Bare Knuckle Boxing Talk

It's not an overhand punch, and "corckscrew" is a bit of an exaggeration, but I wanted to illustrate that it isn't the standard "elbow locked" hook. My arm twists and straightens through the punch, but travels on a horizontal plane (once the elbow is up). The reason I want to adopt the vertical fist is for hand safety, I just need to fine-tune the action so I get my accuracy and focus back.

Like I said, practice.

 

I have posted this elsewhere but watch Lenny's mechanics

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DraD1LFGkr8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DraD1LFGkr8[/ame]

He moves like Chuck and keeps his fist the same orientation

 

To me, the presence of gloves and, particularly, the absence of grappling are defining elements of the boxing style engendered by the Queensberry rules.

---Those were factors leading to the evolution of the "style" of fighting, but it didn't happen overnight. The way the fighters moved and the techniques they used changed gradually over time. Near the end of the LPR era and even when fighting under the MoQ rules, you would have seen many fighters that looked just like their predecessors...the only difference being that they had light gloves on their hands and didn't do any grappling. But their structure and techniques were the same.


That's what I meant when I said that Barton-Wright's modifications may have taken the standard (Queensberry) style prevalent at 1900 back towards that of LPR rules boxing, at least as far as the speculative "Bartitsu kickboxing" was concerned.

---And I'm saying that the style of boxing in Barton-Wright's day essentially WAS the LPR style....regardless of what rule set was used for bouting. And it wasn't the early 1900's. It was the late 1800's when Barton-Wright would have been learning his boxing methods. He may very well have had access to some of the same books we've been referring to.


Going by the manuals from this period, I'm confident in saying that Allanson-Winn was unusual (not unique, just unusual) in including LPR-style throws.

---He would be if you thought he was writing in 1915, but he was writing in 1897. It wasn't so unusual at that time. Benedict's boxing manual was republished in 1893 and included grappling. Grappling may have been gone from competitions, but since it had been part of boxing for so long many still taught it. They also continued to include it for the "self-defense" aspects of boxing. And many of these books continued to reprint the London Prize Ring Rules up to the end of the 1800's.



We have no evidence that Barton-Wright was even aware of the older methods;

---All you have to do is look at what he was doing and compare it to the older boxing books.


I'm gathering that your definition of the LPR era doesn't match the dates when the various rule sets were introduced; what is it based on?

---I've been talking about "style" not rules. The rules don't dictate everything that a fighter does. I divide the different eras by the style of fighting that was used, not by when a set of rules was written. Rules didn't immediately make the fighters change their style. Going by the boxing manuals I've been able to research, the LPR "style" of fighting likely started before the actual LPR rules were written. It became much more "standardized" or widely used as time went on and was in its "heydey" around 1880 when John L. Sullivan was fighting. The last book that continues to show it is Fitzsimmons book from 1901. By the time that Jim Corbett came out with his book in 1912 you can already see "modern" changes taking place. But that didn't happen overnight either. I consider this time to be a "transition era" with a mix between the older style and the modern style. By the time you look at Haislet's book in 1940 the "modern style" had fully arrived. But when Barton-Wright was active the physical methods used for boxing hadn't changed significantly from the height of the LPR era. It was LPR style boxing....regardless of what rule set was being used for competition.

Keith

 

I'm gleaning that your definition of "style" has to do with posture and mechanics. If so, I agree, the prevalent style in that sense circa 1900 was largely unchanged from that of, say, 1860 - erect stance, extended lead guard, etc. As I said earlier, I also agree that there was a long transitional period between styles. I still maintain that the presence of gloves and (especially) absence of grappling mandated by the Queensberry rules were substantial differences between the boxing style of Barton-Wright's era and that of the London Prize Ring, so again, it comes down to how we're defining "style".

Some did, not many; as I said, Allanson-Winn's inclusion of competitively redundant LPR-style throws and counters in his 1889 book was unusual, not unique. By 1900, it was even more unusual for the authors of boxing manuals to include grappling in their books.

Given that all we know about boxing at the Bartitsu Club was included in the article I linked you to earlier, this discussion boils down to educated guesswork. Mine is that, whether deliberately or otherwise, Barton-Wright's modifications of standard c1900 Queensberry style boxing may have taken it back towards the LPR style, specifically regarding the (re-)integration of throwing techniques and (possibly) a return to/emphasis upon defenses that did not require gloves.

 

I never tyre of that clip,I use the same position as well

 

I'm gleaning that your definition of "style" has to do with posture and mechanics.

