I just read an interesting article where the author talked about how using old style boxing is more effective for use without gloves and for self defense because there was less likelihood of breaking one's hands, fingers or knuckles. He also said that the stance with the hands further out was more suited for defense then the current stance. Thoughts?
It's a silly argument no one really teaches old school boxing so no one really knows if it's safer better than what is currently taught. The actual number of boxers damaging their hands punching bare knuckle is I suspect statistically very low. Sans weapons I'd prefer my hands high and tight, if they have a weapon do I really wanted an extended guard for them to cut apart, no I'd prefer my own weapon Oh and have you started training yet?
I'm starting boxing at the start of next month. Gotta wait till I get my pay at the beginning of the month! (I'm paid for teaching drum lessons once a month at the studio that I teach at). I'm looking forward to starting as I've put on some weight over this year and I need to lose it lol! I'd much rather do it by boxing then on a treadmill at a gym! Check out the article that I read. It does makes some good points. http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/evolution.html
There is a small but active community of people (almost all in the US and UK) who have been seriously training in old-school boxing (a.k.a. fisticuffs, pugilism, etc.) for about the past 15 years. They typically have backgrounds in the modern style and work from the highly detailed training manuals produced by 18th and 19th century pugilists.
Actually I had read in a historical account on pre-Queensbury boxing that the relatively low rate of injury and prolonged length of bouts was principally due to the disproportionate use of body shots in order to protect the hands.
You have to remember that boxers sucked back then. And that they purposefully protected their hands because they were not wearing over and they knew a fight could last for many many rounds. I bet if they knew they were only fighting three rounds they would throw a lot more head shots, broken hand or no. This is the standard of "old school boxing" https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=AAT0hf1N-fQ https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=9tlRfb4TfZg I mean, an amateur today would smoke any of these guys and under their own rules.
"Back then" is way too broad - the golden age of pugilism was during the early/mid-1800s, fought under London Prize Ring bare-knuckle rules, well before the invention of movie cameras. Of the two early 20th century (Queensberry Rules) examples you provided, the Dixon vs. Leon "fight" was actually a staged re-enactment for the camera - the boxers are clearly just going through the motions - and Johnson vs. Ketchel was Johnson clowning and carrying a clearly outclassed opponent for 12 rounds.
God, then even our actors are better now than they were then. One poor boxer can still clown another. What's your point? post me a video from any time before the first world war where the fighter could argueably beat someone of today's standard.
My point was that the style the OP was asking about - the bare-knuckle fighting of the London Prize Ring - isn't represented in the films you selected. There is no film of LPR fighting because that style was outlawed decades before film cameras were used to record boxing matches.
How many elite level boxers hold their lead hand up though? Not many. And most of those who do have a high tight guard are from South American countries, where they traditionally fight at close range. Anyway, it's called bare-knuckle boxing for a reason. Of course those guys hit and moved in a way that was less risky. Modern boxers hit with padded gloves. They can afford to be more sloppy. There were some posters here in MAP who were training in bare knuckle boxing and western martial arts like Louie and Iklawson and made many posts and threads about these subjects. A couple interesting ones: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100571 http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74835 I think that those old boxers have completely different toolset and rulesets in their matches, so comparisons with modern boxers are quite difficult. But they were definitely on to something IMO! I know almost nothing about the bare-knuckle era, but it's clear to me that even after that, from the beginning of 20th century till today, a big part of their fighting tradition survived and for a good reason. It becomes clear when you see which fighters were and are the best technicians in every boxing generation. Mayweather, James Toney, Mike Mccallum, Pernel Whitaker, Bernard Hopkins. The best technical fighters of the recent decades all were throwback fighters, old school fighters, who had the same more or less classical stance, like Joe Louis, Joe Gans, Benny Leonard, Jack Johnson etc.. That's why, apart from the group of people Devon and I mentioned above who are focused on the bare knuckle era, there are also boxing coaches who have studied the old fighters from 1900's and later and teach in a similar fashion. Like Daði Ástþórsson in Iceland, the person who made the famous video of Charley Burley. The video explains the link of boxing with old fighting traditions and why old school stands strong. [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4"]Charley Burley: Analyzing Genius - YouTube[/ame]
One reason for the length of some bouts was because if a person hit the floor the round was over,and they then had 30 seconds to come back up to scratch. As throwing people was accepted many rounds could end this way. I'd like to comment on Chadderz remark that if they had been going only 3 rounds they would have gone for more headshots. Probably-but people have to go back to work after the fight.Ever do much manual labor with a broken hand? Try using a horse drawn plow. Let's remember there was no $afety net-no workie no eatie. Then as now,most fighters weren't exactly making a comfortable living via the ring.
