I do this every now and then. To be honest the point isn't that I believe Robert is or isn't. I believe it's a subject that never gets any coverage and should so I take a stance and speak to it but really I'd love to get like a Pollack or Dunnellon or some such to really pick it apart so I make these threads every now and then and just try to keep the conversation out there. Just in case someone picks it up and explains all the deets.
In 1863 Tom King retires as HW champion of England.
By 1864 Robert Delaney had beaten both Tom and Harry Allen, press of the day heralded him as the best in all of england but he could not be champion because of his race.
By 1865 Robert has died from illness believed to have been contracted in his fights with the Allens, Womald claims the title.
We say the man with the best claim is the man. Even when that man tells us another, we still do not acknowledge Peartree and Whittaker and such, we place Figg over those years even though Figgs calls them champion and we legitimatize that with the idea that the best man active is champion and use consensus to co-sign it.
His resume is short but so are most the champions we acknowledge in the LPRR period. His resume is also much stronger than most champions from the LPRR period despite being very short. He has consensus for his superiority in his time. We are even given the reasoning for his never being acknowledged as champion being his race.
So the ONLY reason we have to refuse to acknowledge Robert Delaney as the HW champion of England in 1864 is because 1864 was too racist to have a black HW champion, even in England.
Doesn't seem like a very good reason to me. It does seem like we are still up holding systemic racism, to me, imo, by refusing to acknowledge no man in England had proven any worth compared to Robert's.
No champion needs stripped, it doesn't challenge any standing history or narrative, and I do not understand why he shouldn't be given his honor.
In 1863 Tom King retires as HW champion of England.
By 1864 Robert Delaney had beaten both Tom and Harry Allen, press of the day heralded him as the best in all of england but he could not be champion because of his race.
By 1865 Robert has died from illness believed to have been contracted in his fights with the Allens, Womald claims the title.
We say the man with the best claim is the man. Even when that man tells us another, we still do not acknowledge Peartree and Whittaker and such, we place Figg over those years even though Figgs calls them champion and we legitimatize that with the idea that the best man active is champion and use consensus to co-sign it.
His resume is short but so are most the champions we acknowledge in the LPRR period. His resume is also much stronger than most champions from the LPRR period despite being very short. He has consensus for his superiority in his time. We are even given the reasoning for his never being acknowledged as champion being his race.
So the ONLY reason we have to refuse to acknowledge Robert Delaney as the HW champion of England in 1864 is because 1864 was too racist to have a black HW champion, even in England.
Doesn't seem like a very good reason to me. It does seem like we are still up holding systemic racism, to me, imo, by refusing to acknowledge no man in England had proven any worth compared to Robert's.
No champion needs stripped, it doesn't challenge any standing history or narrative, and I do not understand why he shouldn't be given his honor.
Marchegiano
Comment