Bare Knuckle Boxing Talk

Hi Guys!

Anyone practicing and want to discuss the Classic Pugilism? Or is there another forum active on this topic that someone can point me to?

Kirk....looking forward to your book. I was about to buy the 1st edition when I saw you had the 2nd edition coming out.

Anyone have any comments about Lindholm's "Bare Knuckle Boxing Companion" book?

Thanks!

Keith

 

Not practicing, but would love to know more. Kirk's books are on my wish list...

Seems to me that bare-knuckle pugilism is more appropriate for a "real fight" situation than most of what I learned in TKD or karate. I've been keen to learn for a while.

 

As far as I know, bare knuckle is more realistic for self defense (as its pretty hard to find boxers walking around town with boxing gloves on) and safer to spar in (as less people will be punching for the head, but that might teach some bad habits?) which in turn should greatly reduce your chance of developing Boxer's syndrome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer's_syndrome <- scary.
It'd be nice if it was more popular.

 

Active? No, unfortunately. We explored mendoza boxinig briefly and superficially a year ago, but neither of us were willing to put the effort and time into it to get really into it. I attended a mini-course in Swordfish 2009 in Gothenburg, sweeden with this dude: http://www.bartitsu.org/index.php/bartitsu-today/dr-milo-thurston-profile/

I can say that he was a very good instructor and had a very good take on his students (made us feel well, safe, relax and comfortable). We started with basic stances and was tought 4 basic techniques, he then put on us amateur-boxing-helmets, gloves, and let us have 30 second full-contact-rounds I don't know where in the world you live, but if you're living anywhere near Miloe Thurston, I'd recomend him!

 

Hey Guys!

I guess you could say I was sort of one of the "pioneers" back when Ken Pfrenger and Kirk Lawson were also getting interested in the topic. The difference is, they stuck with and I didn't. I drifted off to other things and have only recently got the BKB "itch" back. A little over 10 years ago I made a trip to the Library of Congress in D.C. and photocopied most of the old boxing books they had on hand. Recently I discovered that most of these and more have been digitized and made available for free on-line. My very favorite is out there now. Look for Mike Donovan's book for download. It was one of the first, if not THE first book to feature actual photos instead of drawings. It is also very comprehensive. I'm toying with the idea of writing my own book on "Classical Pugilism" based on Donovan and "fleshed out" with a half a dozen or so of the books by his contemporaries. This would give a very comprehensive look at what BKB was like during the London Prize Ring era.

As far as good for "self-defense"....hell yeah! There's a reason why about 75% of the boxing books written in that era had "self-defense" somewhere in the title. To me, the LPR style represents the best mix of punching and grappling. Putting that left hand out in front between you and the opponent keeps them at bay and makes it difficult for them to hit you. The hands out in front with a relatively upright stance also makes it easier to incorporate the modern "sprawl" against someone shooting in at your legs.

Stolenbjorn....I live an ocean away from Milo. But I've known him as an on-line acquintance for many years now. He seems like a really good guy and I'm sure he's good at what he does. I'd love to have the chance to train with him at some point.

Now...as far as getting going learning BKB. Start by going to Kirk's Lulu page, download the boxing manuals he has up for free, and buying his book. Do a search for Mike Donovan's book and download it. Be patient, and maybe soon I will have a book out that will bring it all together and also help put it in a modern self-defence context.

Feel free to ask about specific techniques or boxing manuals. I have a tidbit to share about James Sullivan's book for Spalding, in case no one else has pointed it out yet.

Keith

 

It would be great to have such a resource, particularly as these skills seem to be in danger of dying out. My personal training goal is to learn BKB/pugilism and combine it with the low kicks of savate. I feel that it would effectively cover most self-defence requirements. (Before someone says "BJJ!" - I have no intention of going to ground in the street, surrounded by goodness-knows-who.)

I like my training to be "reality oriented". Since BKB/pugilism was practiced bare-knuckle, with very few rules for around 200 years before gloves and "Queensberry rules" became the norm I am confident that the practitioners knew what they were doing - particularly regarding the perils of punching the head with a bare fist.

I would be interested to hear anyone else's view on the above plan. Anyone see any glaring issues? Bare-knuckle striking, grappling/clinching/throws and low kicks all fit with what I have heard/read about real-life fights - of which I thankfully have no personal experience.

 

Keith! Good to see ya, man!