---Yes. That's what I've been saying all along. Why would "style" equate with a set of written rules?

If so, I agree, the prevalent style in that sense circa 1900 was largely unchanged from that of, say, 1860 - erect stance, extended lead guard, etc.

---Yes, including the mechanics of punching and the defensive techniques used.


I still maintain that the presence of gloves and (especially) absence of grappling mandated by the Queensberry rules were substantial differences between the boxing style of Barton-Wright's era and that of the London Prize Ring, so again, it comes down to how we're defining "style".

---Ok. Then I'm am not following your point. Other than a difference in what was allowed in the ring, what were the "substantial differences" between the boxing style in B-W's time and the LPR style? And what are you using as your reference for the boxing style in B-W's time? And how are YOU defining "style"?



Some did, not many; as I said, Allanson-Winn's inclusion of competitively redundant LPR-style throws and counters in his 1889 book was unusual, not unique. By 1900, it was even more unusual for the authors of boxing manuals to include grappling in their books.

---This is true, and is one of the reasons I consider 1900 to be the end of the actual LPR era as far as the method of boxing is concerned.


Given that all we know about boxing at the Bartitsu Club was included in the article I linked you to earlier, this discussion boils down to educated guesswork.

---Why do you think that? According to this article by Tony Wolf:
http://www.bartitsu.org/index.php/the-origins-of-bartitsu/

B-W was born in 1860 and returned to England from Japan to start Bartitsu in 1898. Therefore he was likely learning his boxing methods somewhere around 1880 to 1890. All you have to do is look at the boxing books that were published around that time to see what they were doing. Not much guessing really needed. Ned Donnelly's book, Edwin Shaw's book, even Allanson-Winn would be good examples. All LPR style boxing.


Mine is that, whether deliberately or otherwise, Barton-Wright's modifications of standard c1900 Queensberry style boxing may have taken it back towards the LPR style, specifically regarding the (re-)integration of throwing techniques and (possibly) a return to/emphasis upon defenses that did not require gloves.

---Fitzsimmons, writing in 1901, illustrated all of the techniques in his book without gloves. So what boxing methods are you referring to in B-W's day that relied on gloves? Other than reviving grappling within boxing, that many boxers were already forgetting, exactly what boxing method was it that B-W felt the need to "modify" and what is your source for that method?

Keith

 

Billy Edwards published in 1888 and his manual is clearly more LPR than Amateur/Scientific. Most of his plates show wearing Mufflers but the punches, "Attitude," footwork, and most other stylistic elements, including grappling, was LPR. However, he goes out of his way to make a distinction between LPR and amateur matches and specifies that Mufflers are not worn in professional matches, nor is grappling used but he believed that his readers would want to learn material over and above what amateurs learn (or at least that what he writes).

For what it's worth.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

Are you talking about "fighting style" or a fighter's individual style, as in the way he characteristically performs techniques? In the former case, if we're talking about boxing as a fighting style, then the rules dictate techniques, which I would say are a major aspect of "style".

The characteristic mechanics, tactics and techniques of a given martial art/combat sport/etc. Most significantly for purposes of this discussion, LPR rules allowed standing grappling and throwing, which were prohibited under Queensberry rules. My reference for boxing circa 1899-1902 (Bartitsu Club era) is gleaned from the majority of British, US and other manuals published during that period, which clearly illustrate the Queensberry rules "style" and, with only a few exceptions, do not include LPR-style standing grappling and throwing.

In his hypothetical discussion of self defense against boxers, Barton-Wright clearly did not expect boxers to be familiar with jujitsu. We could infer that he didn't expect them to be familiar with wrestling per se, or not; there's no real evidence either way.

"If one gets into a row and plays the game in the recognised style of English fair play – with fists – the opponent will very likely rush in and close, in order to avoid a blow. Then comes the moment for wrestling in the secret Japanese way. Instantly the unwary one is caught and thrown so violently that he is placed hors de combat, without even sufficient strength left to retire unassisted from the field.

Again, should it happen that the assailant is a better boxer than oneself, the knowledge of Japanese wrestling will enable one to close and throw him without any risk of getting hurt oneself."

I count Barton-Wright's self defense oriented revival of grappling within boxing as a significant modification to the standard Queensberry style prevalent during the Bartitsu Club era. He clearly spoke of jujitsu as a "secret weapon" of grappling against a boxer. Speculatively, the LPR influence may have been specific to transitioning from, say, the boxing clinch range into jujitsu grappling against an opponent who, at that time, would be unlikely to know jujitsu.

