# Boxing Then vs Now



## PhotonGuy

From what I know about American boxing, way back in the dark ages boxing was done with bare hands without wearing any gloves. Now of course, boxers do wear gloves. Since they started using gloves there have been some modifications on how the punches are thrown. The punching techniques have been changed to make them more effective when you're wearing gloves but if you try punching like that without gloves you can really hurt your hand. That being said, if boxing is to be practiced for self defense it would probably be a good idea to learn how the punches were thrown before they started wearing gloves. Boxing is primarily meant to be a sport and somebody who takes up boxing will probably do so for sporting purposes but if they also want to be able to use it for self defense they should learn how they threw the punches without the gloves since you will probably not be wearing boxing gloves in a street confrontation or some other situation that warrants self defense.


----------



## jks9199

Well, it's actually Western Boxing.  The rules as they developed have certainly influenced tactics and strategies.  Kirk Lawson has written about this on several occasions...


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Yeah, Kirk is the guy to ask about pre-Marquis of Queensbury boxing.


----------



## Mephisto

My understanding is that the change in boxing was a result of a change in rules. Old boxing allowed stand up grappling, spiked shoes, and throws/takedowns. The stance and method changed with the rules, fighters didn't have to worry about grappling and were able to perfect and specialize in one skillset. Boxers are masters of evasion, some think there is a parallel between filipino blade arts. Some think filipino arts may have influenced boxing. If you can avoid a fist you can avoid a blade. It's a worthy endeavor to take up boxing. 

Boxing is more than punches, punches can be taught in one afternoon and every style has them. Boxing on the other hand is a much more complex method of evasion, head and body movement. 

I can understand the desire to avoid damaging your hands, it's a possibility when throwing punches in a real encounter. In reality you can aim for the jaw, temples, and body, softer targets, but you still risk damaging your hand. It's funny though that some write off boxing as mere sport where you'll break your hand and embrace pressure point  attacks and all kinds of more esoteric and risky unorthodox strikes (ridge hand, Phoenix eye fist, tiger mouth, spear hand, ect). They all have there place and come with risk, the fist is one of the most reliable, elbows and palms may be even safer. But if you're using your art for self defense a boxers fracture is a small price to pay for safety or your family's safety. Fighters have fought entire matches with broken hands, I believe randy couture is one example. A broken hand isn't death and if you're opponent lays unconscious before you you've done well and it's worth it.


----------



## drop bear

Tehuna fought a match with a broken arm.

there is still bare knuckle boxing being done. Modern bare knuckle doesn't look that much different to modern Queensbury.

there are a few quirks i employ to make smaller gloves work. But a good boxer will still bash me regardless.


----------



## KPM

I've done a lot of research on the old school boxing and agree with what's been said so far.  Check out Jack Dempsey's book "Championship Boxing" where he explains why he preferred a vertical fist rather than the twisting punch that most boxers use.   Absolutely the transition from "old school" to "modern" was a gradual one but was driven  by the rule changes and use of bigger and bigger gloves.  If you don't have to worry about a man throwing you to the ground and winning the round, and you've got nice fluffy gloves to hide behind, lots of things start to change!  I don't think Filipino Boxing had anything to do with it.  Some guys likely picked up on the evasive footwork from the Filipino Boxers (like Muhammed Ali), but this was well after the transition to modern boxing was all but complete.


----------



## Transk53

KPM said:


> Check out Jack Dempsey's book "Championship Boxing"



I'll have a look out for that. A good read then?


----------



## KPM

Yeah, a good read.  Good illustrations.  There use to be copies on-line you could download.  But I think someone has reprinted the book recently and those free copies had to come down.


----------



## Buka

The techniques/style of bareknuckle boxing leave a lot to be desired compared to the boxing of twenty years later.

Must have been a damn crazy time, though.


----------



## Tez3

The history of boxing includes women's boxing as far back as the 18th century.
Historical Events in Women s Boxing - Most indepth history on the Net - Women Boxing Archive Network


----------



## Transk53

Buka said:


> The techniques/style of bareknuckle boxing leave a lot to be desired compared to the boxing of twenty years later.
> 
> Must have been a damn crazy time, though.



Suppose so. Bare knuckle is just brawling to me. In fact I am getting the vibe over boxing again, or at least been reignited recently.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> The history of boxing includes women's boxing as far back as the 18th century.
> Historical Events in Women s Boxing - Most indepth history on the Net - Women Boxing Archive Network



Never new that one.


----------



## jks9199

Buka said:


> The techniques/style of bareknuckle boxing leave a lot to be desired compared to the boxing of twenty years later.
> 
> Must have been a damn crazy time, though.


