# Rotation differences between Eastern/Western styles.



## amateur (Mar 5, 2019)

Western martial arts: You rotate by pivoting the back foot.
Eastern martial arts: You rotate by straightening the back leg.

Western martial arts were designed for competitive fights under certain conditions. It's easy to rotate with foot pivoting when you're wearing shoes or when you spar on a gym's smooth floor or an arena's mattress.
But eastern martial arts were designed centuries ago to combat any real life or death situation. Try to pivot your foot on forest ground or on a rocky mountain, especially if you're barefoot (shoes weren't available to everyone back then). 
That's why I think that, if you want to become a real warrior prepared for any situation, you should add practicing rotating by straightening your leg (as in eastern reverse punch for example) in your routine.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 5, 2019)

There's not that much difference, IMO, between the motions. I shift between them when practicing and sparring. With shoes on, there's not much real advantage in keeping the back foot down, except that it almost guarantees keeping the weight behind the forward support (to protect against grappling takedowns).

People who didn't wear shoes on a regular basis wouldn't have had the soft, tender feet you and I have. They would be fully capable of using a foot rotation on dirt or similar surfaces.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 5, 2019)

Are you talking about static rotation (feet are not moving), or dynamic rotation (feet are moving)?

IMO, the dynamic rotation is more useful than the static rotation. You need to move yourself outside of your opponent's attacking path.

If your opponent steps

- in, you use stealing step (move one leg behind the other).
- back, you use cover step (move one leg in front of the other).


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 5, 2019)

What do you mean by rotate by straightening the back leg? Maybe I'm just not picturing it correctly, but that doesn't sound like a rotation to me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 5, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> What do you mean by rotate by straightening the back leg? Maybe I'm just not picturing it correctly, but that doesn't sound like a rotation to me.


It seems to me that the OP is talking about the static rotation that both feet are not moving. IMO, the static rotation is not very useful, You opponent will easily take you down by single leg or double legs if your feet are grounded.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 5, 2019)

amateur said:


> Western martial arts: You rotate by pivoting the back foot.
> Eastern martial arts: You rotate by straightening the back leg.
> 
> Western martial arts were designed for competitive fights under certain conditions. It's easy to rotate with foot pivoting when you're wearing shoes or when you spar on a gym's smooth floor or an arena's mattress.
> ...


Almost every sentence in that post is incorrect.


----------



## Danny T (Mar 5, 2019)

amateur said:


> Western martial arts: You rotate by pivoting the back foot.
> Eastern martial arts: You rotate by straightening the back leg.
> 
> Western martial arts were designed for competitive fights under certain conditions. It's easy to rotate with foot pivoting when you're wearing shoes or when you spar on a gym's smooth floor or an arena's mattress.
> ...


Uhh...not so much.


----------



## wab25 (Mar 5, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It seems to me that the OP is talking about the static rotation that both feet are not moving. IMO, the static rotation is not very useful, You opponent will easily take you down by single leg or double legs if your feet are grounded.


I believe he is talking about a traditional boxers punch vs a traditional karate punch. Both of these have proven useful and effective in MMA, even against grapplers and wrestlers. (though I believe the boxers punch to be more useful and effective... but I have seen both used quite well) In fact, if you are not well grounded, or rooted, your strike will not have much power. Used correctly, neither of these two punches will effect your mobility for very long. You only need to be rooted at the instant of contact. Both of these styles of punching give plenty of mobility before and after that point in time where you need to be grounded / rooted to deliver power.

Yes, they can be hit with takedowns, and have been. Both the punching and the takedowns are effective. You need the timing and distance to be correct, for your technique. Get either wrong, and you will be hit by the other guys technique, whether it be boxers punch, karate punch or double leg takedown. Being countered by the other guys technique in this matter is more a user error than a fault of the technique.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 5, 2019)

I can only say that the way we do it, we both straighten the rear leg and pivot the foot.  Those two things work together to make it happen.

And then, it depends.  Sometimes we only straighten the leg.  Situational circumstances.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 5, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> What do you mean by rotate by straightening the back leg? Maybe I'm just not picturing it correctly, but that doesn't sound like a rotation to me.


I think he's referring to the common JMA practice of teaching the punch from a static stance, driving the hip forward from the heel, so the foot doesn't move but the hips rotate.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 5, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think he's referring to the common JMA practice of teaching the punch from a static stance, driving the hip forward from the heel, so the foot doesn't move but the hips rotate.


