The Ethical Development of Boxing

 The Ethical Development of English Boxing: From Bare Fists to Padded Gloves.

By Ray Esten

A bare-knuckle Prize Fight  In Admiration of Ricky Hatton (1978-2025)

Boxing in the ancient world has been found in records, poems and mythology, including the Iliad when Epois beat Euryalos with leather bound fists, or in ‘The Golden Fleece’ in which Pollux fought King Amycus. It is a mode of fighting that can be traced from the cestus of the ancient world, to bare-knuckle Britons, to the skin tight and soft padded gloves of the modern era.

Old England, however, the home of prize fighting from at least the seventeenth century, only vague reference to the practice was recorded. The first citation was located in The Protestant Mercury in 1681. The first recorded champion or ‘’Father of Prize Fighting ‘’ was James Figg (1700? -1730). Figg, who was also skilled in sword and cudgels, acquired this title in 1719. With the Earl of Peterborough’s backing, he set up an arena that became known as Figg’s Amphitheatre. At this time, there was no specific code of conduct (that we know of). It was a time before gloves, refined footwork and weight categories. A time that favoured wrestling and ‘roughing’ tactics. With the lighter men, who vied for the championship, being left at a distinct disadvantage. When death occurred, it could be quite brutal. This was the case in 1728 when John Gretton was killed by Whitaker during a boxing match at Stoake's Amphitheatre, near Islington.

'Whitaker having just strength enough remaining to raise his bruised body upon his knees to give a blow, whilst the other lay incapable of lifting either hand or foot, nor would he bleed upon opening a vein, which was done immediately upon the stage. So that our polite country-men, who honoured the battle with their presence, had the high diversion of seeing a man beaten to death by one of his own species'

There was no mention of Gretton's arrest thereafter. This was the period of cock fights and bull-baiting, and one can't help but draw some comparisons. A typical prize fight (or cock fight, for that matter) would attract the nobility and gentry, who gambled heavily. They were out for blood, an example being in 1738 they congregated to watch ‘the great boxing match between Taylor, the Barber and Stephenson, a one-eyed Coachman (the favourite). They were not disappointed for the Coachman struck his opponent a terrible blow, ‘the wound seemed as if done by a sword’ Yet the barber (a superior wrestler) defeated him in eleven minutes. Vast sums of money were lost on that day. 

 Broughton’s Rules

Jack Broughton (1703-1789) succeeded Figg as champion. This accomplished staff and sword fighter applied some of his techniques to form a more skilled style of boxing. With his celebrity established the prize fighter was embellished in print, and often depicted as being immortal or close to bodily perfection. It is true that Broughton posed for a statue of Hercules by Louis-François Roubiliac, yet, prize fighters were not immortal, fighting machines or dumb beasts who disregarded their lives. For, they possessed an inclination towards self-preservation, shared by all beings.

Pierce Egan once remarked that, ‘before the days of Broughton it had been downright slaughter. Indeed, very little was done to safeguard fighters. The transformation that occurred with Broughton is best illustrated through a prize fight in 1741 in which his antagonist George Stevenson suffered damage to his internal organs and died. It does not appear that Broughton was held in jail or otherwise faced the law. This may have something to do with his high connections. He did, however, spend time at Stevenson’s bedside, and was taken by shame and guilt.

He vowed that he would never fight again. But, in a meeting with several gentlemen, in discussion on the future of the practice, a set of rules were written down. This code, however, was not to be communicated beyond Broughton’s academy. And, therefore, it was not imposed like human laws. Though it gradually gained authority, and in time became more widely accepted than other sporting rules. Why was this? Because this regulation held within it a good. An element of which was making this practice more precise through expelling dirty tactics, like eye gouging, kicking a fallen man or striking an opponent who was down on one knee, and that no man should deliver a punch until they were properly positioned on the line. While they also afforded umpires the authority to decide disputes, with the possibility of them referring to a third should that fail to agree. They formed the basis of modern boxing and are responsible in part for its persistence. This can only be fully realised when it is considered in the context of the sports journey towards perfection (This code governed the sport until the British Pugilists Protective Association introduced the London Prize Rules).

