The Truth Finally Revealed: Wills ducked Dempsey!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • billeau2
    Undisputed Champion
    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
    • Jun 2012
    • 27645
    • 6,396
    • 14,933
    • 339,839

    #131
    Originally posted by Anthony342
    Why is it called the Bastard Sword?
    The design seems to have come about with no recourse to convention in any of the cutlery traditions at the time. The sword was half handle half blade, with a pomel/buckler like ball on the handle. At the time many works with a shorter weapon used a buckler, which was a small shield. The Bastard sword was again, "fatherless" as it was designed to be used with two, or one hand.

    Swords that were designed for use with no buckler, or shield tended to be longer, to give the holder more distance and again, the Bastard Sword was about coming in and shredding your man, not hanging out with a weapon of distance.

    Comment

    • billeau2
      Undisputed Champion
      Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
      • Jun 2012
      • 27645
      • 6,396
      • 14,933
      • 339,839

      #132
      Originally posted by Marchegiano
      Boxing is a few things, so when talking about one of the things that became boxing it can be difficult to speak it to any detail and not be misleading due to word choice rather than intent.

      So for this we're going to look at boxing as a sport and a martial art both separately and together. I'll do my best to use the term boxing only when it fits both the martial art and the sport and will refer boxing as a martial art as the MA and boxing as a sport as the sport.

      That said, often fans assume boxing is based off unarmed combat of some form. That's only kind of true. Modern boxing, is based on bare knuckle. Bare knuckle itself is based on dueling forms. Dueling forms, like honor duels or trial by combat, that sort of middle period BS, are based on ancient forms and those ancient forms are based on ancient warfare training for soldiers. Obviously I'm grossly oversimplifing, but for this I think that's all you really need to know about connections.

      In brief as I can, from modern Ethiopia the, you know what let's call them Ethio-Greco, move up north through Nubia and Egypt all the way into the Hellas areas. The Trojan and Greeks may not have been aware, but, they were really both Ethiopian...kinda

      Knowing TMAs like you do you already know where this is going but I may as well lay it out.

      The people I called the Ethio-Greco can't be considered modern Ethiopians or modern Greeks, they're proto people really, a people that no longer exist, they didn't take lands or overthrow kingdoms, they simply moved. What I mean to point out is even though say Axum and their neighbors had rumbles these people are pre those rumbles. They became the Greeks in Greece and the Trojans in Turkey and their people who stayed home became the Ethiopians and Egyptians and such. I want to stress how far back we're going because without a book handy I can not confidently put a BC to it.

      They didn't spread a man vs man MA as they spread across northern Africa and into Europe, but they did bring with them tools and culture. Their hunting tools become weapons in skirmishes, their cultures grew, separately, around similar tool, we gain records of their combat once culture reaches a certain peak and in those record is usually history that remembers a time before the records were possible. For details this type of stuff is usually something I'd tell someone to make a personal decision on validity because no ancient figures is actually all that proveable let alone event, but, usually when a group of people have a record of a war their enemy does too, and through that we get historical corroboration.

      I'm going to speak to Greece and Ethiopia more specifically because I know them best, but it should be understood the Hellenic people are called Hellenic for a reason, generally they have similar stories. Same goes for Africa, or what i know of Africa anyways. Egypt is kind of interesting because they're a bit caught inbetween and Nigeria is also interesting because they just kinda did their own thing, but, generally speaking, Greeks dominated their eras culturally, as did Axum, Abyssinia, Ethiopia, whatever you want to call it and Egypt was kind of a buffer between great empires which made it itself a great empire.

      I don't know if a shield came out of Ethiopia, but, I do know the evolution of sword and shield style around that area being similar to one another goes back farther than their wars and nations.

      Once the Ethio-Greecos become different people groups in different regions and do start actually having wars, be them in their own empires, or nations, or with external forces, they influence and adapt one another's technology and techniques until there is something of a standard for warfare. Not much, but a little bit.

