Boxing, boxing everywhere - British boxing in 1930 compare with now...

First topic message reminder :

By Miles Templeton

In March 2011 there were 23 professional boxing promotions in the UK and Ireland. This is a higher than average number compared with recent years and, on the face of it, British boxers currently have plenty of scope for activity. In March 1930 there were 484 professional promotions.

To say that domestic boxing has changed out of all recognition in the last 80 years is to state the obvious. The dramatic decline in the number of active boxers and promotions demonstrates this extremely clearly.

What might be hard to fathom these days is the sheer number and range of towns and cities that held regular boxing events in the old days. Colne in Lancashire currently has a population of around 20,000. In 1930 it was a mill town in the depths of an industrial depression and with about the same number of inhabitants as today. During March 1930 this small town managed to sustain nine professional boxing promotions. West Stanley, a pit village in Durham, held 13 such events within the month. Boxing occurred more than once per week in places as far afield as West Hartlepool, Salford, Preston, West Bromwich, Norwich, Morecambe and Leicester, as well as in the major cities of Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow and London.

On the evening of 7 March one could have chosen from any one of three professional boxing shows held in Preston, at the Marathon Stadium, the Majestic Rink or the Prince’s Theatre. Of the twelve contests that took place in the town that night, six were over 10 rounds, five were 12-rounders and one was a 15-rounder. None of them were less than ten rounds. Hard times bred hard men.

Weekly shows took place at Alfreton, Ammanford, Ashton-under-Lyne, Aston, Bedminster, Belfast, Birmingham, Bishop Auckland, Bradford, Catford, Castleford, Chesterfield, Coventry and Crewe. And these are only the towns, cities and districts beginning with the letters A to C that held weekly shows. The full list covers 60 different venues across Britain where one could see boxing every week. There is nowhere in the UK doing the same today.

Boxing took place during March 1930 at towns that have rarely seen boxing at all since the war. These include the likes of Torquay, Penrith, St Ives, Edenbridge, Sevenoaks, Treorchy, Blyth, Rugby, Kidderminster, Barnoldswick, Sidcup, Tylorstown, Helston, Dartmouth, Swindon, Rhyl, Goole and Weston-super-Mare.

Continue reading:

http://blog.boxinghistory.org.uk/2011/10/boxing-boxing-everywhere.html

rowley wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:I couldn't find an article on the Cricket or Football pages about the good old days.

Well done, they obviously have an agreement that such articles should not be written.

No, they obviously realise how silly the articles would look.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Not at all, Jukebox, boxing discussion is boxing discussion whether it be from 1910 or 2010.

If your modern boxing knowledge is of such a standard, then why don't you delight us with a thread involving modern fighters?

It's not that my knowledge of modern boxing is great, I just believe that there are several members on here who have almost no interest at all in the modern game.

The majority do.

It is those with a passion for history who are very much in the minority. Nonetheless, this minority contribute wonderful threads and comments to the forum, and the place would be considerably poorer without the input. alexd's recent threads, of which this is one, have been extremely well received and have been a delight to many of us. If they aren't your cup of tea, fine.

Nobody is forcing you to read them, and few welcome your comments in dismissing them so cheaply.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

rowley wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:I couldn't find an article on the Cricket or Football pages about the good old days.

Well done, they obviously have an agreement that such articles should not be written.

No, they obviously realise how silly the articles would look.

Perhaps they just feel that they require your permission first.

If only there was some sort of filter on here that made it possible for people not to comment on threads or subjects that didn't interest them. May PM one of the mods, see if this is possible.

Look at the title and content of the article.

It doesn't translate to "I love boxing in the 1930's it was great", it says"Boxing was much better back then than it is today". It has a negative snidey slant to it that is provocative. If someone did an article saying how awful boxing was back in the day and thank god we've go tthe modern game, you'd all be puffing your chests out.

You are right though, I shouldn't take the bait and should just ignore these childish articles, everyone else seems to.

Childish? Oh dear lord.