Ah. So this thread is referring to power generation, not rotation? That makes a lot more sense. From the words "you rotate by straightening your back leg" since that's not a rotation movement I thought he was referring to either rotating a kick or punch (hook kick/roundhouse), or rotating for footwork (I will sometimes use my back foot as a pivot when someone tries to go at an angle on me).

So the real question would be to rotate the hips or foot for power generation? Then the answer for me is both.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 5, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Ah. So this thread is referring to power generation, not rotation? That makes a lot more sense. From the words "you rotate by straightening your back leg" since that's not a rotation movement I thought he was referring to either rotating a kick or punch (hook kick/roundhouse), or rotating for footwork (I will sometimes use my back foot as a pivot when someone tries to go at an angle on me).
> 
> So the real question would be to rotate the hips or foot for power generation? Then the answer for me is both.


I rotate both when I move the foot. To me, one is just an abbreviated (and more controlled, structurally) version of the other.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Mar 5, 2019)

amateur said:


> Western martial arts were designed for competitive fights under certain conditions.



Say hello to Bartitsu and rough and tumble fighting.  (grated former has a fair amount of asian influence but only from grappling)    And there are probably plenty of others but im not versed in every martial system of Europe and post European colonization of north America.To which there are hundreds if not thousands, pending definition and scope.

But i would agree a lot have more or less evolved for more sport fighting.   Same with plenty of eastern ones.



Also you can do my system not rotate at all. (ask me how that works as i have legitimately no idea, i will embody the definition of a linear style eventually)


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2019)

Rotation with punches stops you being able to leg  check as well. And you will be swept a bit more easily. 

Rotating when you kick is a bit quicker but makes it harder to step off line which can leave you open for a counter. 

Traditional vs sport is a false distinction in this case.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 6, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Rotation with punches stops you being able to leg  check as well. And you will be swept a bit more easily.
> 
> Rotating when you kick is a bit quicker but makes it harder to step off line which can leave you open for a counter.
> 
> Traditional vs sport is a false distinction in this case.


"vs. sport" is often a false distinction, or at least an exaggerated one.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 6, 2019)

wab25 said:


> I believe he is talking about a traditional boxers punch


And even that is wrong.




Allanson Winn pp16 left lead by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community




ArtAndPractice pp16 left lead by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community




james sullivan by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community




Allanson Winn pp13 Left lead by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Martial D (Mar 6, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> So the real question would be to rotate the hips or foot for power generation? Then the answer for me is both.



That's pretty standard in Western boxing. Your foot is connected to the hip. Foot placement and rotation maps to hip placement and rotation.


----------



## Martial D (Mar 6, 2019)

lklawson said:


> And even that is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The science of boxing sure has come a LONG WAY since then.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 6, 2019)

The OP may ask whether one should pivot on the heel, or pivot on the ball of the foot (or toes) during punch.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 6, 2019)

Martial D said:


> The science of boxing sure has come a LONG WAY since then.


If you mean that there are a lot of people doing it different now than in the past, they yes.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Mar 6, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The OP may ask whether one should pivot on the heel, or pivot on the ball of the foot (or toes) during punch.


Yes.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Martial D (Mar 6, 2019)

lklawson said:


> If you mean that there are a lot of people doing it different now than in the past, they yes.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Yes. The ones doing it competitively with any level of success.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 6, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Yes. The ones doing it competitively with any level of success.


Competition is why it's different.   The rules changed.  And the mechanism which "works best" changed to match what "works best" for those rules.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Martial D (Mar 6, 2019)

lklawson said:


> Competition is why it's different.   The rules changed.  And the mechanism which "works best" changed to match what "works best" for those rules.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Somewhat I guess, mostly just the addition of gloves. Most of the mechanical changes are just a better mouse trap. Old time boxing was very flat footed with minimal head movement. The footwork wasn't really there yet.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 6, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Somewhat I guess, mostly just the addition of gloves.


No, but close (sort of).  It was the removal of grappling.



> Most of the mechanical changes are just a better mouse trap.


Not in this case.  It was optimizing the techniques to the rules which changed from from grappling and no gloves to no-grappling and large gloves.  With bare-handed and grappling, this forced range farther out as a standard to a sort of medium-to-long range outfighting style.  This is because when grappling is allowed, as soon as you get to infighting range, you clinch and grapple.  The only way that clinch-work and grappling is avoided is if both fighters "decide" not to, for whatever reason.  I don't suppose you need a modern example?  



> Old time boxing was very flat footed with minimal head movement. The footwork wasn't really there yet.


Sorry friend, but that just isn't correct.  There was plenty of head movement.  You couldn't perform a Cross-Counter without head movement.  And plenty of great footwork too.  It simply was optimized for the environment.

Cross-Counter:
















Some footwork:












And how 'bout an article from a friend about stances.  

http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/stance/boxingstance.html

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 6, 2019)

LKLawson,

Question?
The input into the modern sport aspect , did some of that foot work and hand position come from the Navy and Marines while stationed in the Philippines? 

Thanks


----------



## lklawson (Mar 6, 2019)

Rich Parsons said:


> LKLawson,
> 
> Question?
> The input into the modern sport aspect , did some of that foot work and hand position come from the Navy and Marines while stationed in the Philippines?
> ...


The question of Filipino influence on boxing is a long-standing discussion.  The footwork images above all predate the major U.S. involvement in the Philippines.   The first two (of the last three) labeled "side step" are from Edwards manual published in 1888 (well before the Philippine Insurrection) and documented his long running style.  The final image, Donovan's "Art of Boxing" ims, was first published in 1847 I believe.

This comes up fairly regularly.  It is an article of faith among FMA martial artists and Filipino boxing advocates that most of the best footwork and coolest hand techniques were actually from the highly advanced FMA and were imported into the comparatively unrefined boxing of the time.  But the books tell a different story.  There's a ton of boxing books (click on the lulu link in my sig) which describes and shows sophisticated footwork, body movement, and hand-work predating the major "mixing" of U.S. in the Philippines.  It's a cool story but, largely is just that; a story.

That's not to take away from FMA.  FMA truly *IS *sophisticated and cool.  But boxing was doing cool cool footwork, body movement, and hand-work without needing FMA infusions.   

Much of the pre-Marquis boxing footwork is believed by some to be closely related to fencing footwork.  I can certainly see similarities and period writers drew the comparison as well.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Somewhat I guess, mostly just the addition of gloves. Most of the mechanical changes are just a better mouse trap. Old time boxing was very flat footed with minimal head movement. The footwork wasn't really there yet.




Gloves don't change bubkus pretty much.  According to everyone I have spoken to who have fought boxing, MMA and bare knuckle.

I originally thought it would. But it just doesn't.
Bec Rawlings vs Alma Garcia Full Fight Bare Knuckle FC Debut MMA Video


----------



## Martial D (Mar 6, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Gloves don't change bubkus pretty much.  According to everyone I have spoken to who have fought boxing, MMA and bare knuckle.
> 
> I originally thought it would. But it just doesn't.
> Bec Rawlings vs Alma Garcia Full Fight Bare Knuckle FC Debut MMA Video



Sure, it changes what gets between your guard. It's not a huge change but it's a change. Apparently we weren't comparing old style boxing vs boxing but no rules fighting to boxing.

Which sort of begs the question, why don't MMA fighters look like old time boxers in motion?

I'd answer, but I don't have a website full of still images from 100 years ago that would somehow prove it.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 7, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Which sort of begs the question, why don't MMA fighters look like old time boxers in motion?


They often times do, particularly what we see of the pre-London Prize Ring rules era.



> I'd answer, but I don't have a website full of still images from 100 years ago that would somehow prove it.


Maybe you need to do some reading or research then?  Or maybe rely on those who have?  I dunno, but if you wanna get pissy about things like "actual evidence" of how those old time boxers fought, instead of assumptions and modern misconceptions, then I don't think we're going to be able to have much of a discussion.


----------



## Martial D (Mar 7, 2019)

lklawson said:


> They often times do, particularly what we see of the pre-London Prize Ring rules era.
> 
> Maybe you need to do some reading or research then?  Or maybe rely on those who have?  I dunno, but if you wanna get pissy about things like "actual evidence" of how those old time boxers fought, instead of assumptions and modern misconceptions, then I don't think we're going to be able to have much of a discussion.


You say that like film is a new thing. Ok maybe before film they had all the technique we have today because boxing hasn't evolved one bit, but then once film happened they forgot everything and spent the next 100 years slowly relearning everything .

Sounds legit.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 7, 2019)

Martial D said:


> You say that like film is a new thing. Ok maybe before film they had all the technique we have today because boxing hasn't evolved one bit, but then once film happened they forgot everything and spent the next 100 years slowly relearning everything .
> 
> Sounds legit.