      For the Greeks, who I'd have most familiarity with, they paid most attention to individuals rather than groups. It sounds counter intuitive now, but, the Greeks used to opposed to formations and such, opting rather to focus on individuals who could carry their armies.

      The Ethiopians would be in stark contrast, they focused on groups rather than individuals.

      This would reflect in their standards for training. The Greeks trained units of men at a time but for individual warfare. Similar to a gym.

      The Ethiopians trained their men to fight in groups as a group.

      Later, once heroes and legends were made of men and war became dogmatic, ceremonies would reflect the contrasting attitudes of Greeks and Ethiopians as well.

      The closest thing to boxing in ancient Africa are the martial arts ceremonies in honor of kings and gods. These ranges from what is basically a demo, or group demo, to sparring, or, all out fighting. What is the biggest difference and why most historians says the Africans may have been fighting but were not boxing is because from Ethiopia to Egypt champion tribes were recognized, not individuals. Well, until Egypt stopped, but that's during Rome I believe.

      As focus for the individual started to fail, the Greeks would pivot, begrudgingly, to formations, but, they did not stop training their men for individual combat and saw it as essential for surviving the battlefield.

      During this timeframe, when the Greek armies were well formed units capable of both one on one warfare and formation combat, Sparta became the legend it is now, or at least began it's legendary status. The Hellas would quickly adopt Spartan techniques throughout the regions. Spartan technology was very minimalist at the time. Sparta never produced much armor, they produced even fewer helmets. This is because most of Sparta's early history Spartans thought it was girly to wear things like armor and especially a helmet. Later, Spartans would be allowed to wear helmets into combat but Sparta was already way behind in years of branding. By the time the Spartans wear helmets they usually wear Corinthian helmets and think of Spartan helmets as junk.

      Lacking a helmet the Spartan soldiers had devised a training to prepare themselves for taking blows to the head without a helmet. This training is the birth of boxing in my opinion. Some historians give that distinction to the first people they can prove organized a fight, some historians claim it's when boxing became an olympic sport. I believe it's exactly as Pasaunius, who I believe is the first historian to make a claim, says; when the Spartans developed their training for fighting with a sword and shield and no helmet they invented boxing. That's be 'round 10kBC I believe.

      Either way, this training would impress the rest of Greece and the training would be adopted in some fashion or another throughout Greece.

      It was simple enough, the man on....let's call it chin, is meant to receive blows. It's important to remember what they're training for, it isn't just to win fights, it's to kill a man wielding things like swords, axes, spears, maces, etc without anything for defense but a shield. The man on chin takes blows until he is KO'd. So, how does he win a contest? He wins simply by taking more blow than the man on punch can give. The man on 'punch' punches until he can no longer punch. The way he wins is by KO'ing the man on chin. Everyone gets KO'd unless no man can KO them and everyone gets punched out unless they've gone through everyone available.

      All throughout Greece this became a standard for soldiers. To be trained in boxing was an honor. As to it's effectiveness, according to historians Spartans were for a period the only people able to take an axe to the dome without a helmet. This is what made them so terrifying and impressive. A man, with an axe in his head, that keeps coming....yeah. Of course tech would catch up and they would be forced into helmets by better molding and alloys, but, for a time, Spartans were the only human beings to headbutt their opponent's best shot and get away with it.

      Having system where men prove their readiness for battles by punching until they're punched out or taking punches until no man can punch them breeds the idea the best should train against the best. From there men would make predictions. These became a source of city pride and the empire took notice inter empire warring could be limited by organizing fights between the best trained soldier from one place against one from another and bop, ****, boom, pride wars are fewer.

      This really took off and cause the rupture between MA and sport. Athletes are not soldiers, soldiers can part-time as athletes, but, once you make a competition, about ethnic or cultural pride, you've incentivised a culture into allowing a class of person to train but never go to war. That class, lives differently and develops into boxers. The soldiers continue to evolve with technology.