Don't know that I'd agree with the statement that their techniques were poor or questionable.  If you look at some of the classic manuals that have been published, they seem pretty much on par with any other martial approach.  Some of them wouldn't work well in the boxing ring today, of course -- but that's to be expected.  And boxers today are undoubtedly stronger, and better conditioned, and, of course, have benefited greatly from the ability to review video, etc.  But I don't think I'd say that their techniques or style were incomplete or inadequate.


----------



## tshadowchaser

After the rules where set for boxing and you could no longer head butt, throw your opponent to the ground, bite, etc. the boxers pretty much stood upright and just simply punched each other out.  It takes a lot to just stand there and take a punch and then give one.  No they did not seem to bob and weave they stood there and took the punch.
They also did not break there hands by hitting with the last two fingers of the hand  like boxers today do because of the gloves and throwing a punch differently.
Can a boxer today punch effectively in a self defense situation  I would think so if he has any real type of training.  The conditioning alone would be of tremendous help , to say nothing of his ability to take a punch and trow body punches.


----------



## Buka

jks9199 said:


> Don't know that I'd agree with the statement that their techniques were poor or questionable.  If you look at some of the classic manuals that have been published, they seem pretty much on par with any other martial approach.  Some of them wouldn't work well in the boxing ring today, of course -- but that's to be expected.  And boxers today are undoubtedly stronger, and better conditioned, and, of course, have benefited greatly from the ability to review video, etc.  But I don't think I'd say that their techniques or style were incomplete or inadequate.



I didn't mean they were poor or questionable, just outdated a couple decades later. It wasn't until Corbett, at the dawn of the gloved age, that a left hook was in boxing. With so few strikes in boxing, it changed things up considerably.


----------



## Transk53

tshadowchaser said:


> After the rules where set for boxing and you could no longer head butt, throw your opponent to the ground, bite, etc. the boxers pretty much stood upright and just simply punched each other out. It takes a lot to just stand there and take a punch and then give one. No they did not seem to bob and weave they stood there and took the punch.
> They also did not break there hands by hitting with the last two fingers of the hand like boxers today do because of the gloves and throwing a punch differently.
> Can a boxer today punch effectively in a self defense situation I would think so if he has any real type of training. The conditioning alone would be of tremendous help , to say nothing of his ability to take a punch and trow body punches.



I agree with you in a one on one SD scenario. I would not say in a typical street situation. He would not want advertise himself, too much danger of getting rushed. It is all gang and peer mentality these days. IMHO of course.


----------



## Transk53

This may well have been seen already and is 27 minutes. It is compelling viewing though, and some of it quite profound. If you have time, worth a watch IMHO.


----------



## Tez3

There's also  reputable 'above ground' bareknuckle boxing bouts that happen here too. It is actually just a matter of choice no one has to follow the Queensbury rules, only if they are under the Boxing Board of Control or the amateur boxing authorities because they want to go for worldwide type titles. It's a bit of a misnomer calling them 'underground' because the bouts themselves aren't illegal, the betting is though lol.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> There's also  reputable 'above ground' bareknuckle boxing bouts that happen here too. It is actually just a matter of choice no one has to follow the Queensbury rules, only if they are under the Boxing Board of Control or the amateur boxing authorities because they want to go for worldwide type titles. It's a bit of a misnomer calling them 'underground' because the bouts themselves aren't illegal, the betting is though lol.



Nah, it is no misnomer. By definition it is underground due to no commercial value. Tbh, I am pretty much not able to counter you're posts, but surely bare knuckle boxing is seen as nothing more than a organised street fight.


----------



## Tez3

The traveller community who are the main people for bare knuckle have rules and it's far from a street fight organised or not. There is a huge commercial value because of the betting on the fights, a lot of money changes hands. My instructor had a bare knuckle fight with a traveller, it was a very fair fight, just him and the other guy. When he beat the traveller the others congratulated him. It was down in Brigg at the Horse Fair. There's organised bare knuckle fights all over the place. I'm sure there's a fair amount of brawls going on as well but bare knuckle fighting is seen as safer than the gloved kind and they have a point, you cannot hit as hard with the bare fist as you can with a wrapped, gloved fist so while it looks bloodier it is actually safer.


----------



## Tez3

Welcome to the Bare Knuckle Fighters


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> Welcome to the Bare Knuckle Fighters



The vid does not work, permission denied. I'll Youtube it.


----------



## Tez3

It's not a video, it's a website. Try this. www.bbad.co.uk


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> It's not a video, it's a website. