Can you give examples of how it was modified and also of how it faired against other martial arts from all over the world. Did they really do that badly in fights.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR> [/quote]
“The Self Defense mentality” is one of escaping from a violent encounter unharmed. “The Warriors mentality” is one of taking out the enemy as quickly and efficient as possible- Ji Ji Ke (Ji Long feng). Which one do you have?
Earliest boxing in the bareknuckle eras were mix of boxing and abit of wrestling. It seems it wasn’t full wrestling but certain wrestling techniques were used, most popular were cross buttock throw (not sure what it is but its always mentioned), grabbing the opponent’s head and punching with the other fist.
Early boxing seemed to lack the footwork and bobbing+weaving which are the basics of modern boxing. The guard was also alot lower and more varied than today’s standard boxing guard. Many of the guard position is very kungfu like.
Its said that Filipino boxers were the ones introduced the high guard, active foortwork and bobbing+weaving techniques of boxing. These attributed from their streetfighting techniques and possibly escrima skills.
Note all the info I got from reading on various resources. It may not be correct but I found it interesting nonetheless.
Pugilism (bare-knuckle boxing) is still taught in some WMA circles.
Pugilists claim there is a method to their madness:
One disadvantage of new style boxing over the older approach is in punch structure. Having your hands taped and gloves on allows you to punch in ways that are not advisable in a long bare knuckle fight.
Some would argue that the circling ring footwork common in modern boxing is a step away from realism. When pugilists fought on sawdust covered floors or in pubs, their footing was not certain. They therefore did not “dance”. In a self-defense situation, you don’t always have an immaculately groomed squared circle in which to face off against your opponent. Pugilists would argue that their footwork is “conservative” based on a preference to be sure footed and throwing power punches, rather than being mobile and throwing flurries, combinations, and probing punches.
I’m not suggesting that one approach is ultimately better than the other outside of the ring. I just thought it would be nice to present the arguments of the other camp, who usually get dissed because their style of fighting looks very dated to those raised on modern boxing.
I don’t get mad.
I get stabby.
erm… boxers today typically don’t fare too poorly in fights.
Stranger is right though, the taping of the hands and the padding allow some super hard punching to the head that early pugilists didn’t use.
If you ever see some pictures of some early boxing matches, you’ll notice they hold their jab way out there… makes sense, since throwing a stiff jab from a long distance to the face will hurt your hand over time.
I’m fairly certain the Filipino boxers didn’t introduce the high guard. I’m willing to bet that the introduction of thicker gloves, which led to the use of a big overhand right cross, probably lead to a high guard. Think about it–if your jab is hanging out there, it takes time for you to get it back to your face. The overhand right will beat the opponents left if it’s stuck out there stiff, and so, boxers started bringing their hands in or they would get knocked out.
A cross buttocks throw is nothing more than a hip toss.
As a complement to Strangers post;
It is not advisible to keep the guard as close to the jaw as in modern boxing when not wearing gloves. Another aspect is the risk of breaking a bone or a knuckle when impacting without gloves, especially when the winner is the one not giving up! I think that if the gloves were removed it wouldn’t take long for the boxers to adept to the old school.
I wonder if Mike Tyson would win over e.g. Jim Corbett if old rules were used?
I’m in agreement with Merryprankster on the Filipino connection to the high guard (as being a fable).
Once gloves got big enough to hide behind, the guard came up for as long as a fighter’s muscles could endure. Have you ever been punched in the back of your hand? It hurts like hell. If you are bare knuckle fighting, the peek-a-boo style favored by some modern boxers is going to get real painful real quick.
Filipino martial arts are awesome, but they are known for falsely promoting their effectiveness based on their impact on Western combatives:
ie. “Marines are called leathernecks because of the protective collars they wore around their necks to counter Moro knifefighters.”
ie. “Filipino Martial arts changed the nature of boxing defensive skills”
ie. “The US Army adopted the .45 caliber handgun to counter the Moro Knifefighters.”
BS!!!
FMA are cool, but these “facts” are just myths.
I don’t get mad.
I get stabby.
[This message was edited by Stranger on 11-28-01 at 07:23 AM.]
out of curiosity, why are they called the flying leathernecks?
i’ve heard a lot of the FMA myths myself. hadn’t really regarded them as myths until just now. seemed plausible enough.
so what’s the real story? (not calling you out. just curious)
flying leathernecks?
advent of the .45 caliber?
cheers stranger.
stuart b.