      Interestingly, you will never hear of a Spartan Olympian because during the rise of the athlete class the Spartans realized the sport form of boxing was no longer to their liking. The other Greeks included quitting into their rules. Not just included, but to save time, encouraged it. Spartans were criticized for not quitting not matter how clearly overmatched they were. Sparta would back their man seeing his refusal to quit as good Spartan values and this caused cultural conflict between the states, the opposite of the imperial purpose. So Sparta officially banned their people for participating in non-Spartan events like the Panhellenic Games. The local Spartan games are interesting, they're keeping up with the times, as far as techniques and trainings, but their awards are regional.

      Boxing becomes more popular, gets made into an Olympic sport, and finally some standardized training is written down. Going back to 'chin' and 'punch', I did not mention the types of punches because I don't know for sure.

      In Olympic boxing there is not confusion, the MA used by the sport is based on sword and shield warfare. Hence sword and shield boxing. The left hand is your shield, it's used for shieldy things like crowding, pushing, bumping, disorientating, knocking off balance, and ****ing with line of sight. The sword is your right hand. It's meant to be hidden and only flashes in and out of the fray. Its objective it to deliver the deathblow. The sword is not meant to **** around, that's the shield's job.

      From this you get subtle differences is how a man does a simple thing like a jab. Anyone who knows even a little TMA knows MAs of any kind are really all about subtly not actually the flashy ****. Keeping with the jab, if you know a jolt you already know the difference between a shield jab and a dagger jab. The shield jab could be called thumping, it's a full in, leaning forward kind of bop that doesn't look for any kind of snap but rather a powerful force that if it doesn't hurt still disorientates and mucks with sight.

      But, what's really important to a sword and shield based boxer is posturing and footwork. People say Marciano had clumsy feet, and he kind of did but really anyone who is doing what he's attempting is going to look ****** a lot before they look good, and if you're looking for him to take steps without breaking modern boxing rules for footwork then he's not going to get many good marks, but, what Marciano is doing is classic. it is just an aggressive form of running actually. No one give Ali **** for crossing his feet as he runs backwards because he's so far ahead of the guy, but people give Rock **** for stepping in improperly even though he ****s the other guy up. He's crossing his feet more than say Tyson or Frazier because it invites the opponent to try to take advantage of his balance. Which is one of the more clever bits of sword and shield. To present oneself as lacking balance only to use incredible grounded and flat feet to win in the end. Flying across the ring invites a man to wait and attack the opening. Which gives a guy like Rock an opportunity to make them watch for one thing and get ****** by another.

      I ran outta time. To Be Continued!
      More More! That was very informative. Shoulder Roll thank you for the brief intro showing these concepts with a pic.

      A key concept here is creating the illusion of incompetance. Its in the Japanese arts. One such art uses angles that look "off" and amatuerish to trick the opponent into various traps. Sounds like a viable strategy in the scenarios you describe.

      Also interesting how boxing a la the modern form took to distinguishing the lead hand and the power hand. Its illogical to hold your power hand behind... Sword and shield type dynamics come from a different perspective, or so it seems from what you said.

      Comment

      • QueensburyRules
        Undisputed Champion
        Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
        • May 2018
        • 21799
        • 2,348
        • 17
        • 187,708

        #133
        - -Lotta speculative mumbo jumbo.

        Human nature guarantees conflict, but also curiosity, hence immemorial cycles of War and Peace.

        The fist, the choke, the bite, and the trip and/or throw down had to have been the earliest tools of preweaponry.

        The club which was either branch that later evolved into the Lance/Spearthe rock, and fire were the earliest weapons, but note animal including human thigh ones are the first archeological evidence of weapons located in South Africa that is also the earliest evidence of cannibolism.

        Also if you know anything about human and animal predatory behavior, the instinctive methodology embued in their genes is stealth and ambush as taking on any large predator capable of killing with a forward assualt is too risky. As with any predator there are rare exceptions.