Theses rudimentary seven rules, however, failed to regulate the sport in a comprehensive way. They still permitted, for example, seconds to carry a fallen man to the fighting line, even when in a state of collapse.’ Fatalities still occurred, including that of William Pateman, who received a mortal blow from James Gardner in 1742. This time, in comparison, the culprit along with his father Andrew faced the law. They were committed to Newgate. The latter was jailed for aiding, abetting and assisting therein. A sign that boxers and their associates who caused death in the ring would be considered criminal.

The Introduction of Gloves for Training

In 1747 Broughton introduced gloves (called mufflers) at Broughton’s academy in London. It is true that they were not to be used outside of this academy; their only significance being the training of amateurs. Broughton certainly saw some financial incentives in teaching the aristocracy, with reduced opportunities for blackened eyes or broken noses. And it could also be said that gloves were introduced to protect the hands only. Yet their introduction is marked in that they facilitated, to an extent, 'self-defence without painful consequences.’ This made a sport of fists as prize-fighting by its very nature could only occur a couple of times a year. That being that the injuries caused by fist fights called for an extended rest period before returning to battle. Yet, if boxing with gloves was to become ‘a sport’ it would need to be practised with regularity. This is why many consider Broughton, a man of science with a sense of fair play, the true ‘Father of Boxing’

More to be achieved

Besides this, when Broughton lost the championship in 1750, he also lost the patronage of the Duke of Cumberland. Prize-fighting, reduced in both favour and reputation, was then declared illegal by an act of parliament. This made promotion and organisation difficult for those willing to take such risks.  Yet, naked fists continued to fly, and they continued to cause injury and indignation, though less frequent and without high-ranking patrons. The next year a battle at Hyde Park, reported The Derby Mercury, left a pugilist in such a state that, ‘one of the Eyes is entirely out of his head and he is stone blind in the other: The paper added, …such is the effects of the inhuman practice of boxing’ 

The Criminal Element

In the coming decade fighters and their backers became synonymous with dishonesty and trickery. Between 1761 and 1783 the Prize Ring remarked that Pierce Egan was in an ‘unsettled state.’ There was a sense of longing for a champion like Broughton who might elevate it. However, it was not to be, as corrupt practices encouraged treachery, fraud and falsehood, caused by deceiving one's neighbour. The title was, ‘bought, sold and generally branded about for a long time by all sorts of pugilists who had no right to it.’ It brought dishonour to champions like Peter Corcoran who apparently fought a fake with Harry Sellers in 1777. Corcoran it was said, ‘took to beggary and contempt and was as much despised as previously respected.’

However, all was not lost. Pierce Egan gave credit to a revival in the coming decade to Tom Johnson, the pugilist. For he re-claimed support through ‘courage and respect.’ Johnson’s reign was a key moment in bolstering the public’s perception of the prize-fighter. The years 1789 to 1795 were elevated through Daniel Mendoza, the first prominent Jewish prize-fighter. His scientific skill and character are said to have nurtured support and returned royal patronage. Mendoza is also credited with introducing speed to boxing. His image was re-produced in prints, chants and memorabilia. He wrote one of the first books on the sport. This forward-thinking individual also erected a gate for the last fight with Humphries, in which spectators paid in for the first time. 

The Golden Age

Nevertheless, prize fighting was still illegal and participants and organisers could be held, fined or imprisoned for breach of the peace. In spite of this, prize fighting reached a high point during the championship of Tom Cribb (1809 to 1822). His first fight with Tom Molineux in 1810 is considered not only the first international title fight but the first major fight to feature a black person. Molineux should have been declared champion on that occasion, but prejudice appears to have influenced the decision (Cribb also won their later rematch). It was the period of Boxiana, with a sustained growth in boxing literature. The followers of the sport ‘the fancy’ being generally well behaved and respected.

It was the beginning of what many consider the ‘Golden Age’ of prize fighting, which saw the formation of the Pugilist Club, established 1814. The battle against bribes was taken up by this organisation who endeavoured to cure the sport of this practice and bring stability by paying prize-fighters through annual fees collected by its members. It generated a sense of regularity and respectability, illustrated by it calling on ring officials to wear special uniforms.  The motto of ‘a fair ring and no favour and may the best man win’ was the spirit of the time. 