What the heck are you talking about?  Clearly boxing is different.  Duh.  The question is "why?"  I answered the question and you  apparently didn't like the answer.   Beyond that, you made some statements about "old time boxing" related to head movement and footwork which were just flat wrong.  I tried to be nice about correcting the record but you seem to have taken it personally.  Again, if you are going to ignore the evidence and argue or get pissy about it, then I just don't see how we can have much of a discussion.

Does that "sound legit" enough?


----------



## Martial D (Mar 7, 2019)

lklawson said:


> What the heck are you talking about?  Clearly boxing is different.  Duh.  The question is "why?"  I answered the question and you  apparently didn't like the answer.   Beyond that, you made some statements about "old time boxing" related to head movement and footwork which were just flat wrong.  I tried to be nice about correcting the record but you seem to have taken it personally.  Again, if you are going to ignore the evidence and argue or get pissy about it, then I just don't see how we can have much of a discussion.
> 
> Does that "sound legit" enough?


ROFL. Do you even read your own posts? YOU of all people accusing me of taking something personally is the least self aware statement I've read in a while.

Anyway, yes..your explanation.. different rules. But yet we have MMA now, and bare knuckle boxing is ba k in a big way..yet somehow nobody is fighting like John l Sullivan. Weird right?

Your argument that 'the rules' are why it's not the same as the pictures on your self-source rather than the simple fact that the sport has evolved is frankly silly.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 7, 2019)

Martial D said:


> ROFL. Do you even read your own posts? YOU of all people accusing me of taking something personally is the least self aware statement I've read in a while.


Whatever.



> Anyway, yes..your explanation.. different rules. But yet we have MMA now, and bare knuckle boxing is ba k in a big way..yet somehow nobody is fighting like John l Sullivan. Weird right?


The rules are different.  The modern BK you are referencing are not the same as the LPR rules.  I've looked.  Have you?  So, tell me, what do you know of John L.'s style?  

As for MMA, I've watched any number of fights where the range pushes out and the fighters drop their hands lower then slightly blade their bodies while still leaving their forward arm somewhat extended.  It's pretty common.



> Your argument that 'the rules' are why it's not the same as the pictures on your self-source rather than the simple fact that the sport has evolved is frankly silly.


Do you not see that "the rules changed" is technically the same thing as "the sport has evolved."

And let's skip this insulting BS of "self source."  It's not "self source" it is actual frick'n *EVIDENCE* from authors at the time.  I'm not making this stuff up. But if you have a different theory on how they boxed, what they did, and why, then by all means, post the references, images, and quotes.  Refusing to do so is just going, "I reject actual evidence and prefer my misinformation because I don't like being wrong."

Here, use this space: ___________________________________________________________________________________________


----------



## Martial D (Mar 7, 2019)

lklawson said:


> Whatever.
> 
> The rules are different.  The modern BK you are referencing are not the same as the LPR rules.  I've looked.  Have you?  So, tell me, what do you know of John L.'s style?
> 
> ...


Sure.






Super flat footed and upright. Nothing like today's boxing.






And again. 

Should I go on?

I should also mention, other than there being more rounds, the rules haven't changed much since 1905


----------



## wab25 (Mar 7, 2019)

Martial D said:


> I should also mention, other than there being more rounds, the rules haven't changed much since 1905


The written rules may not have changed that much. But, the effective rules have changed and continue to change quite a bit. By effective rules, I mean the rules under which the actual fights take place. Every time you get a different referee, the rules change... sometimes quite drastically. Some refs let you work on the inside, some let it get pretty rough on the inside, others break it up as soon any hand is tied up and still others break it up as soon as they get close. Some are more picky about illegal blows, others you can get away with much more. These changes have had real effects on the range fights take place at, the type of punches thrown, the types of defenses used and they have changed the outcome of fights. Watch Mayweather's first fight with Maidana. The ref would not allow any infighting. As soon as the distance closed, he broke up the fighters immediately, even though one was clearly throwing effective punches, and not tied up in the slightest. If you watch just that fight, you will think the ref was in on the take, helping Mayweather not get knocked out. But, if you watch other fights he has worked, he does not like the infighting and is known for breaking it up very early. That is one of the reasons Mayweather got him to be the ref. Had Smoger been the ref, that fight would have occurred entirely on the ropes, been entirely infighting and I believe Mayweather would have been KOed. But, because of the ref, the infighting and on the ropes fighting was taken away, and Mayweather weathered the storm and out pointed Maidana. If we can see such different fights today, based on who the ref is... That means there could have been a lot of variation in the type of fights seen, as the refs change and to a bigger degree, as the rules changed. The rules both written and enforced in the ring, helped to make those fights look the way they do, as they help shape the type of fighting we see today.


