Tweet
James Figg, not once, actually defended his title in the ring. Back then champion meant best but also representative and expert. It was an after-the-fact award not unlike IBHOF.
So James Figg having never once defended his title is a given. If semantics are not bent or twisted and by modern meaning he would no more defend that than Ali can defend his induction into HOF.
However, boxing fans and historical curators are a curious bunch. Boxing loves post dated championships. It is argued to be the single most important championship, along with semantic verbiage, by not one, two, some, or even most of my favorite and most respected boxing minds, be them poster or author, but rather the one thing I can confidently say unites all of you.
So, does one look to Figg by the card or by the list? What is criteria, and also sorry if you're not quick with Shakespeare and those references lose you but I do believe context alone tells you I am asking do I categorize champions by their era's terms or yours?
This dual nature along with the severity of vehement emotional connection to narratives told by those invested in some way or another, I do mean you mister Pollack and Dunnellon, makes a mind field for those of us who learned historical research through the classic route and found boxing the most interesting section of history.
So honestly, yes, I know, I write controversial stuff based on sources and facts. I don't properly understand why though to be honest.
To the point where I feel the need to preamble solid and well researched history with a kumbaya bull**** disclaimer that pretty scathingly explains I do not mean to hurt your feelings dear reader. I don't even really think it is me to blame for it.
If one is to look to the Figg era for the best man at the time it would be Figg himself who, by any account at all, would be judge. His students, in a line of hey watch my best kid beat up last year's best kid until after his death.
His first student, a champion of England in every regard I can think to measure outside of recognition by past historians who very much did know his story, Bob Whitaker, would be first to be put on display by Figg.
Robby would be up against a man whose name still escapes me but I promise it isn't the Tito that floats around. The venetian gondolier who would in a manner represent Pungi going up against Pugilism.
The Venetian would be disqualified by Figg and his Whitaker crowned champion of England.
The foreigner didn't leave us a name worth mention by English press, but they did mention his quote:
"No man who was ever born outside of English soil will experience English 'Fair Play'"
Coolio, whatever, not really that big a deal is it? Well, yeah, kinda.
After Figg dies the Figg surviving student have a bit of a civil war over who gets to rate and crown and show boxing.
Broughton won that and honestly Jack Broughton and the era in which boxing looked to Jack, his rules, his expertise, etc, was pretty fair.
Fair enough for the English crown Irish champions
You know, until the fancipants English were like **** that.
Then all of a sudden you had to be English enough to be champion.
At first as a hushed conspiracy but later on more of an open secret
Mendoza becomes champion really by way of star power and a lack of interest in boxing prior.
John Jackson becomes champion by forging a conspiracy to replace the very much English champion born in London with an even more English champion in himself.
Their fight is a farce and I've never seen anyone claim otherwise tbh. Jackson cheats until Mendoza accepts they will not let him win.
Afterward Daniel would speak to how he had antagonized the christians and expected worse and earlier in his career so he was happy to retired when Jackson forced him.
Jackson too would retire and form a pugilistic society for controlling the English championship.
During this time it is perfectible acceptable to cheat to win so long as who you are cheating is not English, Christian, and/or fully able bodied.
During this time Irishmen would beat champions only to have matches restarted, mobs attack them, venues be ransacked, and coded right in the rules you'll find all these things illegal but should they happen the ref is to make an honest determination of who was winning. You know, rather than foul the infraction like every single one of the other infractions such as flopping or biting are fouled.
Molyneaux is probably the most famous of these but Cribb is hardly the most egregious case.
Cribb, once done being champion hands his title to Spring. No fight. Kids call them email champions now.
Cribb trained Spring in more ways than just fighting and it wouldn't have been seen as anything but a farce to pass the title to his mentee so Cribb just held a ceremony and gave the title to Spring.
