Where Did Boxing Originate From?

[The plunger man]

The name boxing was drawn up in England late 1600’s
Marquess of Queensbury was the founder of boxing as we know it today and he came along and put rules in place.
There were other gladiator sports way before but not as we know it now , in fact I am sure cavemen were probably dukeing it out over a woolly mammoth tusk many moons ago.

[Marchegiano]

I appreciate you taking the time to scan it.

Is that the Minoan armored boxer that you were referring to? The one you said was our first or oldest bit of evidence for fist fighting?

Yep, it's in the introduction of the chapter if you have it.

I call it Minoan because of geography, I mean I don't know what culture is associated with him, but other than that there are no caveats coming to mind.

[ShoulderRoll]

Yep, it's in the introduction of the chapter if you have it.

I call it Minoan because of geography, I mean I don't know what culture is associated with him, but other than that there are no caveats coming to mind.

And you concede that Poliakoff dates it to 1500 B.C.E?

Meaning it comes a good deal after the two separate terra cotta depictions of Mesopotamian boxers that I posted?

[billeau2]

We cannot say when fist fighting came into being for human beings.

We have depictions of everything human beings do from the earliest historical civilizations.

Boxing has certain antecedents that existed in the Homerian Greek Epoche, and through to the Hellinistic age. This is interesting and provable.

There are other forms of fist fighting other than boxing.

[ShoulderRoll]

We cannot say when fist fighting came into being for human beings.

We have depictions of everything human beings do from the earliest historical civilizations.

Boxing has certain antecedents that existed in the Homerian Greek Epoche, and through to the Hellinistic age. This is interesting and provable.

There are other forms of fist fighting other than boxing.

We can certainly provide dates for the earliest depictions of fist fighting, though. With evidence.

And generally any culture that elevates both fist fighting and wrestling would have been likely to engage in combat sports. With techniques being developed and passed down over generations.

[billeau2]

We can certainly provide dates for the earliest depictions of fist fighting, though. With evidence.

And generally any culture that elevates both fist fighting and wrestling would have been likely to engage in combat sports. With techniques being developed and passed down over generations.

I know that you think that is significant, but to me it is a tautological statement, a generalization. Its just like saying: "we can provide evidence that human beings ate meat from animal bones that showed butchering...And certainly those that ate would elevate the activity to encompass having restaurants..." If it makes you feel accomplished having established this, don't want to rain on your parade...

I mean compared to Rusty and Queenie smearing feces on the wall trying to create performance art... Its a lot more elevated, but its still so general that it means very little...

I only say this because I think it is important to distinguish. I saw where M started this s hit storm BTW! he did say the earliest depictions of "Boxing if it means fist fighting."

There are more pronounced and relevant differences that make for traditions that are unique and specific. In Japan wrestling is in the original religious Shinto Text... So Sumo, the only indigenious Japanese martial art, can be traced from those text. In Southeast Asia there were thousands of tribal knife fighting systems that were taught, passed down, all done with no texts to speak of. Why is this important? Because only through researching specific elements of the systems and history can we know about them... And these systems are extremely sophisticated and effective for using blades.

In both cases by being more specific we can come up with information that is meaningful in a specific and vital way. I edited this because I was trying to give a better reason why such generalities do not mean much...Can you think of a culture that did not have some form of fist fighting, Wrestling and/or combat sports? That would be more interesting and they may well exist, I can't think of any offhand, except maybe the Australian Aborigines, and that is a guess.

[billeau2]

Yep, it's in the introduction of the chapter if you have it.

I call it Minoan because of geography, I mean I don't know what culture is associated with him, but other than that there are no caveats coming to mind.

You had to say equate fist fighting with boxing and make a claim that there was an earliest depiction.

arghhh!

[ShoulderRoll]

I know that you think that is significant, but to me it is a tautological statement, a generalization. Its just like saying: "we can provide evidence that human beings ate meat from animal bones that showed butchering...And certainly those that ate would elevate the activity to encompass having restaurants..." If it makes you feel accomplished having established this, don't want to rain on your parade...

I mean compared to Rusty and Queenie smearing feces on the wall trying to create performance art... Its a lot more elevated, but its still so general that it means very little...