----------



## Martial D (Mar 7, 2019)

wab25 said:


> The written rules may not have changed that much. But, the effective rules have changed and continue to change quite a bit. By effective rules, I mean the rules under which the actual fights take place. Every time you get a different referee, the rules change... sometimes quite drastically. Some refs let you work on the inside, some let it get pretty rough on the inside, others break it up as soon any hand is tied up and still others break it up as soon as they get close. Some are more picky about illegal blows, others you can get away with much more. These changes have had real effects on the range fights take place at, the type of punches thrown, the types of defenses used and they have changed the outcome of fights. Watch Mayweather's first fight with Maidana. The ref would not allow any infighting. As soon as the distance closed, he broke up the fighters immediately, even though one was clearly throwing effective punches, and not tied up in the slightest. If you watch just that fight, you will think the ref was in on the take, helping Mayweather not get knocked out. But, if you watch other fights he has worked, he does not like the infighting and is known for breaking it up very early. That is one of the reasons Mayweather got him to be the ref. Had Smoger been the ref, that fight would have occurred entirely on the ropes, been entirely infighting and I believe Mayweather would have been KOed. But, because of the ref, the infighting and on the ropes fighting was taken away, and Mayweather weathered the storm and out pointed Maidana. If we can see such different fights today, based on who the ref is... That means there could have been a lot of variation in the type of fights seen, as the refs change and to a bigger degree, as the rules changed. The rules both written and enforced in the ring, helped to make those fights look the way they do, as they help shape the type of fighting we see today.


Sure, refs see it different ways. Some suck, some are good, some stricter..some seem to be visually impaired.

But I'd imagine that has been a constant rather than a variable.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 7, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A MoQ rules match...  Yes, go on...



> And again.


Another MoQ rules match... go on...



> Should I go on?


Sure.  Just as soon as you learn what you're talking about.  The Marques of Queensberry were published in the mid 1800's where they met resistance from the professional fighting but slow acceptance among the amateur fighters.  Eventually, by the early 20th Century, MoQ rules dominated the sport.  There was still resistance to the MoQ rules in England, London in particular, going on into the early 20th Century but typified by traveling side-show style boxers in both England and the U.S. who would fight under LPR rules against locals for a purse.



> I should also mention, other than there being more rounds, the rules haven't changed much since 1905


Sheesh.  You've got to be kidding me.  There have been slow changes about lots of things, from footwear to gloves.  There was a fairly long period of time in which both LPR and MoQ rules were competing with each other.  There were variations of MoQ rule sets, some which were popular for a time.  Ever hear of the American Fair Play rules?  

Again, the base problem is that you made statements about the head movement and footwork of "old time boxing" which were shown to be inaccurate.  Your best play was to go, "cool. I learned something today."  You should really try it.


----------



## wab25 (Mar 7, 2019)

Martial D said:


> But I'd imagine that has been a constant rather than a variable.


Thats part of my point. Which ref you get, makes a big difference in how the fight is fought. (sometimes, way too much) What gets used in the ring, is dictated by who the ref is as much as what is the best way to win the fight. (see Mayweather v Maidana 1) 

There is another variable in play, the fans. Specifically, what the fans want to see. There are some really good boxers, whose names most of us don't know, and they don't make as much money as they could, because they are not "fan friendly." They can win their fights, but they do it in a way that makes for a boring fight. Thus they don't get the  big name opponents very often or the big money spots. What the fans want to see, dictates what type of refs we have and what kind of rules are used, written and applied in the ring. Boxing used to include grappling and throws. The fans, at one period of time, did not want to watch that. They wanted punching. The rules were changed, and applied in the way the fans at the time wanted to be entertained. In order to succeed as a boxer, you not only have to win your matches, you need to entertain the fans... which means fighting in the style that the fans want to see. The fans are changing again. Now people want to see the grappling mixed with the strikes... MMA.

Over the last 200 years, what fans want to see has changed and continues to change. The rules, written and applied change with what the fans want to see. Thus, the fighters change to remain in the ring, winning money. We can see today, the difference just changing out a ref makes. Now change out what the fans want to see, what the rules say and which rules are enforced over 200 years, and that explains quite a bit of why things look different. I expect that when the fans wanted to see the same things, they generally did, whether that be punching or punching and grappling. After all the fans provide the money.


