# Bare knuckles boxing safer than with gloves



## ShortBridge

Interesting article. I am fan of boxing and boxing history, but I had never quite heard this. At least not with any history to support it. I thought some of you might enjoy the article. 

Bare-knuckled Boxing Is Safer Than Boxing with Gloves 22 Words


----------



## Jenna

ShortBridge said:


> Interesting article. I am fan of boxing and boxing history, but I had never quite heard this. At least not with any history to support it. I thought some of you might enjoy the article.
> 
> Bare-knuckled Boxing Is Safer Than Boxing with Gloves 22 Words


Yes good valid points here.. With the gloves - and the hand wrapping - you can throw full power to the head where you would mash hands doing that bare knuckled.. all is to protect the hitter at the expense of the fighter that is hit, but then boxing today is a sport and must cater for the spectators who would not want to stand around for hours for their satisfactory climax.  Gloves make boxing perilous now and but then bare knuckle is still around plenty and it is brutal - you can surely not claim it as a safr alternative.. an alternative yes and but a SAFER alternative??? I do not believe that?? Good article though thx for posting Jx


----------



## Tez3

I've heard it before and looking at the way boxers wrap their hands before putting on their gloves I can believe that bare knuckle is actually safer.
We have bare knuckle promotions here in the UK, not car park or pub back garden fighting but proper legal promotions, they are quite popular.
http://bbadbkb.co.uk/


----------



## Touch Of Death

Tez3 said:


> I've heard it before and looking at the way boxers wrap their hands before putting on their gloves I can believe that bare knuckle is actually safer.
> We have bare knuckle promotions here in the UK, not car park or pub back garden fighting but proper legal promotions, they are quite popular.
> http://bbadbkb.co.uk/


That is all to make your hands do what they were never designed to do.


----------



## Tez3

This is how pro boxers wrap their hands, as it says they make what is, for all intents and purposes, a rock hard cast for their hands so they can hit as hard as possible.
How to Wrap Your Hands - Professional Method - Tape and Gauze How-to-Box.com


----------



## Orange Lightning

ShortBridge said:


> Interesting article. I am fan of boxing and boxing history, but I had never quite heard this. At least not with any history to support it. I thought some of you might enjoy the article.
> 
> Bare-knuckled Boxing Is Safer Than Boxing with Gloves 22 Words



Wouldn't have expected this. Makes sense though.
I read that the first death in bare knuckle boxing (which I think was inflicted by Daniel Mendoza) brought about the first restriction. No striking an opponent with 3 parts touching the ground. So if someone was to fall to one knee or hand, or just have any 3 parts of their body touching the ground, you couldn't hit them.

About that stance they mention.






The gloves, targets and some other stuff. Longer video


----------



## Tez3

I understood that gloves were first brought in by the Regency dandies who liked to box but not get their faces marked. I think deaths were not uncommon in those days. It's also forgotten that women used to fight as well  in the days before Queensbury rules.

Now and then boxing gloves Sport The Observer


----------



## Orange Lightning

Tez3 said:


> I understood that gloves were first brought in by the Regency dandies who liked to box but not get their faces marked. I think deaths were not uncommon in those days. It's also forgotten that women used to fight as well  in the days before Queensbury rules.
> 
> Now and then boxing gloves Sport The Observer



_"Today, the weight of gloves has increased, for safety reasons, and now varies between eight and 10 ounces. In 1983 Luis Resto, a journeyman junior-middleweight, proved how dangerous fighting with an unpadded glove could be when he adminstered a terrible beating to the previously undefeated Billy Collins. After the fight it was discovered, by Collins's father, that Resto's trainer, Panama Lewis had removed much of the padding from his charge's gloves with a tweezer. Lewis served 2 years of a six-year sentence for assault, conspiracy, tampering with a sports contest and criminal possession of a deadly weapon (Resto's fists)."_

Really crappy crime. But that last bit about the criminal possession of Resto's fists is great.


----------



## Buka

_To shorten the matches — The last bare-knuckled match in 1897 went on for 75 rounds._

The rule set was different then. A round could end when an opponent's knee would touch the mat. Which is something you would do when you got in trouble or were tired. 

_The reason bare-knuckled boxers took a stance that looks silly to us now is that they were mainly protecting their bodies. The head was not a primary target, since a worthwhile punch to the skull would probably break the puncher’s hand. Not so once gloves were introduced._

Boxing had yet to develop much of the science of punching and footwork yet. The left hook hadn't even come into play until Corbett/Sullivan era. The left hook changed a lot about fighting.

Bare knuckle fighters of the era knew much less evading through body movement. There was a lot of perceived "manliness" to the sport back then as well. Head movement was rudimentary at best. Combinations - at least compared to what we think of now as combinations - would look like they came from another planet.

_Gloves distribute the force of a punch more widely, reducing the instances of broken jaws, knocked out teeth and blindness. (Apparently, slamming one’s opponent’s head is sometimes worth the broken hand.) But they also add 10 ounces to each swing making a full on punch “comparable to being hit with a 12lb padded wooden mallet travelling at 20mph.”_

The added weight of the gloves does change things. But let me ask you guys this_ - _ever box? Hurts getting punched in the face. But have you ever been punched in the face by someone not wearing gloves? Really punched?  At least by someone who can punch. It's bad. Horrible even. Given the choice of being punched in the face with a bare fist or being punched in the face with a glove, I know which line I'm getting in. I'm getting in that long sucker.

As for the videos posted - I could listen to Martin Austwick all day. And then some.


