Hi Bear... Not a lot evidence to go on but I'd imagine two boxers favouring the same extended guard would come into contact with the hands, wrists and forearms, much like they do in Wing Chun. Louie
More accurate to say that there's no benefit to having the chin tucked. It's hard for most people to learn to do and it doesn't give you any great benefit under Classic Pugilism rules. The extended arms are an artifact of the rules which allow grappling. It helps keep a fella at range, or at least give him something to crash through while going to grappling so that you're warned it's coming (remember, no shoots or single/doubles). You'd think that but it turns out not to be so. The range is much more extended so the fighters have more time to deal with incoming attacks. The fighters also aren't wearing gloves to protect their knuckles from breaking so blows to the head are different (yes, plenty powerful enough to knock a man down as we see in the Mendoza v. Humphreys fight) but still different. Additionally, once at closer range the fight usually went quickly from In-Fighting to Clinch to Grappling with the intent of throwing the opponent to the ground. Peace favor your sword, Kirk
The range is greater because once you close range, you grapple. You see the same thing happening in MMA now. Notice how the range is frequently greater than in modern boxing. They want to be aware of a clinch or shoot so the can counter or sprawl. You also see their guards beginning to creep out some too. Same with Classic Pugilism. The extended arms help keep range and, especially when both guys have extended guards, it creates a large "shield" to have to go through. Particularly very defensive guards such as Mendoza's or Johnson's. Peace favor your sword, Kirk
Like Louie says, small evidence. However, in Edwards' manual you can see the he and Chambers facing each-other in classic John L. style "on guard" stances and their lead gloves are touching/crossing. You can also see a sort of pak/lop/whatever-sau movement illustrated on pp61-62 and described as both simo striking with the left and guarding with the right. Edwards manual can be downloaded at: http://lulu.com/lawson Or you can buy a very nice tree-ware version there for under $10. Peace favor your sword, Kirk
I'm just glad its not called cross buttock throw anymore. Okay, I use foreign terms, and the translation could be even worse, however I am ignorant to that so I am happy to stick my **** out to throw someone over it.
Punching and blocking similar to Wing Chun from 1889 pic which features a straight punch - forearm block pose!!! Louie
The book mentioned in thread would certainly prove interesting and despite my known aversion to spending much time reading as opposed to being on the floor doing it sounds like a real exception and would likely be informative and entertaining as well. Maybe some of the formentioned techniques akin to Judo or Jujutsu will be found in the book. Yet I would be suprised if other material like fish-hooks and "illegal" holds were not frequently refered to. From what I always heard those kind of moves and even a little kicking was not unheard of before the adoption of Queensbury Rules. There were a couple of remarks that I have about the photos attached to some of the posts. The first is Thank God!! for progress. The second is that "old-school" wrestling heavily favored shots to the body. Maybe that reflected the percentage of bare-knuckle fighting then. Reguardless there is an historical account of changes being made with both the adoption of the Queensbury Rules and shots to an opponents head becoming more popular. Could that provide a difference for the guard more commonly seen in the art of Boxing today?
It's laid out in such a way as to sync well with work on the mat. Techniques build off of each other and segue into another. Some of the throws and trips are very similar to Judo throws. If you know de ashi harai, then you already know one of the techniques discussed in the book. Though, it's WMA counterpart is called "the Chip." Chapter 11 is titled "Pull the Hair, Poke the Eye, Oh My!" Classic Pugilism was different. Mufflers were only worn for practice or amateur matches, not professional ring matches. They had to punch different to protect their hands from skulls. Make no mistake though, the head was a primary target. Peace favor your sword, Kirk
I'm curious, is anyone knowledgeable enough to make a comparison between classical pugilism and crazy monkey boxing? As I understand, crazy monkey was developed to apply boxing for MMA and self defense, where large gloves are not used. How does their approach weigh up against classical pugilism? Are they similar, or radically different?
Crazy Monkey uses a covered up, close in guard designed similar to a Judo "turtle" position and is intended for crashing guard to close to clinch or grapple. Peace favor your sword, Kirk
Noted historian and practitioner of Western Martial Arts Kirk Lawson takes time from his busy writing and training schedule and grants an interview discussing his new book Banned from Boxing.... http://kirkhamsebooks.com/MartialArts/MartialArtsArticles/BannedFromBoxing.htm Louie
OK, There's been plenty of time for those of you who were planning on getting the book to get a copy. I'd really appreciate feedback on it. What's good, what's bad? What did you like, what do you think needs improved? What material would you like to see added to it and what material do you think needs to be removed (or rewritten)? Thanks. Peace favor your sword, Kirk
Didn't know you were looking for feedback. I'll give it a boo again at my next opportunity and get back to you. Best regards, -Mark
I wasn't. However, I've gotten some unsolicited feedback and a few "reviews" so I thought I'd do some informal research on ways to make it better. If I get enough, it may be worth while to release a 2nd Edition. Thanks. Peace favor your sword
Forgive me from reviving an old thread, but I've recently got my hands on a copy of this book and thought I'd share my thoughts. I've been studying pugilism for some years, firstly as an adjunct to weapons work and then as a stand alone art. I primarily work from Mendoza and Parkyns. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, I was particularly keen on the fact that it draws from a large number of sources to try and get a "consensus" view on techniques. I very much like that it uses pictures as well as text from the original sources and appreciate the time it must have taken to re-draw so many of the pictures. On the negative side it is a little brief. It really is a basic summary of techniques with very little depth to the work. I understand that it was a theoretical work, but would have either like to see more practical instruction, or if not that then more detail on the context and history of classical pugilism. That being said it is a book I will be keeping hold of and recommending to my students. Thanks Kirk, yet again you've pulled a blinder! Oz
Hi Oz, welcome to MAP. WMA sub-forum has been alittle quiet lately so please contribute as much as you can. It's also a good place for us Non-BFHS clubs to discuss things. The Bear.
Thanks for the welcome, It'll be nice to have somewhere to post without the politics... I suspect I'll be here quite a bit!
Thanks. One of my goals was to have it as historically accurate (and well supported) as I could. Cool. Yeah, I was trying to "let the masters talk" so to speak. A lot of them were just like, "hey, not sure how you get to this point, but once you are there, try this." That's one of the reasons that I put in chained drills at the end. So a person could get some basic understanding of how to link from one action to the next (I like to call it "chaining" but that's just me). I also wanted to avoid spending gobs of time on the various striking, defensive, and footwork systems in use at the various times. They're indispensable to the art, true, but there's already a lot of good info on that. I wanted to focus on the grappling element. Thanks. Really glad you find it useful. Peace favor your sword, Kirk