This constancy was nurtured by the Prince Regent and British Whig politician Charles Fox, who patronised the ring. It was observed to be a display of English courage, and it was exhibited in front of the Belgians and Germans at Aix-la-chapelle in 1818. An event that also showcased the gloves, and gloved combatants were being advertised in April of 1821. The gloves were in fact intermittently used, but naked fists the order of the day.

In the 1820s, at the height of its popularity some 25,000 people are said to have attended the Neat-Hickman contest. The business element of professional prize fighting was also developing, with Broughton’s rules being more freely interpreted, and parties drew up contracts or articles of agreement before a contest. By this time, there was a marked improvement in fighting skills. New strategies and refined skills, however, meant that fights could go on for hours.

The most sensational of such fights was perhaps between John ‘Jack’ Langan, the Irish champion and Tom Spring (HWC 1822-1824) of England. This title event attracted some 30,000 spectators, and lasted in total two and a half hours. It was a bloody affair marked by disturbance and confusion and, for example, between round 51-56 the outer roped ring (a ring pitched 10 ft from the main ring, where umpires, backers and privileged spectators assembled) was for a time in danger, ‘the constables’ long poles were useless; the whips of the fighting men were of no avail.’ The fight, it was claimed, was stopped for Langan’s safety. However, Langan begged to differ. That, ‘I have not given in and I can fight for another hour.’  They met again late that same year, however, this time Spring won unanimously, and there were no disturbances.

This popular event did not resurrect the sport, as it was blighted by suspicion of fight fixing. It had a connection with criminality, and the law maintained a stern attitude towards it. Patronage was again reserved and by 1825 prize fighting had faded, its purses decreased and its crowds more furtive. It was, for all purposes, driven underground and would not again receive the support of influential men. Yet, it had not vanished completely, and some prominent figures would not outrightly speak out against it. Some of them made contradictory statements about the practice. Generally placing an emphasis on the view that it was a better evil then the dagger of continental Europe. In such a situation, boxing appeared as a good in that it helped preserve human life. Sir William Best, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas 1824-1829, emphasised the very British quality of fair play alongside the above when he stated,

'God forbid, gentlemen, that I should be considered to have encouraged the horrid practice of prize fighting, but although I consider boxing to be an evil. I look upon it as a lesser degrading practice in that prevails in other countries where it is not to be found'

Further Rules and Reforms

By 1828 the Fair Play Club with a primary goal of protecting fighters at ringside achieved some success. Markedly by restricting all those except umpires and referees at a distance of six yards from the ropes.  While this is noteworthy, however, the Fair Play Club by 1833 had lost both control and credibility particularly following disturbances that year. The Spectator noted at the time that, ‘prize fighting is a peculiar crime and a disgrace to our country. No other civilised people tolerate anything of the kind.’ 

Prize Fighter Deaf Burke

Death in the Ring

Shortly after this, Simon Byrne the Champion of Ireland fought a battle with ‘Deaf’ Burke (HWC 1833-1839). The winner was to be considered the champion of England. It is very likely that the winner would have received the belt that Jem Ward accepted after beating Tom Cannon for the Championship of England in 1825. And had retained it in 1831, with a victory over Byrne. It was perhaps the first belt ever issued.

Nonetheless Byrne was unable to continue the fight with Burke after 3 hours and 6 minutes. He died later due to congestion of blood in the brain. Burke faced the courts, but was later acquitted of manslaughter due to conflicting medical evidence. He left for America. In the next year Anthony Noon died after a prize-fight with Owen Swift, in what the court described as feloniously assault, ‘with both hands striking and beating him on the belly and sides, and casting him to the ground, giving him divers mortal blows and bruises, of which he languished and died.’ Swift was sentenced to six months imprisonment with hard labour.’ 

This death was compounded by the death of W. M Phelps alias Brighton Bill in 1838 also at the hands of Swift, who was charged along with his aides with manslaughter in the first degree. Most likely in response to such incidents London Prize Rules were codified in 1838. They went into more detail than Broughton had and, for example, instead of seven rules they totalled twenty-three. The Pugilists Protective Association formed in 1838 and they revised the rules again in 1853. They became intensely detailed and legalistic, with twenty-nine specific requirements on the conduct and practice of contests. It could be argued that both sets of rules were brought about because of an ethical dilemma, ‘death by prize fighting’ which periodically brought the moral integrity of the sport into question.