Absolutely wait for 2nd ed. I'll be putting it out in the next week or two. I have incorporated some minor changes recommended by Tony, in particular I've rectified some capitalization issues. I'm not sure why but I've sold like 3 of the 1st Ed. after making the announcement for the 2nd and putting up a chapter teaser download for both on lulu. I just don't get it.

I still miss your website. I liked it and would send folks there.

I haven't read it. Ken says he'll post a review when he gets/gets-done-with it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

Hey Stevie!

I like my training to be "reality oriented". Since BKB/pugilism was practiced bare-knuckle, with very few rules for around 200 years before gloves and "Queensberry rules" became the norm I am confident that the practitioners knew what they were doing - particularly regarding the perils of punching the head with a bare fist.

---I absolutely agree!

I would be interested to hear anyone else's view on the above plan. Anyone see any glaring issues?

---I think its a good plan. Do a search on-line to check out Bartitsu. Bartitsu was a martial art developed by William Barton-Wright in the late 1800's that combined the LPR style of pugilism with some savate and japanese ju jitsu/early judo. So you wouldn't be the first!

Keith

 

Hey Kirk!

Absolutely wait for 2nd ed.

---Will do!

I still miss your website. I liked it and would send folks there.

---My training partner Scott Campbell was the webmaster back then. Maybe I can get something similar going in the future.

I haven't read it. Ken says he'll post a review when he gets/gets-done-with it.

---It was a good effort. But very basic. They didn't seem to draw upon enough of the historical resources available.

Keith

 

I've already read up on Barton-Wright, and yes, I'm impressed with his (then-novel) approach to cross-training. As it happens I already train in Vigny LaCanne, one of the styles taught at his school. Now I have to find someone to teach me pugilism... Didn't think for a moment I would be first to combine these skills, just wondering what others thought.

Sorry if I'm "carrying on" a bit here, but I have a couple of theories about BKB that I would like to run by those more knowledgeable.

Firstly, owing to the primitive state of medicine in the BKB days, a broken hand would be far more serious than it is today. IIRC, most of the BKB fighters had "day jobs", usually labourors or tradesmen. A broken hand could spell financial ruin. Is it not reasonable to assume that protecting the hand had a high priority? (I'm a tradesman myself, so it's a high priority for me.)

Secondly, I read somewhere - possibly one of Kirk's articles - that broken hands seem to be no more common in BKB than they are now. Considering the higher risk of a bare-knuckle punch, this leads me to the following conclusions:

1: That the BKB technique was well suited to the application. (Indeed, given the higher risk but apparently no greater frequency of injury, it may well have been superior to modern boxing.)

2: That the use of head punches was more tactical. Both because of the risk factor and because a bare-knuckle body-shot is far more effective than a gloved one. The older BKB guards had the hands extended in front of the body. The head was not protected at all, nor was it for many years. The grappling component and longer punching range obviously had a lot to do with this, but I have seen guards that held the right arm across the body to protect the "mark". Evidently this was more important than protecting the head... The removal of grappling allowed for close-range exchanges where the head could more easily be hit, but unless I'm mistaken this happened at the same time gloves were introduced (making head shots less risky). So it's hard to say whether the gloves or the rules had the most influence on this. Did anyone fight bare-knuckle with no throws/grappling? If so, what guard did they use?

My apologies for twisting your ear, but I have been wondering about this for some time. I would really like to hear your thoughts.

 

I can only recall one period source which even mentions moderate to serious injury to the hands as a common hazard. That is Fox's Police Gazette "Boxing and How to Train," a transitional manual in LPR, Marquis rules, and amateur "Scientific Boxing." On pp81, Ch. XXXI, "Fitzsimmons' Methods," Bob Fitzsimmons says,