        Comment

        • Marchegiano
          Banned
          Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
          • Aug 2010
          • 12209
          • 1,790
          • 2,307
          • 165,288

          #134
          Originally posted by QueensburyRules
          - -Lotta speculative mumbo jumbo.

          Human nature guarantees conflict, but also curiosity, hence immemorial cycles of War and Peace.

          The fist, the choke, the bite, and the trip and/or throw down had to have been the earliest tools of preweaponry.

          The club which was either branch that later evolved into the Lance/Spearthe rock, and fire were the earliest weapons, but note animal including human thigh ones are the first archeological evidence of weapons located in South Africa that is also the earliest evidence of cannibolism.

          Also if you know anything about human and animal predatory behavior, the instinctive methodology embued in their genes is stealth and ambush as taking on any large predator capable of killing with a forward assualt is too risky. As with any predator there are rare exceptions.
          I don't think you read what I had written. Nothing here argues with anything I wrote, it's just written as if it does argue with something I wrote....but it doesn't....so I have to assume you skimmed and didn't really pick up what I was saying.

          I tried to go out of my way to be clear, we are following the earliest history connected to boxing, not the earliest history of fighting or anything else.

          As far as hunting goes....I didn't even speak to how anyone hunted I spoke to the tools they carried. The point was shielding was older than war for the people groups.

          I defined war as between nation states and categorized pre-nation conflicts as skirmishes.


          Cycles of war and peace....yep...covered that.

          Not the first form of any kind of combat, yes, covered that.

          Hunting techniques vary, not important info to the lesson.


          However, that final paragraph of yours is hogwash and bull****. You don't know what you're talking about and you gave that away the second you tried to speak to any detail at all. Cycles of war and peace is some vague ****, but, stealth hunting....less so.

          There are two very popular forms of armed hunting coming from the region. There is taking **** from predators. There is no stealth, you're meant to scare the lion off it's kill.

          And there is running them to exhaustion. Man can outrun any terrestrial animal in a distance race, they simply track the animal until it's too tired to carry on and kill it while it rests.

          neither of which have anything to do with stealth.

          Hunting became a stealth game later. I could have covered that, but, this is about boxing not every logical nit pick some jerk who never opened a book may think discredits my history.

          Comment

          • Marchegiano
            Banned
            Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
            • Aug 2010
            • 12209
            • 1,790
            • 2,307
            • 165,288

            #135
            Originally posted by billeau2
            More More! That was very informative. Shoulder Roll thank you for the brief intro showing these concepts with a pic.

            A key concept here is creating the illusion of incompetance. Its in the Japanese arts. One such art uses angles that look "off" and amatuerish to trick the opponent into various traps. Sounds like a viable strategy in the scenarios you describe.

            Also interesting how boxing a la the modern form took to distinguishing the lead hand and the power hand. Its illogical to hold your power hand behind... Sword and shield type dynamics come from a different perspective, or so it seems from what you said.
            Exactly.

            Greeks knew what veterans of war looked for and did their best to guile their opponents into believing they're seeing it.

            Yeah, I'm getting to bare knuckle soonish, that's where sword and shield really comes in to its own as a style rather than simple how people boxed period, but yes, it's all in subtle changes. Without any info one would see a SS fighter as simply a bad boxer but I'm not actually saying anything new with that so I have to explain it and to explain it I have to bring narrative to it.

            Comment

            • Rusty Tromboni
              Banned
              Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
              • Dec 2018
              • 4353
              • 70
              • 103
              • 116,487

              #136
              Originally posted by ShoulderRoll
              Marciano got a late start in the sport. There is no way he could match Dempsey who was fighting for survival since he was a teenager.



              "Jack Dempsey, I’m convinced, was our greatest heavyweight champion. In his prime, when he knocked out Jess Willard to win the title in 1919, he would have taken the four leading heavyweights of today – Jersey Joe Walcott, Rocky Marciano, Harry (Kid) Matthews and Ezzard Charles – and flattened them all in one night.

