he can go toe-to-toe with a Ray Robinson or a Stanley Ketchel with no experience and leave victorious? All I can say is let me know when the fight is on and I'll wager all my points against your man.

I was purely referring to the status and lack of money of Caesars family , of course he had a couple of slaves, but as a Patrician he was vastly disadvantaged, not as low as Sulla's though. For Caesar to reach the top from there was purely down to talent and energy.---- -------- It's true that roman writers always paid unfair pictures regarding their enemies,... in the Roman mind there were two people in the world, them, the superior race, and THEM. You can take Roman opinions of Barbarians or Carthaginians................... In regard to their treatment of other nations, they were truly disgracefull,...... it isn't easy to like Caesar, but he was a bit of an angel compared to his enemies, but he wasn't above using creatures like Clodius to fight other animals like Cassius and Marcus Porcius Cato,,,,,,,, or any of his forebears,,,,, if you want some evil criminals, it's hard to go past Cato's ancestor, Cato the Censor, a truly evil piece of garbage as ever lived,,,, he is the dog responsible for the extermination of Carthage,..... Or the bastard who put down Spartacus's rebellion,...... Crassus, who used the equally evil Lucius Cornelius Sulla's proscription lists to steal the wealth of tens of thousands of dead people,............... he killed them himself.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for the evidence, you must understand they were using many sources that haven't come down to us, because of Christian fanatics who burnt 90% of all the ancient books and scrolls,..........................----------------------------------------------------- although beware of the historians under the emporers, when they are referring to anything concerned with the ruling dynasty,,,,,,,,,, They are writing FOR the Caesars, and are 97% lies and propaganda. One of the best sources for information about Julius is his enemy Cicero,.......... Cicero was intensly jealous of Caesar because Caesar outshone him in virtually anything, but even Cicero admits his greatness And His CLEMENCY,............ Cicero of course tries to paint Caesar in a bad light,.... but the two of them wrote extensively to each other and many letters survive,,,,,, they are the closest way to get to know the two men................. Evidence from Republican times had bias too,,,,,,,, but at least there were two sides of politics, so we get to hear some of the story,... In closing, yes Caesar did have a bit of a disadvantage, but I can see that you know enough about him to know about some of his upbringing, and the final proof of that is the fact that he grew up in the Subura,,.... That was the bad end of town and Every nobleman looked down on the whole lot of them, especially Caesar,, they hated him bad,,............................................. he got the last laugh.