----------



## Orange Lightning

Buka said:


> _To shorten the matches — The last bare-knuckled match in 1897 went on for 75 rounds._
> 
> The rule set was different then. A round could end when an opponent's knee would touch the mat. Which is something you would do when you got in trouble or were tired.
> 
> _The reason bare-knuckled boxers took a stance that looks silly to us now is that they were mainly protecting their bodies. The head was not a primary target, since a worthwhile punch to the skull would probably break the puncher’s hand. Not so once gloves were introduced._
> 
> Boxing had yet to develop much of the science of punching and footwork yet. The left hook hadn't even come into play until Corbett/Sullivan era. The left hook changed a lot about fighting.
> 
> Bare knuckle fighters of the era knew much less evading through body movement. There was a lot of perceived "manliness" to the sport back then as well. Head movement was rudimentary at best. Combinations - at least compared to what we think of now as combinations - would look like they came from another planet.
> 
> _Gloves distribute the force of a punch more widely, reducing the instances of broken jaws, knocked out teeth and blindness. (Apparently, slamming one’s opponent’s head is sometimes worth the broken hand.) But they also add 10 ounces to each swing making a full on punch “comparable to being hit with a 12lb padded wooden mallet travelling at 20mph.”_
> 
> The added weight of the gloves does change things. But let me ask you guys this_ - _ever box? Hurts getting punched in the face. But have you ever been punched in the face by someone not wearing gloves? Really punched?  At least by someone who can punch. It's bad. Horrible even. Given the choice of being punched in the face with a bare fist or being punched in the face with a glove, I know which line I'm getting in. I'm getting in that long sucker.
> 
> As for the videos posted - I could listen to Martin Austwick all day. And then some.



Youtube channels

Martin's channel.

EnglishMartialArts - YouTube

and Scholagladiatoria. They are both HEMA oriented 

scholagladiatoria - YouTube


----------



## Mephisto

I think there's a trade off between gloved and ungloved and the gloved fight is probably only more dangerous for competing professionals. Without gloves cuts and damage to the face are inevitable. I could only imagine how id look if my weekly sparring were bare knuckle. I really question the intensity of martial arts groups that spar unpadded without head gear or gloves. The stuff I've seen is reminiscent of slap boxing, or is a game of trying to hit the guy without actually hitting him out of respect, the result is a lot of questionable "hits" that may or may not have been enough to stop or slow the opponent. 

To return to the op, cuts to the face, or a broken nose that commonly result from an ungloved full contact fight are pretty safe compared to brain damage from a prolonged fight and repeated blows when gloves are involved, but for daily training is say gloves are almost certainly safer


----------



## lklawson

Orange Lightning said:


> I read that the first death in bare knuckle boxing (which I think was inflicted by Daniel Mendoza) brought about the first restriction


Broughton.  He killed an opponent in what was effectively a gladitorial match.  He was a "Stage Gladiator" and fought Singlestick, Backsword, Boxing, etc.  When he killed a man in a Boxing match, he wrote the first English boxing rules.
"That no person is to hit his Adversary when he is down, or seize him by the ham, the breeches, or any part below the waist: a man on his knees to be reckoned down."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Jenna said:


> but then boxing today is a sport and must cater for the spectators who would not want to stand around for hours for their satisfactory climax.


They were happy to do so during the Broughton era and the London Prize Ring era.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Buka said:


> The reason bare-knuckled boxers took a stance that looks silly to us now is that they were mainly protecting their bodies. The head was not a primary target, since a worthwhile punch to the skull would probably break the puncher’s hand. Not so once gloves were introduced.


Feh.  This is wrong.  Mendoza's famous (and recorded) fight with Humprheys began with him knocking Humphreys down several time, first strike, by punching him in the face.

Here's a direct quote from the account.
"They stripped, and on setting too, the seconds retired to separate corners of the enclosure.
Humphreys aimed the first blow at the face of his antagonist. This Mendoza stopped, returned it with great quickness, and knocked him down: the second and third rounds terminated in exactly the same manner."



> Boxing had yet to develop much of the science of punching and footwork yet. The left hook hadn't even come into play until Corbett/Sullivan era. The left hook changed a lot about fighting.


Sorry, friend, but that's just plain wrong.  There were plenty of what they would sometime call the "rounding blow."  In later periods (London Prize Ring era) they had great debates on the supremacy of the the Straight punches over "the Swing."  Mendoza's Lessons describes "round blows" to both the body and the head.  Further, footwork was pretty darn sophisticated, as was to be expected from people who didn't want to be punched in the head or the solar plexus ("the mark").  There's some indication that it was, early on, related to fencing footwork.  Not modern fencing, historic fencing where getting "hit" meant getting stabbed or having bits of you lopped off.  Remember that guy Broughton I mentioned above?  He was a broadsword fencer (think a basket hilted, singled handed sword with two edges).  The best evidence seems to indicate that the footwork had a common source but evolved separately.



> Bare knuckle fighters of the era knew much less evading through body movement. There was a lot of perceived "manliness" to the sport back then as well. Head movement was rudimentary at best.


Nope.  Just not so.  No one wants to get punched in the face, even if it "only" means a smashed up nose, cut up brows, and missing teeth, which did happen.  IMS, it was James Figg who got "choppered" to the face and eyebrows so bad (late in his carrer) that that both eyes swelled shut and he elected to box effectively blind.  Head movement was pretty darn important and you can see it in lots of the old manuals.  Donnally's manual is probably one of the better showing body evasions and head movement, but my favorite is Defensive Exersizes, which shows, in the Simpler Method of Boxing (it teaches two different methods), a boxer fading back and directing the opponent's fist into his elbow.



> Combinations - at least compared to what we think of now as combinations - would look like they came from another planet.


Sorta.  In the same way that MMA Combinations look like they came from another planet.  Because the range tended to be further out.  Grappling and throws were legal (and the fans loved 'em!).  When you're at a range where you have to step or shuffle forward to make a hit you're not going to see Jab-Jab-Cross because, wait for it, it doesn't work at that range.  And there's also the possibility that your opponent might say, "screw this" after eating a jab and clinch, then chuck you with a hip throw and "accidentally" land on top of you.

