Click Bait Threads

[Bronson66]

I said I wouldn't make threads for a while but reading Click Bait threads such as one entitled" The English Conspiracy" have stirred me to do so ,so here goes
As far as Bare Knuckle National Heavyweight Lineage goes ,the best that can be said for many of these so called ,"champions,"is that they were ,
"Title Claimants,"whether they were English or American.
So why" English Claimants" should be singled out,rings alarm bells with me.
For example, as regards American Champions of the BK era.
What did John C Heenan or John Morrissey do to be called Champions?

I confess I have next to zero interest in these earlier bareknucklers whose reputation and standing today sometimes rests solely on a brief description by an anonymous writer in some obscure new clipping .

I suspect if film was available of many of these guys.they not only would not be in the IBHOF ,but also not be given anymore status than today's bare knucklers,if indeed as much

With no formal structure to the game anyone could call themselves," The Champion",likewise previous champions sometimes nominated their prodigies as "Champion".
Then we have English fighters claiming US National titles and vice versa,its basically BS.

How did Jem Mace ,one of the more authentically accredited fighters of his era come to be the US Champion? How did an Englishman qualify to fight for a foreign national title?
As for me I see hyperbole around the reps of many of these guys.Men with less than a handful of fights described as," remarkably skilled," by scribes who never saw them, men whose resumes do not stand up to closer inspection.

Upon trying to unravel any lineage, and sort the"wheat from the chaff,"you encounter a labyrinth of rabbit holes,"curiouser and curiouser said Alice".

I'm content to call them Claimants. and Claimants from both sides of the pond,so lets not imply English Claimants are any less authentic than the US ones,or that they gained fame by more nefarious means than their American cousins, because its all just so much BS.

[Marchegiano]

You're super annoying with your not actually knowing anything but still willing to jump up and claim some stance of expertise or authority


My thread is about a conspiracy, it isn't click bait, it isn't a theory. Maybe, you know, learn about the names listed before running your mouth?

Seems like there is a man here who has done research and can answer your questions. You know, if you asked before you insulted his work with what can be summed up by " I don't know anything but I will protest anyway" disrespectful as **** kunt bull****.



clickbait ... John Jackson's conspiracy is clickbait. Bro is a serious researcher doe.

[Marchegiano]

I said I wouldn't make threads for awhile but reading Click Bait threads such as one entitled" The English Conspiracy" have stirred me to do so ,so here goes


I confess I have next to zero interest in these earlier bareknucklers whose reputation and standing today sometimes rests solely on a brief description by an anonymous writer in some obscure new clipping .
.

I can't be ****ed to look into any of it but I'll call it clickbait anyway.


****ing hell. Bro, **** you, be ready to ignore list me. You leaving my sphere now. Useless kunt admitting doesn't know better, can't be ****ed to look, but def clickbait doe. FFS.

[Bronson66]

I said I wouldn't make threads for a while but reading Click Bait threads such as one entitled" The English Conspiracy" have stirred me to do so ,so here goes
As far as Bare Knuckle National Heavyweight Lineage goes ,the best that can be said for many of these so called ,"champions,"is that they were ,
"Title Claimants,"whether they were English or American.
So why" English Claimants" should be singled out,rings alarm bells with me.
For example, as regards American Champions of the BK era.
What did John C Heenan or John Morrissey do to be called Champions?

I confess I have next to zero interest in these earlier bareknucklers whose reputation and standing today sometimes rests solely on a brief description by an anonymous writer in some obscure new clipping .

I suspect if film was available of many of these guys.they not only would not be in the IBHOF ,but also not be given anymore status than today's bare knucklers,if indeed as much

With no formal structure to the game anyone could call themselves," The Champion",likewise previous champions sometimes nominated their prodigies as "Champion".
Then we have English fighters claiming US National titles and vice versa,its basically BS.

How did Jem Mace ,one of the more authentically accredited fighters of his era come to be the US Champion? How did an Englishman qualify to fight for a foreign national title?
As for me I see hyperbole around the reps of many of these guys.Men with less than a handful of fights described as," remarkably skilled," by scribes who never saw them, men whose resumes does not stand up to closer inspection.

Upon trying to unravel any lineage, and sort the"wheat from the chaff,"you encounter a labyrinth of rabbit holes,"curiouser and curiouser said Alice".

I'm content to call them Claimants. and Claimants from both sides of the pond,so lets not imply English Claimants are any less authentic than the US ones,or that they gained fame by more nefarious means than their American cousins, because its all just so much BS.

As expected,no answers to my two questions.
1.What did John C Heenan or John Morrissey do to be called Champions?

2.How did Jem Mace ,one of the more authentically accredited fighters of his era come to be the US Champion? How did an Englishman qualify to fight for a foreign national title?