I only say this because I think it is important to distinguish. I saw where M started this s hit storm BTW! he did say the earliest depictions of "Boxing if it means fist fighting."

There are more pronounced and relevant differences that make for traditions that are unique and specific. In Japan wrestling is in the original religious Shinto Text... So Sumo, the only indigenious Japanese martial art, can be traced from those text. In Southeast Asia there were thousands of tribal knife fighting systems that were taught, passed down, all done with no texts to speak of. Why is this important? Because only through researching specific elements of the systems and history can we know about them... And these systems are extremely sophisticated and effective for using blades.

In both cases by being more specific we can come up with information that is meaningful in a specific and vital way. I edited this because I was trying to give a better reason why such generalities do not mean much...Can you think of a culture that did not have some form of fist fighting, Wrestling and/or combat sports? That would be more interesting and they may well exist, I can't think of any offhand, except maybe the Australian Aborigines, and that is a guess.

What I don't get is why you want to minimize the fact that there was a form of boxing in ancient Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization?

In a thread about where boxing originated from doesn't the earliest civilization to show evidence of fist fighting deserve at least a mention?

[Marchegiano]

You had to say equate fist fighting with boxing and make a claim that there was an earliest depiction.

arghhh!

Well, I was trying to write an open ended answer so the reader could decide for themselves at what point to call it boxing.

I can respect the any form of fist fighting sorts, though I disagree.

I obviously look to Olympia myself but I can respect those who see pygmachia as a pre-boxing fist fighting sport.

The resurrection by Richard Dover is a very good place to begin modern boxing's story.

Broughton's Rules is as well.

Queensberry would be fair.

The birth of the sanctioning bodies might also be considered when boxing started.

One could argue for the modern rules, 10-point must, at least the unified.

There's plenty of ways to look at it. I'm not a big one for disconnected versions of fist fighting and I should know better than to shoot from the hip but hey, it's not actually a big deal.

[billeau2]

What I don't get is why you want to minimize the fact that there was a form of boxing in ancient Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization?

In a thread about where boxing originated from doesn't the earliest civilization to show evidence of fist fighting deserve at least a mention?

I minimize it because it means very little. Now, if we had enough information to tie it in with the culture, maybe a text, or something more descriptive to specifically show how it was unique to Mesopotamia, that would be different. It means very little because one would assume any group would have some form of using the hands to fight against each other and that they would wrestle...either as a military endevour, or otherwise.

Showing the "earliest" only means something if it can be contradicted. There is no contradiction because one would assume, in the absence of extraordinary proof to the contrary, that merely stating that there was an older society would imply that society had a means of fist fighting and (we may as well include wrestling) wrestling.

I call it the three F's: As Human beings we all do the following, We f uck, creating more human beings, we fight, trying to take finite resources for our benefit, and food, we eat to survive. You will not find any group of people, no matter how remote, that does not engage the three F's. As a matter of fact? If you took an island the size of Australia and put exactly two groups on the island? they would eventually find each other and fight it out... Which is why when you put a lot of groups in a small area, like Europe, you get a lot of advances...

Its not that European people are smarter, heck they were living in huts when China and Africa had great empires... But Europe did have a streak of progress in the relatively recent times, for a big chunk of history, because having to interact and fight with each other leads to cultural progress.

If you look at KoRyu sword manuals in katari Shinto Ryu, you can actually see, when the Portugese went to Japan, there just so happens to appear techniques for using the Japanese blade to stab, and at that time, texts discussing the trade off and use of Spanish fencing (and vice versa) along with details of using muskets. "Cultural interaction" inevitably leads to progress and development.

The only exception to what I am trying to point out to you regarding my take are the Australian Aborigines. These people were very very highly evolved with a kinship system and an essentially non violent means of interacting and developing as a society that seems out of the norm for a large cultural nexus.

Don't get me wrong. I would love to get my hands on more information about Mesopotamia and how they used martial arts technology practices...

Does this make sense? It is a Rhetorical and logical tautology to say "There is proof of the earliest civilization to use fist fighting." You cannot prove that which cannot be falsified. So in this case could you find me a society that did not engage in some form of using a closed hand to smack each other? merely stating "I found evidence of an older society than that on the Euphrates River" implies a group that hit each other with a closed hand in some fashion, whether we see a picture of it, or not.