_



			Gloves distribute the force of a punch more widely, reducing the instances of broken jaws, knocked out teeth and blindness. (Apparently, slamming one’s opponent’s head is sometimes worth the broken hand.) But they also add 10 ounces to each swing making a full on punch “comparable to being hit with a 12lb padded wooden mallet travelling at 20mph.”
		
Click to expand...

_Feh.  The danger of modern boxing is brain trauma.



> As for the videos posted - I could listen to Martin Austwick all day. And then some.


He's a good guy.  Nice fella.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Mephisto said:


> To return to the op, cuts to the face, or a broken nose that commonly result from an ungloved full contact fight are pretty safe compared to brain damage from a prolonged fight and repeated blows when gloves are involved, but for daily training is say gloves are almost certainly safer


When gloves ("Mufflers" or "Mittens") were first introduced to Boxing, it was for two purposes, first for "safer" (less obviously injurious) boxing among amateurs and second, for "safer" training for professionals who were then expected to fight bare knuckle.  However, this theory wasn't universally accepted by all professionals, some of whom scoffed at the idea, one famously stating that he didn't see any point to doing the hand conditioning he'd done only to cover his fists with pillows; the idea being to hurt the other guy.

And, yes, they did do special hand conditioning (usually hitting bags - which were markedly different from modern bags -- and in one case something similar to a makiwara).  They also had special topical applications and lineaments for toughening up the skin.  Most of these were akin to leather tanning practices and often involved mild acid which would cross-link the collagen of the skin leaving the skin flexible but sacrificing elasticity in favor of thicker, less prone to damage skin.

My favorite of these recipes is not available today.  It was Bob "Ruby Red" Fitzsimmons' personal recipe and contained laudanum which, for some reason the "druggist" won't sell to me.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Buka

lklawson said:


> Feh.  This is wrong.  Mendoza's famous (and recorded) fight with Humprheys began with him knocking Humphreys down several time, first strike, by punching him in the face.
> 
> Here's a direct quote from the account.
> "They stripped, and on setting too, the seconds retired to separate corners of the enclosure.
> Humphreys aimed the first blow at the face of his antagonist. This Mendoza stopped, returned it with great quickness, and knocked him down: the second and third rounds terminated in exactly the same manner."
> 
> Sorry, friend, but that's just plain wrong.  There were plenty of what they would sometime call the "rounding blow."  In later periods (London Prize Ring era) they had great debates on the supremacy of the the Straight punches over "the Swing."  Mendoza's Lessons describes "round blows" to both the body and the head.  Further, footwork was pretty darn sophisticated, as was to be expected from people who didn't want to be punched in the head or the solar plexus ("the mark").  There's some indication that it was, early on, related to fencing footwork.  Not modern fencing, historic fencing where getting "hit" meant getting stabbed or having bits of you lopped off.  Remember that guy Broughton I mentioned above?  He was a broadsword fencer (think a basket hilted, singled handed sword with two edges).  The best evidence seems to indicate that the footwork had a common source but evolved separately.
> 
> Nope.  Just not so.  No one wants to get punched in the face, even if it "only" means a smashed up nose, cut up brows, and missing teeth, which did happen.  IMS, it was James Figg who got "choppered" to the face and eyebrows so bad (late in his carrer) that that both eyes swelled shut and he elected to box effectively blind.  Head movement was pretty darn important and you can see it in lots of the old manuals.  Donnally's manual is probably one of the better showing body evasions and head movement, but my favorite is Defensive Exersizes, which shows, in the Simpler Method of Boxing (it teaches two different methods), a boxer fading back and directing the opponent's fist into his elbow.
> 
> Sorta.  In the same way that MMA Combinations look like they came from another planet.  Because the range tended to be further out.  Grappling and throws were legal (and the fans loved 'em!).  When you're at a range where you have to step or shuffle forward to make a hit you're not going to see Jab-Jab-Cross because, wait for it, it doesn't work at that range.  And there's also the possibility that your opponent might say, "screw this" after eating a jab and clinch, then chuck you with a hip throw and "accidentally" land on top of you.
> 
> Feh.  The danger of modern boxing is brain trauma.
> 
> He's a good guy.  Nice fella.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


----------



## Buka

I completely disagree. Except for the part where Austwick is a good, nice fella.


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

ShortBridge said:


> Interesting article. I am fan of boxing and boxing history, but I had never quite heard this. At least not with any history to support it. I thought some of you might enjoy the article.
> 
> Bare-knuckled Boxing Is Safer Than Boxing with Gloves 22 Words



This article does not come up with any FACTS.

The reason why boxers die today is because they do a lot of sparring which is pretty bad for the head, and the other reason is, because the todays boxers are muscle hulks with non-human force in one punch.

+ back then, fights were not documented as today, so how could we know who died behind some factory-hall in a dirty bare-knuckle fight ?


----------



## lklawson

JohnnyEnglish said:


> + back then, fights were not documented as today, so how could we know who died behind some factory-hall in a dirty bare-knuckle fight ?


Actually, they kept quite a bit of good records. I republished one book which documented hundreds of fight records. Many of them were very interesting included fights by women against women. Further, how is off the books fights then any different from now? There are still plenty of off-the-books fights. 

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

lklawson said:


> Actually, they kept quite a bit of good records. I republished one book which documented hundreds of fight records. Many of them were very interesting included fights by women against women. Further, how is off the books fights then any different from now? There are still plenty of off-the-books fights.
> 
> Peace favor your sword (mobile)



Because hundreds are not enough if you know there  are thousand of thousand more, some sort of backyard fights.

Somebody who wants to tell me, bare-knuckle fights are less dangerous and less lethal than fights ( boxing ) where you wear thick gloves around your fists, is just insane!!

MAYBE there are differences, but these differences should be searched in the individuals physic not in some sort of mythos.

It's totally logical. As I said, boxers from today are much more trained than some random bare knuckle fighters from back then, the most fights were done by the average joe, not by ultra-trained with steroid pumped 2 meters tall muscle-speed guys.