Just more indignant faux outrage and personal insults like DUMB KUNT.the usual response of the intellectually challenged.

I'm no Kunt and I'm certainly not the "Bro",of anyone who calls me one from the safety of his PC.

There are plenty of people that can answer my questions ,but the OP of "The Conspiracy thread" AINT ONE OF THEM.

Its ironic that one poster loses no opportunity to call Nat Fleischer a plagiarist yet his own threads are nearly always lifted from earlier works!
Unlike another I dont pretend to be learned about the BK era,but I do know this.

This passage, taken from the Conspiracy thread is totally at odds with the contemporary round by round summary of the fight.

"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.!

Here is the ringside report I have abbreviated it but can give it verbatim.

Rd 1.Jackson floors Mendoza with a left hander.

Rd2.Mendoza goes to the ground whether from a punch or because of pressure is not stated.

Rd 3.Mendoza down again.

Rd 4.Big round for Jackson.Mendoza floored,and severely cut over the right eyebrow,and bleeding heavily.

Rd.5.Mendoza badly marked up Jackson unmarked in this round Jackson seized Mendoza by the his hair and rained punches on his face.Mendoza's backers protested that this tactic was foul.The umpires disagreed sating it was," perfectly consistent with the rules of fair play."
Rd 6.Mendoza is all in and goes on the defensive, trying to get his second wind.Jackson easily breaks through Mendoza's guard dealing out severe punishment Mendoza is forced to go down to avoid punishment .

Rd7.]
Rd8.]
More of the same.

Rd9. Mendoza dreadfully weak,Jackson ,just warming to his work,hits away at Mendoza with the greatest of ease. Mendoza makes one last game effort, but after receiving severe punishment,falls perfectly exhausted conceding the fight.which had lasted 10 1/2 minutes.

So what rounds did Mendoza win?

Jackson was little the worse for wear,and jumped from the ring with great activity.
Poor Dan however was severely beaten.

The stakes for the fight were 200 guineas a side,the date , 15thApril 1795.

It is stated than Mendoza made no effort to retrieve his laurels until November 1809 ,when he inserted a challenge in the Daily Advertiser.Jackson answered this saying,although he had intended to retire,he had no objection to giving Mendoza another fight,when and where he pleased ,providing Mendoza would promise to fight and not inform the police as to the whereabouts of the fight.

Mendoza did not respond to his and Jackson then formally retired and gave instructions in the art of self defence at his rooms in13 Bond Street .

.Jackson was a Page at the coronation of George The Fourth and the sobriquet Gentleman John Jackson was given for a valid reason.Other pugilists forming a guard of honour for the Monarch were,Cribb.Spring,Belcher,Carter.Oliver, Holt ,Crawley,etc
Jackson is interred in a handsome mausoleum in Brompton, created by Mr Timothy Butler the cost of upwards of ?00 was readily met by public subscription among his friends.

" By the subscriptions of several noble men ,and gentleman to record their admiration for one whose excellence of heart,and incorruptible worth,endeared him to all who knew him"


.

[Willow The Wisp]

Many of us take pride in our research, our level of knowledge, and, in the quality of our posts on these sites. I know that I do; and I see no problem with that. But.......

Many of us are enlivened by an opportunity for a factual debate.

But Then....the feathers fly, and animosity grows; and just every so often, great posters get banned and have to create a new profile, losing connection to their previous "body of work" at that site.

If any of this sounds familiar, please remember.....

That the solidifying of a championship of any kind may take time to evolve. The establishment of a title will take into account the geography involved, the counter claims made and recorded, and the extent of a claimant's reputation.
150, 250, 300 years ago, a boxing title wasn't as simple as sending your cheque and receiving the belt from the WBA.

It's a lengthy discussion required, actually.
And a historian's purview; and several people posting here know enough to engage the subject.....peacefully.

There is a long accepted chronology, of course. But if joy is derived from kicking the tires of that established belief, have a ball. And if anyone can actually locate unpublished documents and manuscripts and go (well) beyond the already published works of Adam Pollock, Elliott Gorn, William Gildea, Donald McRae, Thomas Hauser, Kenneth Bridghan, etc., in order to make their revolutionary new claims stick - Great stuff.

But gee fellers, keep it civil in the house.