              “These four men are honest, earnest, capable professionals. If they are not touched with ring genius, neither are they stumblebums. So I do not mean to deprecate them when I say Dempsey would have levelled them all in the same evening as follows: Matthews, two rounds. Charles, two rounds. Walcott, five rounds. Marciano, one round.

              “A total of ten rounds. Even then, I don’t consider I’m giving Dempsey any the best of it. He might have demolished each of the four in less than one round. He was eminently equipped to do it. He had many championship gifts, including a great fighting heart and the ability to absorb a tremendous punch and recuperate astonishingly fast.

              “He learned his trade the hard way against fighters of all sizes, shape and brands from mining camp, deadfall and dance hall to huge arena and stadium."

              --Gene Tunney




              "Dempsey would have absolutely beaten any fighter who came after him – without a doubt. I know all about Joe Louis and how he knocked guys’ teeth out. I have every respect for Joe – I rate him number two. But Dempsey would have killed Louis, George Foreman, any of those guys. What Jack had was God-given – you can’t develop the kind of talent he had.

              “Marciano? Same result. Dempsey would have murdered Rocky. I tell you, Jack would have chased everyone out of the ring. I trained Max Baer a couple of times and often got asked how good that booming right of his was and whether it was as good as anything Dempsey had. Are you kidding? It wasn’t even close."

              --Ray Arcel
              Nice post, Safe Spaces!


              Originally posted by travestyny
              Apparently you can't read. You admit to being wrong after I spanked you like a newborn!

              "I don't believe it anymore." Yea, because I dragged your dumbass in front of everyone here and beat the truth into you!!! LMAO

              DO you want more? Because I can give you more, imbecile










              Explain how it had nothing to do with racism when you are claiming that he refused to fight him on equal terms to a white man


              Oh, and show that proof of Tunney being a racist. Or were you wrong



              Only you backtracked, son. That's why when I offered you a permanent ban bet on it, you suddenly forgot to answer my post. LMAOOOO. Ducking a black man, are you Rusty
              Yup. Again, nothing.

              You got nothing.

              Except of course that bit where you proved Sullivan DID offer Jackson a fight, but Jackson balked at the terms.


              Originally posted by Marchegiano
              Boxing is a few things, so when talking about one of the things that became boxing it can be difficult to speak it to any detail and not be misleading due to word choice rather than intent.

              So for this we're going to look at boxing as a sport and a martial art both separately and together. I'll do my best to use the term boxing only when it fits both the martial art and the sport and will refer boxing as a martial art as the MA and boxing as a sport as the sport.

              That said, often fans assume boxing is based off unarmed combat of some form. That's only kind of true. Modern boxing, is based on bare knuckle. Bare knuckle itself is based on dueling forms. Dueling forms, like honor duels or trial by combat, that sort of middle period BS, are based on ancient forms and those ancient forms are based on ancient warfare training for soldiers. Obviously I'm grossly oversimplifing, but for this I think that's all you really need to know about connections.

              In brief as I can, from modern Ethiopia the, you know what let's call them Ethio-Greco, move up north through Nubia and Egypt all the way into the Hellas areas. The Trojan and Greeks may not have been aware, but, they were really both Ethiopian...kinda

              Knowing TMAs like you do you already know where this is going but I may as well lay it out.

              The people I called the Ethio-Greco can't be considered modern Ethiopians or modern Greeks, they're proto people really, a people that no longer exist, they didn't take lands or overthrow kingdoms, they simply moved. What I mean to point out is even though say Axum and their neighbors had rumbles these people are pre those rumbles. They became the Greeks in Greece and the Trojans in Turkey and their people who stayed home became the Ethiopians and Egyptians and such. I want to stress how far back we're going because without a book handy I can not confidently put a BC to it.