Check out the modern boxing scene and you will see how much doping there is actually involved.


----------



## jks9199

I'm curious... did you read the article and WHY it suggested that bare knuckle boxing might be safer?


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

jks9199 said:


> I'm curious... did you read the article and WHY it suggested that bare knuckle boxing might be safer?



Yes I did read the article, but it is total BS. That's not enough as a backup.


----------



## jks9199

JohnnyEnglish said:


> Yes I did read the article, but it is total BS. That's not enough as a backup.


Then make your argument more than "because I say so."  What elements do you disagree so vehemently with?


----------



## Dirty Dog

JohnnyEnglish said:


> Somebody who wants to tell me, bare-knuckle fights are less dangerous and less lethal than fights ( boxing ) where you wear thick gloves around your fists, is just insane!!



Have you considered the possibility that maybe you don't really understand what gloves do?


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

Dirty Dog said:


> Have you considered the possibility that maybe you don't really understand what gloves do?



I am not as stupid as you might think I am 

Everyone who has at least a bit knowledge of boxing and it's history, should know that in bare-knuckle fights it was usual to NOT hit the face/head, since it increased the risk of breaking the boxers hand ( while hitting the head, a head is hard ). Gloves protected and still protect boxers hands from breaking, which means a boxer is able to aim for the head and cause bad injuries, gloves may protect the boxers hands, but the impact the punch has when hitting the head, is still devastating. This is the only reason why BOXING as we know it today, caused more deaths than bare-knuckle fighting.

Conclusion: The reason why people die is because fighters aim more for the head with gloves. But let's be honest, there was an amount of bare-knuckle fighters that aimed for the head, they simply hardened their hand over years and years, and if you get hit by a bare hand with the punching power of for example mohammed ali or mike tyson, I can promise you, this will make more damage than one of these guys hitting you wearing a glove, simply because bones on bones increase the risk of actually breaking your head rather than just dealing with the impact and get brain damage. Which means, without gloves you will have brain damage + a broken head, but with gloves you will only have some brain damage. Both sucks! 

What I am trying to say, bare-knuckle fighting itself is not LESS dangerous than boxing just because bare-knuckle fighters decide to hit the body not the head. It is not even forbidden to hit the head in bare-knuckle fights. The result is changed because of the fighters decision, not because of the sport itself.

Let's take Kickboxing as an example, if two kickboxers fight against each other, they usually make use of their legs, but statistically we all know that the most knockouts in kickboxing are caused by a PUNCH not by a KICK. Does this make kicks less dangerous ? No! Because an aimed kick to the head, is much more devastating than a punch.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Bare knuckle boxing safer than boxing with gloves? Never.  TTake a look at some of the pre MMA days bare knuckle cage fights and you'll see what damage a bare fist can do.  A bare fist can cause so much damage even if the person isn't being hit in the face.

Also Johnny English is right.  Boxing back then is not the same as boxing now. Just checkout some of the English bare knuckle fights on YouTube. And while you are at it take a look at some of the first filmed boxing matches.


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

JowGaWolf said:


> Bare knuckle boxing safer than boxing with gloves? Never.  TTake a look at some of the pre MMA days bare knuckle cage fights and you'll see what damage a bare fist can do.  A bare fist can cause so much damage even if the person isn't being hit in the face.
> 
> Also Johnny English is right.  Boxing back then is not the same as boxing now. Just checkout some of the English bare knuckle fights on YouTube. And while you are at it take a look at some of the first filmed boxing matches.



I would also recommend to not eat something while watching old school bare knuckle fights. An eye coming out of a head in some sort of squeshy form, or a totally mashed jaw are pretty common injuries in bare-knuckle fighting.

I also would like to say, IF we would see the whole thing of a more " Physic point of view  " it is much easier to understand WHY bare-knuckles are much more devastating.

Boxing gloves = more air-resistance while throwing a punch = slowing down the punch = decreasing energy = decreasing damage + soft-cover decreases speed while collision with opponents body = decrease of energy again. =  LESS effective.

Bare-knuckles = less air-resistance while throwing a punch = speeding up the punch = increasing energy = increasing damage + NO cover increases impact while collision with opponents body = increase of energy again = MORE effective.

Sorry for my English, but I hope I made it clear for the rest who seriously believes in Boxing being more devastating than bare-knuckle.


----------



## Tez3

Actually it's not the gloves that are the issue it's the wraps, these days they are taped so much they resemble a plaster cast, it's this that allows such hard punching without damaging the hand as much as bare knuckle boxing.


----------



## lklawson

JohnnyEnglish said:


> Because hundreds are not enough if you know there  are thousand of thousand more, some sort of backyard fights.


Friend, I don't think you really know what you're talking about.  No offense, but it really doesn't look like you've done anything but the most cursory reading on historic bare knuckle fighting.  It's extremely well documented.



> Somebody who wants to tell me, bare-knuckle fights are less dangerous and less lethal than fights ( boxing ) where you wear thick gloves around your fists, is just insane!!


The available evidence seems to indicate that historic bare knuckle matches were, in fact, less likely to be lethal.  Some matches would go all day and could have over 100 rounds.



> MAYBE there are differences, but these differences should be searched in the individuals physic not in some sort of mythos.


Maybe?  Mythos?  What the heck are you talking about?  Bare knuckle boxing is extremely well documented.  There are dozens upon dozens of manuals and thousands of recorded accounts.  Maybe you think it's a myth but there are plenty of researchers who take the subject seriously and dig through historic documents.  I get the impression that all of your information on pre-Marquis boxing comes from guesswork and chats at the gym.  There's a lot more to it than that and it sure sounds like you didn't get even close to the whole story.