The next thing I would look out for would
be the man’s hands (I am supposing that I am training a man for
a fight). Pugilists, as a rule, have considerable trouble with their
hands, as they are often liable to get broken badly in a contest, or
if a blow is not landed in the way it is intended a bad sprain is
often the result. Some trainers use a sort of pickling solution
with which they pickle the hands, face and neck, in order that a
blow will not cut the skin so readily. If my man had a very tender
skin I might use something to toughen and harden his face,
but as a rule I don’t think that pickling the face and neck does any
good. My own skin is very tender, indeed, but I never tried to
toughen my face by pickling, preferring to use pure alcohol,
which in a measure answers the same purpose, and is at the same
time very refreshing. To the hands, however, too much attention
cannot be paid, and I have found nothing better than corned beef
brine. This does not smell very nice, it is true, and should be applied
three times a day after eating. I would never allow my man
to apply it before eating, as it might affect his stomach, which
would be bad. But, although the brine does not smell anywhere
near as good as Florida water, it does the business, and that is all
that is required. After the brine is applied and well rubbed in,
the following liniment should also be rubbed in. It can be
obtained at any first class drug store, and the ingredients are as
follows ; Laudanum, three ounces ; spirits of hartshorn, four
ounces ; alcohol. one quart ; iodine, two ounces ; eucalyptic,
three ounces. These mixed up together with ten cents worth of
horseradish and five cents worth of alum, make a liniment which
cannot be equalled for strengthening and hardening the bone, and
when applied and well rubbed in it has a tendency to make a man
feel fresh and strong.​

Again, note that this is 1913 when MoQ was taking hold. Boxing was mostly under a modified/early version of LPR. Fitz. boxed professionally with light gloves but much of the boxing looked like some sort of bastardized combination of LPR (minus most grappling) and MoQ.

On a side note, I really like his (ahem) American "Jow" recipe. For some reason I can't find all of the ingredients to try it out.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

The particular bone structure in the hand of an individual really came into play back when bare knuckle fighting was going on.

 

Thanks greatly for your input. It's interesting to note that the only source you recall mentioning hand injuries as a "common hazard" comes from the gloved (albeit lightly) period. Though since you say most grappling was eliminated, it's still hard to determine if it was the gloves or the rules that made the head a more common target, and forced the introduction of a higher guard. Can you tell me if the horizontal fist had become standard by this time? I am curious as to whether its adoption was because:

A: The use of the first two knuckles allowed more "focus" when gloved, or:

B: The twisting action gives an increased chance of cutting/tearing the skin when using gloves. Granted this would also work bare-knuckle, but if I'm right, the safety aspect of a bare-knuckle punch were the most important.

 

Weren't hammerfists and choppers common punches for hitting the head? Also didn't the bkb boxers tend to strike with a vertical fist ala Jack Dempsy?

 

Hey Stevie!

I've already read up on Barton-Wright, and yes, I'm impressed with his (then-novel) approach to cross-training. As it happens I already train in Vigny LaCanne, one of the styles taught at his school.

---Then it sounds like you are on the right track!

Firstly, owing to the primitive state of medicine in the BKB days, a broken hand would be far more serious than it is today. IIRC, most of the BKB fighters had "day jobs", usually labourors or tradesmen. A broken hand could spell financial ruin.

---That kind of medicine was not necessarily as primitive as you might think. They were doing some reconstructive/plastic surgery during the civil war. But yes, a broken hand would be a problem.


1: That the BKB technique was well suited to the application. (Indeed, given the higher risk but apparently no greater frequency of injury, it may well have been superior to modern boxing.)

---The alignment and the way the punch was delivered had a lot to do with it. See my article that I wrote many years ago, and that Kirk has kindly kept available:

http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/breakyourhand/breakyourhand.html


2: That the use of head punches was more tactical. Both because of the risk factor and because a bare-knuckle body-shot is far more effective than a gloved one.

---This is true. They seem to have been more concerned with defending body shots than modern boxers are today.


The older BKB guards had the hands extended in front of the body. The head was not protected at all, nor was it for many years.

---The head was protected. They just didn't feel the need to hide it behind big fluffy gloves. By putting the guard out it front it made it very difficult for an opponent to get past it and land a shot to the head. The upright stance also made it very easy to simply "throw the head and body back"...as they were found of saying in the old manuals. An opponent coming forward to hit you in the head runs the risk of running right into your straight lead punch. They used a lot of "stop hits" back then. Bruce Lee wasn't the first to come up with that concept! If the opponent did a successful feint and got past your lead arm, a quick lean to the rear from the waist was often enough to get your head out of the way.


The removal of grappling allowed for close-range exchanges where the head could more easily be hit, but unless I'm mistaken this happened at the same time gloves were introduced (making head shots less risky). So it's hard to say whether the gloves or the rules had the most influence on this. Did anyone fight bare-knuckle with no throws/grappling? If so, what guard did they use?