All we know about the other modifications is based on this rather cryptic quote:

"Another branch of Bartitsu is that in which the feet and hands are both employed, which is an adaptation of boxing and Savate. The guards are done in a slightly different style from boxing, being much more numerous as well."

My best guess in this case is that the guards in "Bartitsu kickboxing" may have represented a return to aspects of the LPR style, perhaps particularly a return to guards that didn't assume that either fighter was wearing gloves, for self defense purposes. I acknowledge that guards that *did* fully exploit the gloves were still under development during this transitional period.

 

LPR rules allowed standing grappling and throwing, which were prohibited under Queensberry rules. My reference for boxing circa 1899-1902 (Bartitsu Club era) is gleaned from the majority of British, US and other manuals published during that period, which clearly illustrate the Queensberry rules "style" and, with only a few exceptions, do not include LPR-style standing grappling and throwing.

---I think you are making to "hard" of a distinction between what you consider LPR style and what you consider MoQ style. And remember, B-W learned his boxing well before 1899-1902. As Kirk pointed out,

"Billy Edwards published in 1888 and his manual is clearly more LPR than Amateur/Scientific. Most of his plates show wearing Mufflers but the punches, "Attitude," footwork, and most other stylistic elements, including grappling, was LPR. However, he goes out of his way to make a distinction between LPR and amateur matches and specifies that Mufflers are not worn in professional matches, nor is grappling used but he believed that his readers would want to learn material over and above what amateurs learn."

---I'm pretty sure that back then, just as today, fighters may have started in the amateur ranks with thoughts of eventually turning pro. So the boxing methods used by amateurs under the MoQ rule wouldn't have been any different than those used under the LPR rules, other than the exclusion of grappling and the use of the gloves during bouts. And a survey of the old boxing books bears this out. Ned Donnelly's book and Billy Edward's book are very similar. Donnelly wrote for an amateur audience in England and excluded grappling. Edwards wrote for a wider audience in the U.S. and included grappling. Whether or not one used grappling in a bout is not enough to set things apart as separate "styles." The body mechanics of punching and defending were the same. A rule set does not determine what a fighter does. It only limits his options. John L. Sullivan could put on modern boxing gloves and step in the ring today and compete with what he knew, as long as he didn't try to throw anyone to the mat!




I count Barton-Wright's self defense oriented revival of grappling within boxing as a significant modification to the standard Queensberry style prevalent during the Bartitsu Club era.

---It would have been an "addition", not a "modification." What did he change in the way that a fighter would punch, defend, move, etc.? B-W may have brought back to boxing something that was quickly being forgotten at that point...grappling. But he didn't significantly change the boxing methods themselves. And realize too that professional fighting, and therefore the use of the LPR rules, was banned in England around this time. But this was not so in the United States. Billy Edwards clearly states in his 1888 book that both sets of rules were being used....LPR for professional fights and MoQ for amateur fights.



My best guess in this case is that the guards in "Bartitsu kickboxing" may have represented a return to aspects of the LPR style, perhaps particularly a return to guards that didn't assume that either fighter was wearing gloves, for self defense purposes. I acknowledge that guards that *did* fully exploit the gloves were still under development during this transitional period.

---And I'll ask again....just what techniques are you seeing that relied on gloves and what are your sources? The LPR style did not rely on gloves. Allanson-Winn states that gloves are only for protecting your sparring partners face, should be as small as possible, and shouldn't be relied upon for defense.

---I think we've not been seeing "eye to eye" because you consider the exclusion of grappling from the boxing of B-W's day in England as enough to set it apart as a separate "style" from the boxing of the LPR era....but I don't. We may just have to agree to disagree, and that's OK!

 

Fine with me.

 

Keith and Devon, interesting conversation.

Just to throw my opinion into the mix. While there may have not been an immediate change in striking techniques and guards there would have been a change in the mental attitudes and training of the fighters. If you don't need to fear being grappled and thrown then you would don't need to train those aspects of the game. By not training grappling skills you have more time to work on the striking and your striking will become more refined and sophisticated. Advanced thinkers will be looking at the rules to see how they can use them to their advantage, the jab, infighting and the crouch for example.

I think what we are seeing at that time is not a definitive style but a transition period between the styles. The LPR style does not work as well under the new rules but the new MoQ style has not yet be defined.