> It's totally logical. As I said, boxers from today are much more trained than some random bare knuckle fighters from back then, the most fights were done by the average joe


Just as most fights *TODAY* are "done by the average joe."  In pre-Marquis bare knuckle boxing, there were more amateurs than there were Professional boxers, *JUST LIKE TODAY*.  Professional boxers were professional and trained regularly.  In some cases we still have their daily training regiment and even diet recorded.  They were dedicated and serious about their training.  They had to be, it was their livelihood.  If their careers tanked, they'd lose their sponsors and starve.



> not by ultra-trained with steroid pumped 2 meters tall muscle-speed guys
> 
> Check out the modern boxing scene and you will see how much doping there is actually involved..


I'm confused here.  Are you still arguing that bare knuckle fights are more dangerous since they *didn't* have "not by ultra-trained with steroid pumped 2 meters tall muscle-speed" boxers?  Your argument seems to be getting a little muddied.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

lklawson said:


> Friend, I don't think you really know what you're talking about.  No offense, but it really doesn't look like you've done anything but the most cursory reading on historic bare knuckle fighting.  It's extremely well documented.
> 
> The available evidence seems to indicate that historic bare knuckle matches were, in fact, less likely to be lethal.  Some matches would go all day and could have over 100 rounds.
> 
> Maybe?  Mythos?  What the heck are you talking about?  Bare knuckle boxing is extremely well documented.  There are dozens upon dozens of manuals and thousands of recorded accounts.  Maybe you think it's a myth but there are plenty of researchers who take the subject seriously and dig through historic documents.  I get the impression that all of your information on pre-Marquis boxing comes from guesswork and chats at the gym.  There's a lot more to it than that and it sure sounds like you didn't get even close to the whole story.
> 
> Just as most fights *TODAY* are "done by the average joe."  In pre-Marquis bare knuckle boxing, there were more amateurs than there were Professional boxers, *JUST LIKE TODAY*.  Professional boxers were professional and trained regularly.  In some cases we still have their daily training regiment and even diet recorded.  They were dedicated and serious about their training.  They had to be, it was their livelihood.  If their careers tanked, they'd lose their sponsors and starve.
> 
> I'm confused here.  Are you still arguing that bare knuckle fights are more dangerous since they *didn't* have "not by ultra-trained with steroid pumped 2 meters tall muscle-speed" boxers?  Your argument seems to be getting a little muddied.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



How about some evidence ?

Everyone is talking about evidence about old school bare knuckle fighting, but nobody is coming up with evidence.

I personally compared today's bare knuckle fights with boxing, and I've seen plenty of them. I have not seen any modern bare knuckle fight where not at least one of the opponents leave the match without any inuries. It had to be similar to old school bare knuckle fights, since people back then had only two hands same as we have only two hands today.

I think I know very well what I am talking about, just to claim I know nothing about it, without any evidence that exactly proves that there were LESS injuries than in today's boxing, is BS.

Come up with some proper evidence and I maybe think about what I've said.


----------



## lklawson

JohnnyEnglish said:


> I would also recommend to not eat something while watching old school bare knuckle fights. An eye coming out of a head in some sort of squeshy form, or a totally mashed jaw are pretty common injuries in bare-knuckle fighting..


Please list historic references for popped out eyes being a common injury in pre-Marquis bare knuckle boxing matches.  Reference book, author and date or, if in a news paper or gentleman's magazine, reference publication, date, author if available, and Volume number.



> I also would like to say, IF we would see the whole thing of a more " Physic point of view  " it is much easier to understand WHY bare-knuckles are much more devastating.
> 
> Boxing gloves = more air-resistance while throwing a punch = slowing down the punch = decreasing energy = decreasing damage + soft-cover decreases speed while collision with opponents body = decrease of energy again. =  LESS effective.
> 
> Bare-knuckles = less air-resistance while throwing a punch = speeding up the punch = increasing energy = increasing damage + NO cover increases impact while collision with opponents body = increase of energy again = MORE effective.


Sorry friend, but that's just plain wrong.  The speeds at which a human can throw a punch are below the threshold where air resistance can make an appreciable difference, over the 2.5-3 foot distance, traveled between the surface area of a bare fist or a glove.



> Sorry for my English, but I hope I made it clear for the rest who seriously believes in Boxing being more devastating than bare-knuckle.


Your english isn't the problem, your claims are.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

lklawson said:


> Please list historic references for popped out eyes being a common injury in pre-Marquis bare knuckle boxing matches.  Reference book, author and date or, if in a news paper or gentleman's magazine, reference publication, date, author if available, and Volume number.
> 
> Sorry friend, but that's just plain wrong.  The speeds at which a human can throw a punch are below the threshold where air resistance can make an appreciable difference, over the 2.5-3 foot distance, traveled between the surface area of a bare fist or a glove.
> 
> Your english isn't the problem, your claims are.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I can't show you any evidence, because I've already mentioned that fights back then were not documented like this. The techniques might were!

It's a FACT that bare-knuckles are only called less dangerous because they ususally were going for your chest not your head. But the few bare-knuckle fights where they went for your head, were much more devastating ( for both opponents ) than todays boxing with gloves.

+ never underestimate a strong punch in to your belly or solarplexus.


More I can't and wont say about the whole topic.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JohnnyEnglish said:


> I can't show you any evidence, because I've already mentioned that fights back then were not documented like this.



You do realize that you are "mentioning" this idea to someone (Kirk) who has made a serious study of the primary historical sources on the subject and knows very well what documentation is available? When it comes down to an assertion without evidence from someone with no particular background in the topic vs the word of a subject matter expert who can provide historical documentation, I think just about everybody here is going to go with Kirk on this one.


----------



## lklawson

JohnnyEnglish said:


> How about some evidence ?
> 
> Everyone is talking about evidence about old school bare knuckle fighting, but nobody is coming up with evidence.


Evidence of what?  That historic bare knuckle boxing was less fatal?

