Gloves/bareknuckle

[Adam]

Are there any dangers of fighting bareknuckle as opposed to gloved, apart from broken facial bones and scars? Cause I read an article in another forum saying that IT IS SAFER TO FIGHT BAREKNUCKLE! The reason he gave was that a fighter would go down quicker when being struck bareknuckle in the head, thus making concussion and possible brain injury later on a little less likely. Seems a bit unlikely to me that removing the gloves makes it safer. Does anyone here fight bareknuckle matches?

[Swoop]

It is actually safer for the person receiving the punches for the fist to be bareknuckle. Ask yourself how many times can you hit a hard object like a persons face with a bare hand and how many times can you do it with a gloved hand. Thats a reason why so many boxers suffer brain damage and MMA fighters don't. It's because boxers get hit in the head over and over.
The boxing glove was actually invented to protect the fighters hands so they could fight longer and throw more punches.

[Andrew Green]

I'd say their is some truth to that.

But bareknuckle increases the odds of something getting broken, cuts, facial bruises and other things I'd rather not get on a daily basis.

But yes, putting gloves on fighters can increase their punching poswer.

[Adam]

So it is actually true. I'd never have guessed that it was safer to fight street style, save the scars. From what you tell me, hand conditioning would actually be crucial in bareknuckle boxing, no?

[pgm316]

I'd say not true, the reason could be more to do with the fact MMA style fighters will attack their opponoents entire body + locks as opposed to concentrating on head shots.

[Adam]

But being struck repeatedly in the face bareknuckle would make you go down faster, thus saving you many brain-rattling shots to the head in a fighting career, which might ease up that brain damage a little. True?

[pgm316]

Being hit in the head with a knuckle would do more damage than being hit in the head with a glove. Whether your going to take more repeated blows is the real damaging bit lik you mention.

Debatable question, really depends who your fighting.

A boxing match without gloves would be a messy experience, personnally I'd prefer gloves!

[dredleviathan]

I'm not entrirely sure how true this can be but can't claim to be an expert. I do however have a problem with statisitcs and how they can be manipulated. Thinking of one obvious flaw in the argument for the sake of it - it seems likely that those involved in bare knuckle boxing thesedays are less likely to report injuries sustained in prize fights than their sportive counterparts. Are there any comparitive data out there?

The second thing that comes to mind is the recent Channel 4 (UK terrestrial) programme in the Georgian Underworld series: "Bare Knuckle Boxer". A quote from the website:

Bill Richmond, the ex-slave brought from America by Lord Percy at the end of the 18th century. After teaching himself to read and being trained in the respectable craft of cabinet-making, he threw it all away to became a bare-knuckle boxer.

Bare-knuckle boxing was very fashionable, and being black gave Richmond extra social cachet. But it was a dangerous life. The sport, which had almost no rules, [U}often resulted in horrific injuries.[/U] The men who survived in it and made reputations for themselves gave themselves names like 'Gravedigger' and 'Jawbreaker'.

This was an excellent programme by the way.

During the course of the programme it was mentioned that bouts often went on for 30 or more rounds (some over an hour and a half), they weren't stopped for cuts either. A knockout or knowckdown ended the round and if the boxer could get up for the next round then he simply continued until oine could no longer "come up to scratch". Added to which other techniques such as gouging, elbowing and headbutting were/are also allowed.

I realize I am going slightly off-topic but considering this information perhaps its isn't wise to conclude that bare-knuckle fight won't last as long as gloved fights and therefore the chances of injury are not necessarily reduced: both to the hands of the fighter and to the body of his opponent.

Another possibility is that we are just simply more aware of the damage that can be done to the human physiology these days.

Just food for thought.

Dred

[pgm316]

Scary stuff Dred, its definitely food for thought for the people that claim to meet up and train full contact (ie prance around in a park somwhere) :D

[Cain]

Hmm....bareknuckle can bring out blood and bruises......with gloves it can rattle the brain......I dunno I am not a doc....just a wild generalisation.....

|Cain|

[dredleviathan]

I would postulate that both can do both.

[Cain]

uh...yeah, just a question of which does it more....and yeah I have seen pretty bloody faces hit by gloves....but won't bareknuckle do it worse...?

Thanx,

|Cain|

[Andrew Green]

London Prize Rules fights could go longer then 30 rounds.

But clinching and upperbody throws where also allowed.

A round ended when someone hit the floor, for any reason.

Punches where basically straights, not much for hooks and uppercuts.

Basically the style of the boxing was very different the modern methods in order to fit the rules.

Protect the hands and clinch if you get in trouble.

[pug32]

Back when i was at uni i read some research into brain damage and boxers. The research then seemed to suggest that the heavier the gloves the greater the risk of brain damage. They compared injuries recorded in fights with varying weights of gloves

Their theory behind this was that the weight of the gloves spread the impact and as a result fighters took more hits, it is these persistant hits that rattle the brain against the skull which do the long term damage. Bareknuckles do more cosmetic damage such as tearing skin on impact but fighters would get knocked out before this sort of damage to the brain could occur.