Forvanta- Phorbas- Aries- Herakles- Tydeus- Polydeusus- Theseus- Onomastos- Diappos- Komaios- Pythagoras- Tisandros- Praxidamas- Glaucos- Philon- Ikkos- Diognetos- Euthymos- Theagenes- Euthymos- Menalkes- Diagoras- Akousilous- Alkainetos- Kleomachos- Eukles- Demarchos- Phormion- Damoxenidas- Labax- Aristion- Philammon- Asamon- Mys- Satyros- Satyros- Archippos- Kallippos- Kleitomachus- Epitherses- Xenothemius- Agesarchos- Atyanas- Thaliarchos- Nikophon- Demokrates- Melankomas- Herakliedes- Marcus Tullius- Photion- Buck- Stokes- Flanders- Clarkson- Sutton- Figg- Pipes- Taylor- Broughton- Slack- Stevens- Meggs- Millsom- Jachau- Darts- Lyons- Darts- Corcoran- Sellers- Ferns- Johnson- Brian- Mendoza- Jackson- Owen- Bartholomew- Belcher- Pearce- Gully- Cribb- Spring- Cannon- Ward- Crawley- Ward- Burke- Thompson- Caunt- Ward- Caunt- Thompson- Perry- Broome- Paddock- Sayers- Hurst- Mace- King- Wormald- Mace- Coburn- Mace- Allen- Goss- Ryan- Sullivan- Corbett- Fitzsimmons- Jeffries- Hart- Burns- Johnson- Willard- Dempsey- Tunney- Schmelling- Sharkey- Carnera- Bear- Braddock- Louis- Charles- Walcott- Marciano- Patterson- Johansson- Patterson- Liston- Ali- Frazier- Foreman- Ali- L. Spinks- Ali- Holmes- M. Spinks- Tyson- Douglas- Holyfield- Bowe- Holyfield- Moorer- Foreman- Briggs- Lewis- Rachman- Lewis- Klitschko- Fury- Usyk.

[Bronson66]

Many of us take pride in our research, our level of knowledge, and, in the quality of our posts on these sites. I know that I do; and I see no problem with that. But.......

Many of us are enlivened by an opportunity for a factual debate.

But Then....the feathers fly, and animosity grows; and just every so often, great posters get banned and have to create a new profile, losing connection to their previous "body of work" at that site.

If any of this sounds familiar, please remember.....

That the solidifying of a championship of any kind may take time to evolve. The establishment of a title will take into account the geography involved, the counter claims made and recorded, and the extent of a claimant's reputation.
150, 250, 300 years ago, a boxing title wasn't as simple as sending your cheque and receiving the belt from the WBA.

It's a lengthy discussion required, actually.
And a historian's purview; and several people posting here know enough to engage the subject.....peacefully.

There is a long accepted chronology, of course. But if joy is derived from kicking the tires of that established belief, have a ball. And if anyone can actually locate unpublished documents and manuscripts and go (well) beyond the already published works of Adam Pollock, Elliott Gorn, William Gildea, Donald McRae, Thomas Hauser, Kenneth Bridghan, etc., in order to make their revolutionary new claims stick - Great stuff.

But gee fellers, keep it civil in the house.


Forvanta- Phorbas- Aries- Herakles- Tydeus- Polydeusus- Theseus- Onomastos- Diappos- Komaios- Pythagoras- Tisandros- Praxidamas- Glaucos- Philon- Ikkos- Diognetos- Euthymos- Theagenes- Euthymos- Menalkes- Diagoras- Akousilous- Alkainetos- Kleomachos- Eukles- Demarchos- Phormion- Damoxenidas- Labax- Aristion- Philammon- Asamon- Mys- Satyros- Satyros- Archippos- Kallippos- Kleitomachus- Epitherses- Xenothemius- Agesarchos- Atyanas- Thaliarchos- Nikophon- Demokrates- Melankomas- Herakliedes- Marcus Tullius- Photion- Buck- Stokes- Flanders- Clarkson- Sutton- Figg- Pipes- Taylor- Broughton- Slack- Stevens- Meggs- Millsom- Jachau- Darts- Lyons- Darts- Corcoran- Sellers- Ferns- Johnson- Brian- Mendoza- Jackson- Owen- Bartholomew- Belcher- Pearce- Gully- Cribb- Spring- Cannon- Ward- Crawley- Ward- Burke- Thompson- Caunt- Ward- Caunt- Thompson- Perry- Broome- Paddock- Sayers- Hurst- Mace- King- Wormald- Mace- Coburn- Mace- Allen- Goss- Ryan- Sullivan- Corbett- Fitzsimmons- Jeffries- Hart- Burns- Johnson- Willard- Dempsey- Tunney- Schmelling- Sharkey- Carnera- Bear- Braddock- Louis- Charles- Walcott- Marciano- Patterson- Johansson- Patterson- Liston- Ali- Frazier- Foreman- Ali- L. Spinks- Ali- Holmes- M. Spinks- Tyson- Douglas- Holyfield- Bowe- Holyfield- Moorer- Foreman- Briggs- Lewis- Rachman- Lewis- Klitschko- Fury- Usyk.

I am not the one calling another poster a , "Dumb Kunt," so your advice would be better confined to the other party.