Go here.  Download lots of old manuals for free.  Kirk Lawson s Books and Publications Spotlight

Pay particular attention to Own Swift's_ Hand-book to Boxing_.  He lists a full 100 years of Professional matches and spends most of the Chapter 1 on exactly how deadly-dangerous its practice isn't.

Your turn.



> I personally compared today's bare knuckle fights with boxing, and I've seen plenty of them. I have not seen any modern bare knuckle fight where not at least one of the opponents leave the match without any inuries.


That's nice.  So people get split lips, mashed noses, and cut eyebrows?  So what?  First, I've already stipulated this happened.  Second, it's not particularly deadly.  Third, this happens in gloved boxing too.



> It had to be similar to old school bare knuckle fights, since people back then had only two hands same as we have only two hands today.


Based on your extensive research into historic matches?



> I think I know very well what I am talking about, just to claim I know nothing about it,


Really?  Because you just said that you only have experience with some modern "fights" and you don't know what actually happened in historic matches but that they "had to be similar."  That's an admission that you haven't actually done any research or reading.



> without any evidence that exactly proves that there were LESS injuries than in today's boxing, is BS.


The claim isn't that there were "less injuries" as much as that there were fewer injuries which were permanently debilitating or fatal.

Sure, there were plenty of times that a pre-Marquis boxer would "draw the claret."  But it didn't kill the other guy and it typically didn't cause traumatic brain injury as is so common in modern gloved boxing.



> Come up with some proper evidence and I maybe think about what I've said.


Start thinking.  Then start backing up your claims with more than just "I saw some fights and I assume that pre-Marquis boxing was such-n-so."  How about something like, "I've surveyed 100 years of newspaper articles on pugilism, ranging from 1750 to 1850 and I found X% ended in fatalities and Y% ended in permanent debilitating injuries."

Sorry friend, but you're just making a lot of unfounded assumptions.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

JohnnyEnglish said:


> I can't show you any evidence, because I've already mentioned that fights back then were not documented like this.


I've got a century or two of records and dozens of books and accounts which disagree with that statement.  I've pointed you to most of them already.  You're still just using your "because I said so" evidence.



> It's a FACT that bare-knuckles are only called less dangerous because they ususally were going for your chest not your head. But the few bare-knuckle fights where they went for your head, were much more devastating ( for both opponents ) than todays boxing with gloves.


That's just plain wrong.  I've already quoted the Mendoza/Humphries fight.  I'll also point out, *EVERY BLASTED MANUAL* that I can think of shows the very first punch being taught is a punch to the face.  *Every. Last. One.*  They even had specialized strikes, which are illegal under the MoQ, which only make sense as a strike to the face.  You don't Chopper someone in the gut.  Finally, even the slang is indicative of the face and head being a common target.  "Draw the Claret" isn't literally about red wine.  And, yet, the vast majority of these fighters suffered no debilitating, long term, injuries and most fights weren't fatal.



> + never underestimate a strong punch in to your belly or solarplexus.


Called "The Mark" in most historic manuals.




> More I can't and wont say about the whole topic.


You can't say because you've not done the primary research or reading on the subject. Your entire position is made up of assumptions which turn out to be wrong.

As I wrote above, no one wants to get their nose smashed or lose a tooth (I certainly don't) but those aren't particularly fatal injuries and they're certainly not typically going to lead to traumatic brain injury as is common in modern gloved boxing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Dirty Dog

JohnnyEnglish said:


> How about some evidence ?
> 
> Everyone is talking about evidence about old school bare knuckle fighting, but nobody is coming up with evidence.
> 
> I personally compared today's bare knuckle fights with boxing, and I've seen plenty of them. I have not seen any modern bare knuckle fight where not at least one of the opponents leave the match without any inuries. It had to be similar to old school bare knuckle fights, since people back then had only two hands same as we have only two hands today.
> 
> I think I know very well what I am talking about, just to claim I know nothing about it, without any evidence that exactly proves that there were LESS injuries than in today's boxing, is BS.
> 
> Come up with some proper evidence and I maybe think about what I've said.



#facepalm
Maybe you don't realize this, but the guy you're trying to argue with is widely recognized for his expertise in exactly this subject: historic boxing...
Perhaps for your next trick, you'd like to teach stick fighting to Datu Tim Hartman?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> Actually it's not the gloves that are the issue it's the wraps, these days they are taped so much they resemble a plaster cast, it's this that allows such hard punching without damaging the hand as much as bare knuckle boxing.



I guess the wraps are necessary because of the shape of the glove. I'm not a boxer but I can see how the glove causes poor fist structure from the inside and and creates a wider impact point on the outside which would cause the wrist to bend.


----------



## Danny T

JohnnyEnglish said:


> I can't show you any evidence, because I've already mentioned that fights back then were not documented like this. The techniques might were!
> 
> It's a FACT that bare-knuckles are only called less dangerous because they ususally were going for your chest not your head. But the few bare-knuckle fights where they went for your head, were much more devastating ( for both opponents ) than todays boxing with gloves.


Johnny whether you dislike it or disagree with what Mr Lawson states he is a well known historian and considered an expert on historic boxing (bear knuckle). Instead of disagreeing with his statements it would probable serve you better to look at some of the references he has given on bare knuckle fighting. No one likes to be wrong or to be proven wrong and I not saying you are but when someone who has done the research, as Mr. Lawson has, opines it is usually a good idea to consider that information and to look a bit deeper into what they are saying.

You are asking for data, he has given references, where is your data and references?


----------



## JowGaWolf

I would never compare 1800 boxing to modern boxing. Boxing as a technique has improved greatly.  Today's training is 1000 times better than boxing training from the 1800s. Boxers are more powerful know than they were then.  The footwork alone is an incredible difference.


----------



## Danny T

JowGaWolf said:


> I guess the wraps are necessary because of the shape of the glove. I'm not a boxer but I can see how the glove causes poor fist structure from the inside and and creates a wider impact point on the outside which would cause the wrist to bend.