              They didn't spread a man vs man MA as they spread across northern Africa and into Europe, but they did bring with them tools and culture. Their hunting tools become weapons in skirmishes, their cultures grew, separately, around similar tool, we gain records of their combat once culture reaches a certain peak and in those record is usually history that remembers a time before the records were possible. For details this type of stuff is usually something I'd tell someone to make a personal decision on validity because no ancient figures is actually all that proveable let alone event, but, usually when a group of people have a record of a war their enemy does too, and through that we get historical corroboration.

              I'm going to speak to Greece and Ethiopia more specifically because I know them best, but it should be understood the Hellenic people are called Hellenic for a reason, generally they have similar stories. Same goes for Africa, or what i know of Africa anyways. Egypt is kind of interesting because they're a bit caught inbetween and Nigeria is also interesting because they just kinda did their own thing, but, generally speaking, Greeks dominated their eras culturally, as did Axum, Abyssinia, Ethiopia, whatever you want to call it and Egypt was kind of a buffer between great empires which made it itself a great empire.

              I don't know if a shield came out of Ethiopia, but, I do know the evolution of sword and shield style around that area being similar to one another goes back farther than their wars and nations.

              Once the Ethio-Greecos become different people groups in different regions and do start actually having wars, be them in their own empires, or nations, or with external forces, they influence and adapt one another's technology and techniques until there is something of a standard for warfare. Not much, but a little bit.

              For the Greeks, who I'd have most familiarity with, they paid most attention to individuals rather than groups. It sounds counter intuitive now, but, the Greeks used to opposed to formations and such, opting rather to focus on individuals who could carry their armies.

              The Ethiopians would be in stark contrast, they focused on groups rather than individuals.

              This would reflect in their standards for training. The Greeks trained units of men at a time but for individual warfare. Similar to a gym.

              The Ethiopians trained their men to fight in groups as a group.

              Later, once heroes and legends were made of men and war became dogmatic, ceremonies would reflect the contrasting attitudes of Greeks and Ethiopians as well.

              The closest thing to boxing in ancient Africa are the martial arts ceremonies in honor of kings and gods. These ranges from what is basically a demo, or group demo, to sparring, or, all out fighting. What is the biggest difference and why most historians says the Africans may have been fighting but were not boxing is because from Ethiopia to Egypt champion tribes were recognized, not individuals. Well, until Egypt stopped, but that's during Rome I believe.

              As focus for the individual started to fail, the Greeks would pivot, begrudgingly, to formations, but, they did not stop training their men for individual combat and saw it as essential for surviving the battlefield.

              During this timeframe, when the Greek armies were well formed units capable of both one on one warfare and formation combat, Sparta became the legend it is now, or at least began it's legendary status. The Hellas would quickly adopt Spartan techniques throughout the regions. Spartan technology was very minimalist at the time. Sparta never produced much armor, they produced even fewer helmets. This is because most of Sparta's early history Spartans thought it was girly to wear things like armor and especially a helmet. Later, Spartans would be allowed to wear helmets into combat but Sparta was already way behind in years of branding. By the time the Spartans wear helmets they usually wear Corinthian helmets and think of Spartan helmets as junk.

              Lacking a helmet the Spartan soldiers had devised a training to prepare themselves for taking blows to the head without a helmet. This training is the birth of boxing in my opinion. Some historians give that distinction to the first people they can prove organized a fight, some historians claim it's when boxing became an olympic sport. I believe it's exactly as Pasaunius, who I believe is the first historian to make a claim, says; when the Spartans developed their training for fighting with a sword and shield and no helmet they invented boxing. That's be 'round 10kBC I believe.

              Either way, this training would impress the rest of Greece and the training would be adopted in some fashion or another throughout Greece.

              It was simple enough, the man on....let's call it chin, is meant to receive blows. It's important to remember what they're training for, it isn't just to win fights, it's to kill a man wielding things like swords, axes, spears, maces, etc without anything for defense but a shield. The man on chin takes blows until he is KO'd. So, how does he win a contest? He wins simply by taking more blow than the man on punch can give. The man on 'punch' punches until he can no longer punch. The way he wins is by KO'ing the man on chin. Everyone gets KO'd unless no man can KO them and everyone gets punched out unless they've gone through everyone available.