[Willow The Wisp]

I am not the one calling another poster a , "Dumb Kunt," so your advice would be better confined to the other party.

Indeed. Indeed.

[Bronson66]

Indeed. Indeed.

Props for your lineage thread!

[billeau2]

You're super annoying with your not actually knowing anything but still willing to jump up and claim some stance of expertise or authority


My thread is about a conspiracy, it isn't click bait, it isn't a theory. Maybe, you know, learn about the names listed before running your mouth?

Seems like there is a man here who has done research and can answer your questions. You know, if you asked before you insulted his work with what can be summed up by " I don't know anything but I will protest anyway" disrespectful as **** kunt bull****.



clickbait ... John Jackson's conspiracy is clickbait. Bro is a serious researcher doe.

I do not think a discussion of events and fighters back then is automatically click bait. Any thread can be such. I also believe what we can know may be limited. The bare knuckle era is a no man 's land for sure. But it comes with the territory and I do not think this fact negates conclusions being reached. I look at it like original baseball. The game was played by convicts, rough men, many of whom died from diseases born of excess... It took many years for baseball to become credible...

An analogy might serve a purpose here: When you describe the possible prejudices for titling fighters... and I would say from any country because I do not want to argue over the proposed legitimacy, or lack there of, for fighters from any particular nation state... I can accept your premise... But we have baseball the game of Kings! NOT!! And for how many years did they treat Pete Rose like a modern day criminal, an abomination? Denying him despite the fans... When Ole Pete was probably as close to anyone of my generation could see what the founding players were like! A throwback! Betting on his own self! hard nosed, tough as nails, cagey, a great player and a real one...

We cannot ever cut our roots back. bare Knuckle is hidden in a lot of layers, and what is credible is difficult to ascertain... But it does deserve our time and effort.

[billeau2]

I said I wouldn't make threads for a while but reading Click Bait threads such as one entitled" The English Conspiracy" have stirred me to do so ,so here goes
As far as Bare Knuckle National Heavyweight Lineage goes ,the best that can be said for many of these so called ,"champions,"is that they were ,
"Title Claimants,"whether they were English or American.
So why" English Claimants" should be singled out,rings alarm bells with me.
For example, as regards American Champions of the BK era.
What did John C Heenan or John Morrissey do to be called Champions?

I confess I have next to zero interest in these earlier bareknucklers whose reputation and standing today sometimes rests solely on a brief description by an anonymous writer in some obscure new clipping .

I suspect if film was available of many of these guys.they not only would not be in the IBHOF ,but also not be given anymore status than today's bare knucklers,if indeed as much

With no formal structure to the game anyone could call themselves," The Champion",likewise previous champions sometimes nominated their prodigies as "Champion".
Then we have English fighters claiming US National titles and vice versa,its basically BS.

How did Jem Mace ,one of the more authentically accredited fighters of his era come to be the US Champion? How did an Englishman qualify to fight for a foreign national title?
As for me I see hyperbole around the reps of many of these guys.Men with less than a handful of fights described as," remarkably skilled," by scribes who never saw them, men whose resumes do not stand up to closer inspection.

Upon trying to unravel any lineage, and sort the"wheat from the chaff,"you encounter a labyrinth of rabbit holes,"curiouser and curiouser said Alice".

I'm content to call them Claimants. and Claimants from both sides of the pond,so lets not imply English Claimants are any less authentic than the US ones,or that they gained fame by more nefarious means than their American cousins, because its all just so much BS.

The bolded: This conclusion is the failsafe and I suspect most of us would adhere to it. We can only know so much.

So is there value in looking at these titles and possibilities? I would say yes. It is similar to baseball, we worship players like Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner... some professional sports came out of collegiate sanctioned "club sports" and others came out of people's need to entertain themselves. Got ice? Got sticks? Do not want to use the sticks to hit each other on the head? lets get a puck and someone who will actually block the goal (No masks back then). Welsh shin kicking might be a good cross polination. Like boxing it was a resolution mechanism, then it eventually became a tournament activity... Meanwhile Football (American) Rugby? started out as civilized club sports, including for college kids with a need to express themselves athletically. A virtual tale of two cities: But the colorful tales and history definitely come from the working class sports.

Point being, it makes sense to look into and try to understand the bare knuckle originals that eventually gave us a foundation. It also is natural to create Eagles out of Pigeons, it is a way on reflecting on how these men eventually gave us so much more. They were as great as they could be and their history has value, so we make them larger than life. Yet today if you go to Hoboken New Jersey and look for the original field, canonized as where the first baseball game was played, it was torn down to make way for a building. The plaque is not even the size of a large board. That is sad.

Your argument about titles is why alot of us appreciate the clean and consistency of the lineal. It tends to get a little crazy trying to figure out what was essentially parochial and how it could claim to be international.