Wraps do support the wrist however, the wrist is not the major concern. It is the metacarpal bones, more so the 4th and 5th with the 5th being broken the most. When the fist strikes a hard object (like the head) in manner a modern boxer punches the metacarpals tend to spread apart, distorts, and break under the stress. The wrapping helps prevent the spreading apart and distorting of the metacarpals as well as helping to support the wrist. The shape of the glove actually prevents the fist from being fully formed which helps prevent the distorting of the metacarpals.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Danny T said:


> Wraps do support the wrist however, the wrist is not the major concern. It is the metacarpal bones, more so the 4th and 5th with the 5th being broken the most. When the fist strikes a hard object (like the head) in manner a modern boxer punches the metacarpals tend to spread apart, distorts, and break under the stress. The wrapping helps prevent the spreading apart and distorting of the metacarpals as well as helping to support the wrist. The shape of the glove actually prevents the fist from being fully formed which helps prevent the distorting of the metacarpals.



Gloves prevent what I would consider proper punching technique. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Danny T
Thanks for the info.  All of that makes me happier that I don't have that type of problem or do boxing.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> Gloves prevent what I would consider proper punching technique.



Gloves do prevent proper punching technique.  Our school doesn't use gloves when punching the bad or training because it teaches a person to hit harder than their fist, hand, or wrist is conditioned for.  When students complain that their hand hurt when punching the pads we tell them to hit softer and explain to them that they are hitting harder than what their hand is conditioned for.  Students are always able to hit harder with the gloves on and it's always without consideration of if the hand is actually conditioned to hit that hard.

People with gloves on punch as if they can't damage their hands so technique of proper punching often is thrown away.


----------



## Danny T

Dirty Dog said:


> Gloves prevent what I would consider proper punching technique.


I agree. And with that glove technology is such to compensate because of it.


----------



## lklawson

JowGaWolf said:


> I would never compare 1800 boxing to modern boxing.


There are points of comparison.



> Boxing as a technique has improved greatly.


If by that you mean that the boxing techniques used today are optimized for the modern boxing environment and rules, then, yes, I agree.  However, it is unlikely that modern boxing techniques would offer great advantage in a historic, Pre-Marquis bare knuckle rule set.  The two are different enough to cause problems for one going to the other.



> Today's training is 1000 times better than boxing training from the 1800s.


If by that you mean that modern boxing training is optimized, using modern science, to the modern boxing rule set and environment, then I agree.  However, many of the modern training methods would be wasted for use in a historic boxing environment.  That said, many would not.  The use of modern dietary science and certain physical training methods, like plyometrics for instance, would work very well to improve performance in a historic context.  Some others, such as modern heavy bag training, would likely be a hindrance.



> Boxers are more powerful know than they were then.


If by "stronger" due to weight training, you're probably right, though I can't recall seeing any documentation about how physically "strong" most historic boxer were as far as their ability to lift weights goes.



> The footwork alone is an incredible difference.


Modern boxing footwork would be a hindrance in historic, pre-Marquis bare knuckle boxing.  Historically, they tended to fight either at long range ("Outfighting") or grapple and throw.  The modern boxing distance just didn't happen that much, thus, footwork optimized for that range wouldn't be all that useful.  Now, MMA footwork, on the other hand, is a lot closer, minus kicks and shoots.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JowGaWolf

Iklawson
Footwork is everything and boxers have some the quickest feet out there to the point where even UFC fighters use some of the same movements to slip and land punches. You can't hit or grab something that you can't catch and hold. Boxing is a science like all other fighting styles.  If you have bad footwork or weak stances then ultimately you will lose.

Heavy bag training isn't a waste. Heavy bag training conditions the fist, arms, and joints for the impact that it will experience when punching a real person.  Heavy bag training helps to get technique of a punch down and reducing injury.

By stronger I mean training to be a stronger fighter, deliver a stronger punch, and better developing the muscles that are required to deliver a strong punch, and the ability to withstand a strong punch.  The reason why modern athletes are breaking records is because they are getting better and faster than the ones who came before them.

"Historically, they tended to fight either at long range (Outfighting) or grapple and throw"   This proves my point.  Many boxers know how to use their foot work and technique to close the distance. Boxers know how to bob and weave which is good for long range fighting. This is a necessity for when someone has a longer punching range.  MMA fighters use the similar boxing techniques.  Here's proof of that





The only downside to Boxers would be that they only train to punch and defend against punches.  But MMA guys use boxing techniques all the time in their matches.


----------



## lklawson

JowGaWolf said:


> Iklawson
> Footwork is everything and boxers have some the quickest feet out there to the point where even UFC fighters use some of the same movements to slip and land punches.


Yes.



> You can't hit or grab something that you can't catch and hold.


And you can't hit something which is beyond your reach.  And?



> Boxing is a science like all other fighting styles.


Interesting historical note: The earliest I recall seeing Boxing being referred to as a "science" is during the early 20th Century with the advancement of "Scientific Boxing" which grew from the Amateur Boxing trend.



> If you have bad footwork or weak stances then ultimately you will lose.


And?  My thesis is that pre-Marquis training and techniques were optimized for that environment and rule set and that modern boxing training and techniques are optimized for the modern rule set and environment.  The modern method wouldn't give automatic superiority in a pre-Marquis context because it's not optimized for that.  This isn't Victorian theories on Evolution.  Modern Boxing training makes great modern boxers.



> Heavy bag training isn't a waste. Heavy bag training conditions the fist, arms, and joints for the impact that it will experience when punching a real person.  Heavy bag training helps to get technique of a punch down and reducing injury.


Maybe you train it differently but most of the modern use of the Heavy Bag I've seen doesn't work to promote bare knuckle punching.  If you do, then I'm glad.