              All throughout Greece this became a standard for soldiers. To be trained in boxing was an honor. As to it's effectiveness, according to historians Spartans were for a period the only people able to take an axe to the dome without a helmet. This is what made them so terrifying and impressive. A man, with an axe in his head, that keeps coming....yeah. Of course tech would catch up and they would be forced into helmets by better molding and alloys, but, for a time, Spartans were the only human beings to headbutt their opponent's best shot and get away with it.

              Having system where men prove their readiness for battles by punching until they're punched out or taking punches until no man can punch them breeds the idea the best should train against the best. From there men would make predictions. These became a source of....
              To Be Continued!
              I'm impressed. Not only at your ability to make sh.it up. But your ability to ramble on ad infinitum.

              Billeau tells interesting, if inaccurate, stories.

              Auntie Maxine fabricates an alternate reality.

              You've created your own universe.
              Last edited by Rusty Tromboni; 04-04-2020, 11:27 AM.

              Comment

              • travestyny
                Banned
                Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                • Sep 2008
                • 29125
                • 4,962
                • 9,405
                • 4,074,546

                #137
                Originally posted by Rusty Tromboni
                Except of course that bit where you proved Sullivan DID offer Jackson a fight, but Jackson balked at the terms.
                Ohh really? What was that?

                The old, let's just have a private scrap in a basement with winner take all and never let anyone know what happened. Not for the title, of course?


                lol. As pathetic as you ducking me

                Comment

                • QueensburyRules
                  Undisputed Champion
                  Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                  • May 2018
                  • 21799
                  • 2,348
                  • 17
                  • 187,708

                  #138
                  Originally posted by Marchegiano
                  I don't think you read what I had written. Nothing here argues with anything I wrote, it's just written as if it does argue with something I wrote....but it doesn't....so I have to assume you skimmed and didn't really pick up what I was saying.

                  I tried to go out of my way to be clear, we are following the earliest history connected to boxing, not the earliest history of fighting or anything else.

                  As far as hunting goes....I didn't even speak to how anyone hunted I spoke to the tools they carried. The point was shielding was older than war for the people groups.

                  I defined war as between nation states and categorized pre-nation conflicts as skirmishes.


                  Cycles of war and peace....yep...covered that.

                  Not the first form of any kind of combat, yes, covered that.

                  Hunting techniques vary, not important info to the lesson.


                  However, that final paragraph of yours is hogwash and bull****. You don't know what you're talking about and you gave that away the second you tried to speak to any detail at all. Cycles of war and peace is some vague ****, but, stealth hunting....less so.

                  There are two very popular forms of armed hunting coming from the region. There is taking **** from predators. There is no stealth, you're meant to scare the lion off it's kill.

                  And there is running them to exhaustion. Man can outrun any terrestrial animal in a distance race, they simply track the animal until it's too tired to carry on and kill it while it rests.

                  neither of which have anything to do with stealth.

                  Hunting became a stealth game later. I could have covered that, but, this is about boxing not every logical nit pick some jerk who never opened a book may think discredits my history.
                  - -U aced the "U don't think" part magnificently, but blathering about undocumented Ethiopians migrating all the way to Greece without leaving a record save your fantasy pure bunkum.

                  The areas of what is now the states of Ethiopia and Kenya the earliest traceable origins of hominids that ultimately became mankind that spread across N Africa before migrating via the then Suez isthmus 100k years ago.

                  The first weapon appears in SAfrica over 2 mil yrs ago via hominids that mysteriously appear without a trace.

                  Ain't no weakling 80 lb hominids driving off a pride of lions feasting on a fresh kill clubs or not. Yeah, even U could drive off the post scavenger buzzards without weapons, big whoop-whoop!