----------



## Martial D (Mar 7, 2019)

lklawson said:


> A MoQ rules match...  Yes, go on...
> 
> Another MoQ rules match... go on...
> 
> ...


LOL

Ok, so the rules everyone uses now, as an extension from way back then, simply don't count because there was another ruleset back then.

Let's just ignore the fact that because they were using the moq rules in those turn of the century vids I gave you it clearly shows that it's the techniques, not 'the rules', that have changed the game from then till now. I stated they fought stationary and upright with minimal footwork, that's what the vids show(actual people in motion, doing it at what was the top level back then. I know it's not a stationary diagram on a free geocities site, but it's something...)

But by all means, believe that boxing was mastered to a point that it couldn't be improved upon and is only completely different now because of different footware and gloves. Nobody will stop you, or will ever convince you otherwise.

Your a hoot man. Impossible to have a rational conversation with, but a hoot.


----------



## Martial D (Mar 7, 2019)

wab25 said:


> Thats part of my point. Which ref you get, makes a big difference in how the fight is fought. (sometimes, way too much) What gets used in the ring, is dictated by who the ref is as much as what is the best way to win the fight. (see Mayweather v Maidana 1)
> 
> There is another variable in play, the fans. Specifically, what the fans want to see. There are some really good boxers, whose names most of us don't know, and they don't make as much money as they could, because they are not "fan friendly." They can win their fights, but they do it in a way that makes for a boring fight. Thus they don't get the  big name opponents very often or the big money spots. What the fans want to see, dictates what type of refs we have and what kind of rules are used, written and applied in the ring. Boxing used to include grappling and throws. The fans, at one period of time, did not want to watch that. They wanted punching. The rules were changed, and applied in the way the fans at the time wanted to be entertained. In order to succeed as a boxer, you not only have to win your matches, you need to entertain the fans... which means fighting in the style that the fans want to see. The fans are changing again. Now people want to see the grappling mixed with the strikes... MMA.
> 
> Over the last 200 years, what fans want to see has changed and continues to change. The rules, written and applied change with what the fans want to see. Thus, the fighters change to remain in the ring, winning money. We can see today, the difference just changing out a ref makes. Now change out what the fans want to see, what the rules say and which rules are enforced over 200 years, and that explains quite a bit of why things look different. I expect that when the fans wanted to see the same things, they generally did, whether that be punching or punching and grappling. After all the fans provide the money.


Have you really thought this through?


----------



## wab25 (Mar 7, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Let's just ignore the fact that because they were using the moq rules in those turn of the century vids I gave you it clearly shows that it's the techniques, not 'the rules', that have changed the game from then till now. I stated they fought stationary and upright with minimal footwork, that's what the vids show(actual people in motion, doing it at what was the top level back then. I know it's not a stationary diagram on a free geocities site, but it's something...)


Plenty of footwork and head movement here:




(boxing footage starts around 1:16)


----------



## drop bear (Mar 7, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Sure, it changes what gets between your guard. It's not a huge change but it's a change. Apparently we weren't comparing old style boxing vs boxing but no rules fighting to boxing.
> 
> Which sort of begs the question, why don't MMA fighters look like old time boxers in motion?
> 
> I'd answer, but I don't have a website full of still images from 100 years ago that would somehow prove it.



Mma has changed considerably as well. But it was not really rules dictated as much as trial and error. 

No holds barred in Australia. Which was very bjj rather than mma on the ground. 





Wing chun kind of run all the same arguments in that they suggest they specialize in some unique dynamic. And that every vertical fist thrown in MMA is some sort of validation of their whole method.

But unless fighters are coming up through these systems and becoming successful I am not sure how much weight of evidence I can put behind those systems. 

Especially when there are systems like MMA that produce these multiple rule set successes. 

Otherwise as far as pugilism goes. I compare it to GJJ. At one point there you could jump guard on a striker and just sub him straight out. But now it is a lot less likely he will let you do it. That wasn't because of the rules. It was because fighters got better. 

The rules have changed as well. But correlation doesn't always equal causation.


----------



## Martial D (Mar 8, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Mma has changed considerably as well. But it was not really rules dictated as much as trial and error.
> 
> No holds barred in Australia. Which was very bjj rather than mma on the ground.
> 
> ...


 Yup.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 9, 2019)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Keep the conversation friendly, polite, and professional. The snide comments and general nastiness needs to stop, or points will be forthcoming.

Thank you.
Mark A. Cochran
@Dirty Dog 
MartialTalk Senior Moderator


----------