> By stronger I mean training to be a stronger fighter, deliver a stronger punch, and better developing the muscles that are required to deliver a strong punch, and the ability to withstand a strong punch.


A stronger punch?  Only if they conditioned their hands to be able to survive that and then used the proper technique for punching.  Most modern boxing training seems to not do this.



> The reason why modern athletes are breaking records is because they are getting better and faster than the ones who came before them.


The sprint isn't boxing.  No offense.  There's a lot more to it than just "stronger and faster."



> "Historically, they tended to fight either at long range (Outfighting) or grapple and throw"   This proves my point.


Only if you automatically assume that the historic footwork and head movement didn't exist or wasn't optimized to their environment.



> Many boxers know how to use their foot work and technique to close the distance.


This was a critical skill in pre-Marquis boxing.  Why would you think it wouldn't be?  Can we agree that modern boxing spends more time in a closer range?  Then we can also agree that pre-Marquis boxing had to figure out how to get into punching range and proper footwork is critical to that.  Pre-Marquis boxers had footwork optimized for their environment.



> Boxers know how to bob and weave which is good for long range fighting.


Just as they did in pre-Marquis boxing.  I believe I addressed this and gave some examples up-thread.  



> This is a necessity for when someone has a longer punching range.


Which hasn't changed since pre-Marquis boxing days.  In fact, due to the fact that there weren't weight classes for much of the time, the problem was exacerbated.  You could easily see a boxer with a 30 pound weight advantage and commensurate reach.  Do you really believe that they just sucked it up and got pounded?  Mendoza was, famously, a "little" man.  Yet he was champion for years.



> Which MMA fighters use the similar boxing techniques.


Their boxing technique often looks much closer to the pre-Marquis techniques.



> The only downside to Boxers would be that they only train to punch and defend against punches.  But MMA guys use boxing techniques all the time in their matches.


And?

Do you think I'm saying that modern boxers aren't good at what they do?  I'm not.  Do you think that I'm saying that pre-Marquis boxers, if magically transported in the Tardis to a modern boxing match would beat the modern boxer?  I'm not.

But, do you think that a modern boxer, also mystically time-transported, if dropped into a pre-Marquis Bare Knuckle pugilism match would whoop up on the pugilist?  On his own turf?  Under rules which he's been training for and which are markedly different from modern boxing?  I rather doubt it, but that seems to be what you're saying.  Or did I get that wrong?

Again, what I'm saying is that each of them are trained and optimized to their own environment and rule set.  Modern boxing techniques and training aren't optimized for pre-Marquis bare knuckle pugilism.  Neither are pre-Marquis bare knuckle pugilism techniques and training optimized to the modern ring.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve

So, wait...  in general, I'm enjoying he conversation here.  But, are you guys saying that in a self defense oriented martial art, you think people should intentionally hit softer and further, that hitting softer is good technique?  That doesn't compute.  I mean, it conflicts with the head stomping, eye gouging, kill or be killed, survive at any cost mentality common to the self defense contingent.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve

In my training and martial style, we put technique before power.  Hitting a heavy bag without technique and all power is a good way to injure yourself.  In addition if your hand isn't conditioned to strike an object in that manner then you would only increase the damage to your hand.

People make the assumption that the only way to have tough knuckles is to hit something as hard as you can. You can also learn to hit harder by not trying to hit as hard as you can.  When I hit the heavy bag, I'm always hitting it with soft to medium force.  Over time the bone in my knuckle increases in density and the skin around my knuckle becomes tougher.  If you did this you'll begin to notice that what you considered a hard punch 5 months ago is now your soft punch. If I were to punch someone "softly" today, they would instantly think that I was punching them very hard, even though to me if felt like I was hitting the person softly.  

Because my conditioning is done softly, I don't get those ugly boxing knuckles and I don't damage my hand or the nerves in it.  I condition my forearms and shins in the same way.  When it comes to self-defense everything is done within the realm of my conditioning.  If my hand isn't conditioned to hit a hard object then I shouldn't use it to hit someone's skull. 

In terms of an actual fight, you should hit hard but not beyond the conditioning of your hand. Doing so would cause you to damage your hand which will then make it useless for defending yourself.


----------



## jks9199

Dirty Dog said:


> Gloves prevent what I would consider proper punching technique.
> 
> 
> Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.



There is certainly that...  They prevent forming a proper fist, and can encourage poor wrist alignment.  If your style uses certain wrist snapping and turning motions... you can't really do them in boxing gloves.


----------



## Ironbear24

I feel like getting hit with a glove feels more a "push" and is able to deliver more pressure per inch into my head vs a punch without a glove. Honestly the more pressure being delivered into the skull and the jaw in general is what causes a knockout, all that pressure combined with the speed. It causes that dreaded "dizzy feeling" when you get hit and honestly that is the worst because it opens you up to get hit more.

Because of this I hate headgear and gloves and prefer to spar without them. Honestly I feel like a glove protects the users hands more than it protects the guy getting hit.

Gloves protect against bones fracturing and breaking on both parties though so that is a definite plus. But in sparring you are supposed to not use full power anyway. When I get hit with a fist in the face it feels more like a sharp pain rather than a forceful push that causes me to get dizzy. 

In general I don't like getting hit at all of course but I have accepted it is going to happen often in martial arts.


----------



## Lameman

Steve. You have to realize the target audience. If  I have 5 minutes to teach a complete amature something that will save their life in a fight to the death they are going to have in an hour. Teaching technique, structure, energy, physiology etc. is a waste of time and likely will be of little to no use. If I get them pumped up to go ape**** they have a chance. I usually focus on very basic blocking/parrying. That can be picked up and used quickly. Thats it. If you want to learn fighting, training in a martial art is FAR better then all that hype. Not that that hype can't be useful to a trained fighter. But their training will be far more useful. And, in a fight I usually hit soft, but like JawGaWolf said, my soft might not feel soft.


----------



## jks9199




----------