Actually, I am a frequent user of the cricket section, and we have plenty of discussion there about the greatest bowlers of all time etc, so yet again a point of yours is flawed.

Here is a very simple but very effective suggestion..if you don't like the article, then don't get involved in it. What you reckon?

Fists of Fury wrote:

Actually, I am a frequent user of the cricket section, and we have plenty of discussion there about the greatest bowlers of all time etc,

Hope you make the case for Fiery Fred Fists, would not want to have to come over there and put them straight myself.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Look at the title and content of the article.

It doesn't translate to "I love boxing in the 1930's it was great", it says"Boxing was much better back then than it is today". It has a negative snidey slant to it that is provocative. If someone did an article saying how awful boxing was back in the day and thank god we've go tthe modern game, you'd all be puffing your chests out.

You are right though, I shouldn't take the bait and should just ignore these childish articles, everyone else seems to.

Childish?

Rich, coming from somebody who ignorantly tramples on just about every article which dares to suggest that the universe actually existed before 1996, and who presumes the right to dictate that this forum, with which he had sod all to do with the setting up, should cater only to the needs of those who wish to discuss the here and now, because that is what he wants.

Never mind, Juke. Practise hard and you might, one day, write something remotely as interesting as alex' threads.

We have had that discussion, Rowley, and you will be aggrieved to know that he failed to make it into our top 10 ATG list.

Fists of Fury wrote:We have had that discussion, Rowley, and you will be aggrieved to know that he failed to make it into our top 10 ATG list.

You'll be telling me next you didn't have Sir Geoff opening the batting.

Alas, no. I better warn the cricket mods about an impending Yorkshire backlash...

Sorry but you are talking out of your arse JT.

Boxing is a much 'slower moving' sport than say football or rugby, where teams play twice a week, they win, they lose, they draw, it just carries on and on, nothing really matters, there's always a game next week, most games are terribly disappointing and they struggle to find 'highlights' for match of the day or whatever and it is incredibly tiresome and dull. But if you like that sort of thing, good for you. Who won the Carling Cup in 2002? Who cares?

Boxing is it's history, that is what it is all about for me. As has been said, if you don't like it, don't read about it.

When just discussing the modern boxing you end up going in circles about whether Pacman ducked Mayweather or vice versa.

Boxing is a fairly slow moving sport and as such conversations about the history of the sport are something that I enjoy and learn from.

There are also very few boxing forums where a thread about Strictly can spark such debate.

For those two reasons alone I think the forum is spiffing.

rowley wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:

Actually, I am a frequent user of the cricket section, and we have plenty of discussion there about the greatest bowlers of all time etc,

Hope you make the case for Fiery Fred Fists, would not want to have to come over there and put them straight myself.

Malcolm Marshall. Lovely man as well.

Union Cane wrote:Sorry but you are talking out of your arse JT.

Boxing is a much 'slower moving' sport than say football or rugby, where teams play twice a week, they win, they lose, they draw, it just carries on and on, nothing really matters, there's always a game next week, most games are terribly disappointing and they struggle to find 'highlights' for match of the day or whatever and it is incredibly tiresome and dull. But if you like that sort of thing, good for you. Who won the Carling Cup in 2002? Who cares?

Boxing is it's history, that is what it is all about for me. As has been said, if you don't like it, don't read about it.

You need to show him a reverse linear article, he'll then realise how enjoyable this thread is.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Look at the title and content of the article.

It doesn't translate to "I love boxing in the 1930's it was great", it says"Boxing was much better back then than it is today". It has a negative snidey slant to it that is provocative. If someone did an article saying how awful boxing was back in the day and thank god we've go tthe modern game, you'd all be puffing your chests out.

You are right though, I shouldn't take the bait and should just ignore these childish articles, everyone else seems to.

As the person who wrote this article might I please make a comment. It will be the only one that I will make.

I have been accused of writing an article that has a 'negative snidey slant to it' and that is, supposedly, provocative. Furthermore the article is 'childish'.