 

[quote="m1k3jobs ']If you don't need to fear being grappled and thrown then you would don't need to train those aspects of the game. By not training grappling skills you have more time to work on the striking and your striking will become more refined and sophisticated.[/quote]

Indeed. Modern boxing has been narrowed and refined - much like fencing. Both are extremely efficient, just within a much narrower ruleset.

I would actually like to see a revival of LPR-style boxing, throws and all. It would definitely be interesting to watch.

 

Hey Mike!

That's exactly what happened! But it happened primarily after the turn of the century. You see it in the boxing books published around 1912 to 1920 or so. They show varying mixes of LPR style with "modern" changes. By the time of Haislet's book in 1940 "modern boxing" had pretty much fully arrived. But in B-W's era the books printed were all still LPR style.

Keith

 

I know, i wasnt refferring to boxing. I was referencing certain Martial Arts that reccomend punching with the fist held vertically. Its not taught in the old boxing manuals or the new ones as far as i know. But yeah, i meant MA's, not boxing. I've always been told hit with the fist horizontally placed.

Morti.

 

The hook however, i've always thrown that with the fist held vertically. Ross Enamait puts it simply as "hooking the arm and using body rotation to deliver the blow", which is as i've always been taught (not mentioning foot placement and hip rotation here however).

Morti.

 

Hey Morti!

Striking with a vertical fist and contacting with the bottom three knuckles IS taught in the old boxing manuals. Its taught that way in Wing Chun Gung Fu as well. The only martial art that I'm aware of that teaches using a vertical fist with the top two knuckles is Isshin Ryu Karate. But I'm sure there are probably others.

Keith

 

Actually there are more. The top two knuckles are used for striking with a vertical fist jab which can target the face area, back of the head, chest, side of the abdomen and the point below the nose. I prefer to use the keiko-ken (single knuckle) but two knuckles works too. The key, IME, is that these are jab like strikes and not power strikes. They come down slightly to the target. The karate ready stance is a variation of this strike where both hands strike down on the hip of the enemy to strike the pressure points and break their posture.

The bottom 3 knuckles are for power strikes using the vertical fist and these strikes come straight or with a slightly upward angle.

 

Use of Elbows?

Open question to those knowledgeable about CP: Was there much use of elbows? Neither the Broughton or LPR rules forbade them. I can understand that they may not have seen much offensive use (since elbow range is grappling range) but I'm sure there must have been a few elbow strikes here and there.

I know they were used defensively - Banned from Boxing makes reference to "Jack Slack's block": arm folded with the elbow pointing forward. As far as I can tell this is the same as the block used in Cappoiera. Mendoza used a double-elbow guard both to defend and to close with his opponents.

I was introduced to elbow blocking when I took up Savate. The french method was to "salute" with the hand coming back to cup the ear, elbow pointing forward (A one-handed version of Mendosa's). While this does provide good coverage from a hook, I found it a little slow because the arm has to be raised so high. I quickly developed my own variation, almost the same as Slack's but I get there differently. From a "high guard" (modern stance) I pivot the arm from the shoulder. This brings the elbow up and the hand down. The downward-moving hand acts as a counterweight, so there is less effort involved in raising the elbow. This makes it faster. As a bonus, the hand and forearm are available to defend the body.

Elbows now comprise a major part of my defence (I don't spar Queensberry rules). The static elbow block is brutal on your opponent's hands, and sets you up for a hammerfist or grab (I'm trying to work in the grappling techniques). I also use this block offensively when going forward, to unbalance my partner. Additionally, since my sparring partner is quite adept at slapping down my right cross and following immediately with a short jab, I adapted by allowing the hand to swing down, while bringing the elbow up to block. I can do this fast enough to catch his jab, and the elbow block is my default response to a parried (not blocked) punch.

So does anyone else have anything to say on the past or present use of elbows?

 

This shows up in pre-MoQ stuff as well. It's a good block against Rounding Blows and sets you up nicely for a riposte with a Chopper.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

Both Mike Donovan and Bob Fitzsimmons show a "pivot blow." This was a spinning backhand blow landing with the right fist or forearm. If you were a little closer, it landed with the elbow. But the elbow strike version was called the "foul pivot" and was considered illegal. But since they both bothered to include it in their books, it must have happened fairly regularly! Donovan doesn't include grappling in his book, so he may have had the MoQ rule set in mind when he wrote it. By the time Fitzsimmons was writing in 1901 I think the LPR rules were already on the out. But what had become known as the "foul pivot" may have been standard practice in the LPR days. No one else seems to mention it in their books, so its hard to say.

Keith