The Marquess of Queensbury Rules

It would be a mistake to suggest that prize fighting was truly reformed thereafter. In 1860 The first international world title fight between Sayers and Heenan occurred in England and The Times of London was not so sensitive as to publish a blow- by- blow account. In fact, it created hype and one commentator noted that, ‘there was a period not more than six months ago when most of us thought we could never publicly state that we had seen a prize fight.’  However, this spectacle, which resulted in a draw and both participants receiving a belt, does appear to have brought about a resurgence of prize- fighting. Though it was short lived and it ceased to be a national event. With an anti-prize fighting law being passed a year later, which made it illegal to transport a person to a prize-fight. 

Charley Mitchell who bridged the gap between bare-knuckle and gloved boxing

The introduction of Queensbury Rules (drafted 1865 and published 1867), was perceived by some to be a reaction to Sayers v. Heenan in which prize fighting had been ‘pilloried as a breach of the peace.’ The rules themselves were, however, written by John Graham Chambers for amateur boxing and …’  were never intended for professional pugilists. ‘Nonetheless, they were also adopted for professional gloved contests, what ensued was a more upright form of professional boxing, with no grappling holds.

Gloves were worn in the ring, and this contrasted with training only, and weight categories strictly observed. It marked a key change in the fight game. This indicates a strive towards perfection. However, the fair-sized gloves specified by Chambers were ambiguous, whereas contests were soon being fought with skin-tight or racing gloves. The damage that could be caused by them could be substantial (nor was the brain injury caused by a head drumming fully understood). The earlier Queensbury did not specify the number of rounds, and fights were to the finish (point scoring was adopted later).

More positively, however, the size of the purse was overtaken by alternative considerations including ‘science and fast footwork. The bare-knuckle fighter Charley Mitchell in particular easily adapted to gloved fights, and this bridged the gap between the old and modern fighting world. Spectators soon discovered as much thrills could be had when observing a gloved fight. But it was amateur boxing that had the most appeal. Norman Clark noted that professional boxing had not yet recovered from its ‘dejected state’, the suppression of it and the fact that there is little money to be made encouraged a great many men to remain amateurs. The Amateur Boxing Association was formed in 1880 to control and encourage the development of amateur boxing in England. 

The Legality of Bare-Knuckle Boxing in Question

Though what determined the end of the old prize ring was not the success of amateur boxing. But the legal case, R v. Coney (1882) which concluded that bare knuckle boxing was an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, in spite of the participant’s consent.  Therefore, disorderly exhibitions were forbidden, The Law Journal (1882) noted that …’’two men may spar with gloves if the gloves are not a mere pretence.’  After the Coney and similar cases, sparring and exhibition matches with gloves were legal provided that there was not a substantial purse. 

Whereas, if the police got notice of a prize-fight, the two prospective combatants were arrested and bound to the peace. If caught in the act they were common criminals. Though gloved boxing, when regulated by the Queensberry rules, was observed to be somewhat distinct to prize fighting. It was argued that,’ it did not incite social disturbance nor act as a threat to general public morality; it no longer required participants to fight to a standstill; nor could it be considered unacceptably dangerous.’

The Pelican Sporting Club and National Sporting Club

Prize fighting, between the 1860s to the 1880s, existed in the shadows of sporting life, and was practised mostly in back rooms and far-flung places. However, the Pelican Sporting Club started to organise gloved boxing contests in the 1880s. It became boxing's quasi-official governing body that produced a modified set of boxing rules. They restricted the number of rounds to 20. The weight for boxing gloves being a minimum of six ounces. 