Spring's fight consist of winning through gang violence. Spring hardly was getting the better of any man before the ring gets stormed, something mind made okay by Jackson, and Spring is restored. Much like how Cribb had to face Moly twice because the cheating was so apparent and unabashed, wanton was the word of the era, Spring too had to pull doubles on Jack Langan. Langan would knock Spring out no less than three times before losing to mobs of over 100 men being injured let alone fighting.
There is that at least. There is no story of the English being nationalistic without the English also being the ones who refuse to put up with that ****. Not saying there wasn't Irish lad in the crowds just that the English as a whole are not to blame and I only use the term for lacking a better identifier.
Spring's star pupil Jem Ward has little time for pretense.
He buys the title from the only man with any claim post Spring, Cannon, in a widely known fixed fight.
Loses the only fair fight he has as champion but no one really recognizes it
then proceeds to put on fixed fights while avoiding anyone with the backing or integrity to force a fair fight by claiming openly the challengers are not English enough. Despite the main antagonist being very much English. Be put his student, and the man he defended his title against, against Burke and that got him killed.
So much so the avoided men had to fight to establish a disputed title that really isn't settled until the English are ready to call Sullivan world champion.
So, John Jackson set out with the explicit intent on keeping the English title on English boxers. Worked for almost a century before it imploded on itself and forced prestige elsewhere.
It is curious how the Irish have been sidelined. Still. They seem a super important entity through boxing history. We like to play like it was just US+England white christians and that's kind of true if all you do is scan paper for results but if you read the injustices the only reason the results are what they are is because Irish, ***s, and Blacks did not get a fair chance to box until well after their respective height of boxing in the culture.
That is to say the colorline is one thing. 1966 America is another.
There was a line before the color line. I dare say as much as it caused US and World boxing to exist it also inspired and gave genesis to said color line. The English line if you will. Must be English enough to be champion.
I breaks up in fragments and spots at variant times just like the colorline too.
Irish and ***s were allowed some success sure, some, but most got mob beaten for the few who were allowed to win. Molyneaux only got his ass kicked so badly by the mob because Jackson-Mendoza, okayed by the upper class. Encouraged even.
So James Figg having never once defended his title is a given. If semantics are not bent or twisted and by modern meaning he would no more defend that than Ali can defend his induction into HOF.
However, boxing fans and historical curators are a curious bunch. Boxing loves post dated championships. It is argued to be the single most important championship, along with semantic verbiage, by not one, two, some, or even most of my favorite and most respected boxing minds, be them poster or author, but rather the one thing I can confidently say unites all of you.
So, does one look to Figg by the card or by the list? What is criteria, and also sorry if you're not quick with Shakespeare and those references lose you but I do believe context alone tells you I am asking do I categorize champions by their era's terms or yours?
This dual nature along with the severity of vehement emotional connection to narratives told by those invested in some way or another, I do mean you mister Pollack and Dunnellon, makes a mind field for those of us who learned historical research through the classic route and found boxing the most interesting section of history.
So honestly, yes, I know, I write controversial stuff based on sources and facts. I don't properly understand why though to be honest.
To the point where I feel the need to preamble solid and well researched history with a kumbaya bull**** disclaimer that pretty scathingly explains I do not mean to hurt your feelings dear reader. I don't even really think it is me to blame for it.
If one is to look to the Figg era for the best man at the time it would be Figg himself who, by any account at all, would be judge. His students, in a line of hey watch my best kid beat up last year's best kid until after his death.
His first student, a champion of England in every regard I can think to measure outside of recognition by past historians who very much did know his story, Bob Whitaker, would be first to be put on display by Figg.
Robby would be up against a man whose name still escapes me but I promise it isn't the Tito that floats around. The venetian gondolier who would in a manner represent Pungi going up against Pugilism.
The Venetian would be disqualified by Figg and his Whitaker crowned champion of England.
The foreigner didn't leave us a name worth mention by English press, but they did mention his quote:
"No man who was ever born outside of English soil will experience English 'Fair Play'"
Coolio, whatever, not really that big a deal is it? Well, yeah, kinda.