Marines were once essentially soldiers on board naval vessels in the age of sail.
The were the “swarm and storm” force. I’m not going to get into Standard Naval Rules of Engagement during the hieght of the British Empire, but from time to time, it would come about that ships would grapple (it was really called that), be boarded, and hand to hand fighting would ensue.
The marines were both sharpshooters (hence every marine a rifleman…) and hand-to-hand combat swordsmen who hung out on the fighting tops. Due to the extremely long reload time of muzzle loading weapons, and even of some breachloading weapons, deck warfare was frequently with edged weapons, belaying pins, etc. The leatherneck was a stiff leather collar used to protect the neck from slicing attacks. They were around quite awhile before they ever met the Moro Knifefighters.
The marines were needed because men could not be spared from the labor intensive tasks of damage control, sail maneuvering and gun firing.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR>If you are bare knuckle fighting, the peek-a-boo style favored by some modern boxers is going to get real painful real quick.
[/quote]
Not really. real fights don’t last that long.
As far as Leathernecks: British Marines used to be called Bootnecks because of the leather collars of their uniforms. American Marines had a similar collar on their uniform.
As far as .45 caliber sidearms: I watched a documentary about the evolution of US military firearms on The History Channel. They said that long before the Army officially made the .45 its caliber, many many soldiers were already carrying the weapon. The .45 had come of age and would have been made the official sidearm regardless of the conflict in the Filipines, as the demand predates the conlfict. The documentary made no reference to or suggestion of a perceived need to knock down knifefighters before they could close the distance.
None of this changes the fact that FMA are very deadly, and from this great skill, the legends and myths grew. Every art does it to some extent and it doesn’t make me fear the trained kalista or escrimador any less.
I don’t get mad.
I get stabby.
Shinwa,
We are talking about bare knuckle boxing, not real fights. Many of those bouts went DOZENS of rounds. They fought much longer than are modern boxers.
I don’t get mad.
I get stabby.
Old School bareknuckle boxing looks eerily similar to Hsing Yi
“Not really. real fights don’t last that long.”
Those old fights went for like 40 rounds. Come to think of it heavyweight fights used to be scheduled for longer than they are now. Why does the amount of rounds scheduled keep getting shorter?
“Old School bareknuckle boxing looks eerily similar to Hsing Yi”
How do u know that? have u ever seen a bare knuckle boxing match? If yes, where can I do the same? 
~K~
“maybe not in combat.. but think of the chicks man, the chicks!” – someone on the subject of back-flips in combat –
Check out any book on 1800’s prize fighting. Take a close look at the fighting stance. Of course, there’s no video but some good old school photos and excellant drawings available.
The upturned fist is found on occasion in both styles.
I don’t get mad.
I get stabby.
thanks stranger and merryprankster.
i had read these stories (perhaps heard them from my first guro). interesting to hear them refuted now. what you’re saying makes sense though.
and, no, it wouldn’t make me fear a rampaging moro with a machete any less either. good point.
stuart b.
One problem I have with modern boxing for self defense is the effect gloves have on both offense and defense. Provided you have your chin tucked and are rotating your punches and doing all that stuff right, it’s very hard to hit a boxer anywhere but a glancing blow off of the top of their head, which doesn’t really hurt that much.
However, this is partly due just to the size of the gloves themselves, which are two or three times bigger than an ungloved hand. There are kinds of blocking and defense you can do with the gloves that can’t be done without them.
And of course, boxing does encourage some kinds of punches that are more likely to break your hand if you’re not wearing gloves.
Can’t believe i was so late on this one.
I got that book, it’s by Bob Mee.
If you read it, you’ll notice some interesting facts about bareknuckle prize fights-
Funny enough, i think that book restored a large amount of my faith in traditional martial arts, specifically kung fu.
Just some thoughts from an ignoramus.
Any rules were introduced to keep it clean. For example, the gloves were introduced so fighter would grab or break their hands.
That is not true about the bobbing and weaving. It basically was always there if you look at old films. It just got better trough the years.
For traditional kung fu go to www.taishingpekkwar.com