Though in many respects the club sought not reform but to promote bloody contests in its premises. This may explain why in 1890 Mr. Coghill asked the Secretary of State if he was aware that prize fights are habitually held at the Pelican Club on a Sunday evening under the guise of boxing exhibitions. This club ceased to exist in 1891 and the National Sporting Club was founded with the purpose of controlling professional boxing. On the opening of the NSC noted Guy Degby, who wrote the history of the club, boxing passed from an illegal occupation to an accepted one. Yet, ‘boxing was not established as a legal sport until after the ruling R. v. Roberts and others of Mr. Justice Grantham in 1901, following the death of Billy Smith (Livingstone). ‘In this case, the court held that because boxing had developed a set of rules, including interestingly enough, the ‘knock out rule’, it was now ‘merely an amicable demonstration of the skill of sparring’, and hence legal. It has been argued that this decision bestowed upon boxing its exclusionary status from criminality, which has remained well into the twenty-first century.’  

The NSC soon issued its own rules (revised 1909). The prestigious Lonsdale belt was first awarded at the club to Freddie Welsh, that same year. For a time, the belts (eight weights in total) gave the club a monopoly over the sport. By 1910 there were various boxing establishments in operation in England as well as a variety of promoters with hefty wallets.

Yet, it was not plain sailing for a proposed contest between Owen Moran and Jim Driscoll in 1911, for a large stake and the featherweight championship of the world, was prevented by a magistrate who observed it to be a breach of the peace. An indication that the law struggled to define clearly a prize fight and a professional boxing contest (even if it was sanctioned under NSC rules).

Deaths in the ring continued, for example, that of Jos Bennett at Becketts Hospital in 1925. It followed a 'sparring bout' with British middleweight champion Ronald Todd. The medical evidence showed death by haemorrhage. But the inquest concluded that, …'it was not due to heavy fighting …or anything to suggest great violence.'

The death of the NSC's pioneer Peggy Bettinson, following pneumonia, signalled the end of an era. The club closed its doors three years later in 1929 (amalgamated into the British board of control). Boxing had, in many respects, outgrew the club, with the professional sport now an important element of the nation's entertainment. The British Boxing Board of Control adopted the NSC rules, updated in 1947 with a clear objective -to safeguard the health of all boxers with proper regulation and control.

Racial Reforms

One of the most important reforms occurred when the color bar was abolished in 1948. Boxing in Britain was not free from discrimination. Such as, in 1911 when the NSC imposed a racial colour bar when the great Jack Johnson (an African American) was to fight Billy Wells. The rule prevented fighters of colour from holding a British title thereafter. 

 

 

Rudolph Turpin, the mixed-race man who became the middle-weight champion of the world and national hero

The British Boxing Board of Control lifted the bar, and Dick Turpin, a mixed-race man was the first to benefit by winning the British middleweight title in 1948. Rudolph Turpin (his brother) became the middle weight champion of the world in 1951, and a national hero. With the immigration wave of the 1950-60s the B.B.B.C. permitted immigrants to contest titles. By the early 1960s a quarter of professional boxers registered in the UK were black, whereas maybe 1 per cent of the wider population was. 

The fight game in England had in fact been dominated by immigrants or the sons of immigrants. Fighters like Jem Carney, Charley Mitchell, Ted ‘Kid’ Lewis or Jim Driscoll. The first immigrant fighter from the West Indies, to win a British title, was Jamaican born Bunny Sterling, who qualified under the 10-year residency. In later years Jamaican born title holders like British Welterweight champion Kirkland Laing or cruiserweight Intercontinental Champion Cheavon Clarke lifted the sport up.

Immigrants and the children of immigrants made it possible for the sport to not only survive but strive, with a strong cohort of boxers in action. Modern professional boxing is practiced in hundreds of nations, from early subscribers like Canada and Australia to the former Soviet Union.

The English Prize Ring made no small contribution to boxings continuance. The rules today vary, for professionals, only slightly across the various different organisations and are based on Queensbury rules.  The exemption that was granted by the common law to sparring has been extended to professional boxing. Hence, what has been presumed since Coney (1882) that professional boxing is allied to sparring as opposed to prize-fights, endures. However, this supposition is debatable particularly when debating the nature of the modern professional sport.

For while a strive for perfection remains, a sport shaped by violence remains imperfect. It is true that ring deaths have diminished over time. Yet this is only but one element of the debate. More recently, a greater awareness of severe long term health risks, like chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) have challenged the legitimacy of ‘a sport of fists’