After Figg dies the Figg surviving student have a bit of a civil war over who gets to rate and crown and show boxing.
Broughton won that and honestly Jack Broughton and the era in which boxing looked to Jack, his rules, his expertise, etc, was pretty fair.
Fair enough for the English crown Irish champions
You know, until the fancipants English were like **** that.
Then all of a sudden you had to be English enough to be champion.
At first as a hushed conspiracy but later on more of an open secret
Mendoza becomes champion really by way of star power and a lack of interest in boxing prior.
John Jackson becomes champion by forging a conspiracy to replace the very much English champion born in London with an even more English champion in himself.
Their fight is a farce and I've never seen anyone claim otherwise tbh. Jackson cheats until Mendoza accepts they will not let him win.
Afterward Daniel would speak to how he had antagonized the christians and expected worse and earlier in his career so he was happy to retired when Jackson forced him.
Jackson too would retire and form a pugilistic society for controlling the English championship.
During this time it is perfectible acceptable to cheat to win so long as who you are cheating is not English, Christian, and/or fully able bodied.
During this time Irishmen would beat champions only to have matches restarted, mobs attack them, venues be ransacked, and coded right in the rules you'll find all these things illegal but should they happen the ref is to make an honest determination of who was winning. You know, rather than foul the infraction like every single one of the other infractions such as flopping or biting are fouled.
Molyneaux is probably the most famous of these but Cribb is hardly the most egregious case.
Cribb, once done being champion hands his title to Spring. No fight. Kids call them email champions now.
Cribb trained Spring in more ways than just fighting and it wouldn't have been seen as anything but a farce to pass the title to his mentee so Cribb just held a ceremony and gave the title to Spring.
Spring's fight consist of winning through gang violence. Spring hardly was getting the better of any man before the ring gets stormed, something mind made okay by Jackson, and Spring is restored. Much like how Cribb had to face Moly twice because the cheating was so apparent and unabashed, wanton was the word of the era, Spring too had to pull doubles on Jack Langan. Langan would knock Spring out no less than three times before losing to mobs of over 100 men being injured let alone fighting.
There is that at least. There is no story of the English being nationalistic without the English also being the ones who refuse to put up with that ****. Not saying there wasn't Irish lad in the crowds just that the English as a whole are not to blame and I only use the term for lacking a better identifier.
Spring's star pupil Jem Ward has little time for pretense.
He buys the title from the only man with any claim post Spring, Cannon, in a widely known fixed fight.
Loses the only fair fight he has as champion but no one really recognizes it
then proceeds to put on fixed fights while avoiding anyone with the backing or integrity to force a fair fight by claiming openly the challengers are not English enough. Despite the main antagonist being very much English. Be put his student, and the man he defended his title against, against Burke and that got him killed.
So much so the avoided men had to fight to establish a disputed title that really isn't settled until the English are ready to call Sullivan world champion.
So, John Jackson set out with the explicit intent on keeping the English title on English boxers. Worked for almost a century before it imploded on itself and forced prestige elsewhere.
It is curious how the Irish have been sidelined. Still. They seem a super important entity through boxing history. We like to play like it was just US+England white christians and that's kind of true if all you do is scan paper for results but if you read the injustices the only reason the results are what they are is because Irish, ***s, and Blacks did not get a fair chance to box until well after their respective height of boxing in the culture.
That is to say the colorline is one thing. 1966 America is another.
There was a line before the color line. I dare say as much as it caused US and World boxing to exist it also inspired and gave genesis to said color line. The English line if you will. Must be English enough to be champion.
I breaks up in fragments and spots at variant times just like the colorline too.
Irish and ***s were allowed some success sure, some, but most got mob beaten for the few who were allowed to win. Molyneaux only got his ass kicked so badly by the mob because Jackson-Mendoza, okayed by the upper class. Encouraged even.
Marchegiano
Uh, it doesn't even make sense to come back with either of those criticism.
Comment