I penned this article because I genuinely thought it might be of interest to modern day boxing fans, and for those who are interested in boxing long ago, to understand a little about how the sport has evolved/changed over the course of the last eighty years or so. I thought it might also be of particular interest to members of this forum who live in some of those places I include on my list where boxing once took place.

I did not extol the virtue of old time boxing, nor did I criticise the modern game in any way, I merely stated some facts which I thought would be interesting.

I suspect that most of the people on this forum might fall into two categories. Those that aren't particularly interested in historical articles and who glance at them, see its not for them, and move on. And those to whom they are of interest, who might read them with a degree of pleasure and then move on.

Unfortunately there is a third category. Those who aren't particularly interested, but feel the need to criticise not only the author of the article but also those who do express an interest in it, and then lay down the law about what this site is meant to be and who it is supposedly for.

Jukebox timebomb clearly falls into this category. Let me say to him that I am offended by his suggestion that my article is snidey, childish, provocative and negative. I don't believe that it is any of these things. He, on the other hand appears to be all four : snidey, childish, provocative and offensive.

I am quite happy not to post on this forum again, it makes no difference to me at all if you are interested, or otherwise, in what I have to say. I write for the pleasure of it, and to impart some basic knowledge about the history of the sport in Britain. If you are not interested then please ignore my articles, but don't feel that you have the right to make unfair and unwarranted attacks on me and what I write.

Oh, and by the way, I am still very interested in the modern game, always have beeen, always will be.

Thanks for your comments, miles.

As one of the many who find your articles to be hugely interesting I would implore you to please continue contributing them, though I fully understand why you might be a little disillusioned at the moment.

You might consider revisiting your articles in our ' Boxing Vault ' to remind yourself just how much your input has been appreciated.

Afternoon Miles

To echo Windy, I am pretty sure that 99% of the regular boxing forum members here are as appreciative of your articles as I am.

Quite where Jukebox got the childish, snidey idea etc from God only knows, it is, quite frankly, a ludicrous thing to say.

In this instance, I'd ask you to ignore the ridiculous comments of an individual that is going out of his way to cause a stir, and continue to share your fine articles. Since alex and yourself have started posting such articles they have been very warmly welcomed, and provided a great deal of knowledge to a number of people, myself included, that would otherwise have never heard of such fighters.

Keep up the good work, there really are some gems that you have unearthed.

Amen to that Windy and Fists.

I personally love these types of articles and anything remotely like it that gives some history to a sport I adore like Boxing, Horse Racing or Football. I can't say how many hours I've spent watching old fights or races on-line and had a absolute pleasure doing so.

When it comes down to it though my knowledge of the current scene of any of those sports far out weights anything I know about that past, I'm technically more interested in the modern scene but its wonderful hearing all the old stories at times.

It would be a sad loss if these types of articles were to go even if my knowledge isn't enough for me to feel I can contribute to them properly.

At the risk of piling more misery on the hapless Jukebox Timebomb, I'm afraid that I find these articles just as valid as yet another in the endless series of Pacquiao-Mayweather articles. Speaking as someone with interest across the board in the sport of boxing, I find it strange that any one person would seek to shoehorn that interest into a particular time-frame. In his writings, JT has at times seemed quite a rational, articulate individual, and I suspect that he will know better than anyone that he has made a bit of a fool of himself in his latter remarks.

Whilst I don't have even 0.0001% of the knowledge of the rest of the guys on here, especially regarding previous generations, I find articles like this fascinating and thought provoking. So please keep them coming even if it is just a case of educating a twerp like myself.

Not a lot to learn Trott, if you remember this simple formula
black and white fighters>colour fighters

you'll not go far wrong.

rowley wrote:Not a lot to learn Trott, if you remember this simple formula
black and white fighters>colour fighters

you'll not go far wrong.

Thanks that should keep me in good stead. You'll see your quote on quite a few articles in future in a shrewd attempt of me attempting to be "knowledgable"