You think British boxing conspired to prevent a Brit from holding one of the 'glory' titles for 60 years?

You are either profoundly stupid, or trolling.

The point is that you wouldn't ever refer to miles. You would refer to kilometres. Being able to convert within a system is useful all the time, don't be ridiculous.

> The equivalent would be how many meters in a mile.

No, it wouldn't, because the entire argument is conversions within a system, not between systems. They aren't saying metric works better with customary, they are saying metric works better and so why use customary at all? This isn't hard to grasp - a yard is to a mile and a meter is to a kilometre - you don't mix them. The metric system means you don't need to know metres in a mile, because you wouldn't ever think or measure in terms of miles (you'd use kilometres). For instance, it is not a weakness of customary that miles do not have a clear relationship with hectares - they are separate systems not intended to be used together - the weakness is instead that miles have no clear relationship with acres.

Are you being deliberately disingenuous? Surely you understand miles have no place in the metric system, so you don't need to convert to them?

> That’s not really equivalent.

Yes, they are. The questions above are the metric equivalents of what was asked for originally in customary units, you inexplicably asked a completely different, unrelated set that required mixed units. The point is that if you use metric you don't need customary at all.

Imperial is not just as easy, because someone unfamiliar to the system cannot make any assumptions about feet in a yard, or yards in a mile.

>The equivalent would be how many feet in 1000ft.

I think you are really close to grasping the point here - metric is better because each unit scales easily with the previous one. The relationship between a meter and a kilometre is obvious, that is not true of feet vs miles. A yard is to a mile as a metre is to a kilometre, except the latter is far more intuitive.

You haven’t provided a source.

It's existed since 1597, and was founded by a man who has a law of economics named after him, I imagine it has been using the word 'college' long before wherever you teach existed. It doesn't claim to endow mastery - most college courses and lectures do not - but material delivered by the likes of John Bercow or John Guy today or Christopher Wren in the past is doubtlessly of use to anyone interested in a given topic.

Not really? This is quite poetic (which should be enough to make you question it in classical sources), and the specific circumstances of Caesar's aren't that significant in studying it's impact.

You've clearly never watched any of those sports.