---The elimination of grappling absolutely was a huge factor in the transition to the "modern" style of boxing. If there was no longer a chance of someone grabbing your head in "Chancery" and wailing away at your face, or of someone grabbing you and throwing you painfully to the ground if you got too close, then in-fighting becomes much more prominent. Without grappling to worry about the fighters could get in closer, put the head forward in the "crouched" position, did a lot more "ducking & weaving", and use shorter punches. They started to worry less about parrying the longer punches. The basic structure got tighter and more "compact." And the transition from the LPR rules to the Marquis of Queensbury rules was gradual. Mike Donovan fought as many bouts bare knuckle as he did with gloves. And often, the gloves used in a fight were more like what we would call "bag gloves", and were not the big fluffy gloves used when training. So I think the changing rule set was a bigger factor in the transition to modern boxing than the use of gloves.

Keith

 

The Chopper was essentially a hammerfit. It was aimed at the bridge of the nose. It wasn't a primary attack, but used after a parry or a set up of some kind. It was already fading from use during the LPR era. So I'm not sure it was really "common." In Mike Donovan's book from 1893 he mentions a defense against it, even though he doesn't describe its execution or include it in his description of strikes.

Yes, the straight left and straight right were delivered with a vertical fist. See my article linked in above. This was a factor in protecting the hand from injury.

Keith

 

Hey Kirk!

I can only recall one period source which even mentions moderate to serious injury to the hands as a common hazard.

---I agree. Mike Donovan comments that he hurt his hand during his fight with John L. Sullivan, but doesn't talk about it like its a "common hazard."



On a side note, I really like his (ahem) American "Jow" recipe. For some reason I can't find all of the ingredients to try it out.

---Laudanum might be tough to get! But I do find it very interesting that this is essentially a "dit da jow" recipe.

---I think a bigger factor in trying to protect the hands from injury in modern boxing is not the gloves, but the taping of the hands. After all, modern MMA gloves likely aren't much different than the light gloves that were used for fights during the transition from the bare knuckle era to the gloved era. But good trainers have their taping techniques down to a science. This keeps the hand nicely compacted and supported to withstand more impact than it might otherwise. So in answer to the question "were bare knuckle fighters of the by-gone era more prone to hand injury than modern boxers?"....I would think the answer is "yes." But they managed to have long careers with grueling fights, so they obviously knew how to punch in a way that offered them as much protection as possible.

Keith

 

Keith: Thank you kindly for your response, and the link.You have answered a couple of my questions.

To clarify: when I said the head wasn't protected, I meant "by the guard". I did not mean to imply that they simply "took it on the chin". Modern boxing by contrast places heavy emphasis on head protection.

Thank you! if it was the rules rather than the gloves that forced the change, this indicates to me that the hand injury risk was not the major reason the head does not seem to have been as much of a target (judging by the guard position). Which makes the "infighting" skills all the more important to learn. Since the extended guard was evidently meant to prevent someone closing, the trappling/grappling must have been quite effective. I want to learn!

Nothing more to add right now, but I'm sure I'll have more questions later on. Such as "Where do I find a BKB/pugilism instructor in Melbourne?" A city of 4 million people - what are my chances?

 

Keith,

I find it interesting that a lot of the modern MMA fighters have a wider stance with a modern western boxing style guard,
I come from a Muay Thai background and think that the Thai extended guard and narrower stance is better for MMA than the common used wider stance and close guard position,reading your comments in a post above ie.....


" putting that left hand out in front between you and the opponent keeps them at bay and makes it difficult for them to hit you. The hands out in front with a relatively upright stance also makes it easier to incorporate the modern "sprawl" against someone shooting in at your legs."

I thought I would ask you what your take on the stance/guard position for MMA? sorry if it a hijack of the thread guys!

 

Thank you! if it was the rules rather than the gloves that forced the change, this indicates to me that the hand injury risk was not the major reason the head does not seem to have been as much of a target (judging by the guard position).

---I think that's a fair conclusion.

Which makes the "infighting" skills all the more important to learn. Since the extended guard was evidently meant to prevent someone closing, the trappling/grappling must have been quite effective. I want to learn!

---Yep!

Nothing more to add right now, but I'm sure I'll have more questions later on. Such as "Where do I find a BKB/pugilism instructor in Melbourne?" A city of 4 million people - what are my chances?

---I'm afraid I can't help you with that one. You may just have to be the "pioneer" in the Melbourne area and start your own group!

Keith