                  The fact that Ethiopians had friezes depicting proto boxers in ancient times as they became empires is irrefutable.

                  What is refutable is your nonsense. I'm talking basic instincts that can be demonstrated in many untrained very young children whereas U gab about perceptions of stinkability logic.

                  Comment

                  • Rusty Tromboni
                    Banned
                    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                    • Dec 2018
                    • 4353
                    • 70
                    • 103
                    • 116,487

                    #139
                    Originally posted by QueensburyRules
                    - -Lotta speculative mumbo jumbo.

                    Human nature guarantees conflict, but also curiosity, hence immemorial cycles of War and Peace.

                    The fist, the choke, the bite, and the trip and/or throw down had to have been the earliest tools of preweaponry.

                    The club which was either branch that later evolved into the Lance/Spearthe rock, and fire were the earliest weapons, but note animal including human thigh ones are the first archeological evidence of weapons located in South Africa that is also the earliest evidence of cannibolism.

                    Also if you know anything about human and animal predatory behavior, the instinctive methodology embued in their genes is stealth and ambush as taking on any large predator capable of killing with a forward assualt is too risky. As with any predator there are rare exceptions.
                    You do realize he's on the spectrum, right?

                    Just be thankful he's not interested in making mail bombs. You'd be top of his list.

                    Comment

                    • billeau2
                      Undisputed Champion
                      Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                      • Jun 2012
                      • 27645
                      • 6,396
                      • 14,933
                      • 339,839

                      #140
                      Originally posted by Marchegiano
                      Exactly.

                      Greeks knew what veterans of war looked for and did their best to guile their opponents into believing they're seeing it.

                      Yeah, I'm getting to bare knuckle soonish, that's where sword and shield really comes in to its own as a style rather than simple how people boxed period, but yes, it's all in subtle changes. Without any info one would see a SS fighter as simply a bad boxer but I'm not actually saying anything new with that so I have to explain it and to explain it I have to bring narrative to it.
                      I have found in my own travails that when you start to look at some of the gifted practicioners, historians, and those who are willing to look carefully, you find that there is a constant: If I had to encapsulate it this is what I would say...

                      Violence itself is random. We can never prepare for exactly what every single encounter will bring... Consequently when we train, we are trying to train as specifically for the circumstances as we can do, knowing that some things will happen randomly, and some things will allow us to use our training. Because we have to train for the specific, any set of principles, any art, any approach will always look shabby compared to other such comparables, designed for a specific environment at hand. So, the older forms of boxing we see pre Dempsey look silly on film at times because they were training to do different things, with different gloves, and different rules...

                      The best example of turning this principle on its head comes from one of my favorite people, Rory Miller. A guy who has been a prison guard supervisor in a bad prison for many years... He trained in a classical Japanese Art, one that most modern stylists would scoff at regarding combat skills "the way people fight these days" to quote the peanut gallery. The thing is Miller simply takes the art and adapts it to the situation he needs it for. It proves that its always what we train for and not the art we use per se.

                      Bare Knuckle has entirely different considerations. As a bouncer for many years I have seen countless boxers break their hands in fights. People also tend not to understand what happens when you hit someone in the forehead with no adjustment to the hand position... All that is required is to hit a little farther back towards the back of the forehead and use one knuckle at a medium speed and the results are much improved.

                      Soldgers know how to fight using training and this is a big plus. China is kind of special in actually developing civilian arts that became useful in comprehensive combative conditions. Japan likewise, except that the arts were still controlled by the Samurai elite families. People look at Moreshiba this kind whittle ole man who made Aikido to not hurt people...they do not realize that younger Morhei was a killer! His teacher same thing Sakeda could cut a man from earline to waistline in a New York minute.

                      I think in the Western world we have a much more colorful history of dueling arts. Fighting was engendered as a form of social Noble Oblesque. Killing was a consequence and not an intended result of maintaining one's social position.

                      Thank you for the research!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      TOP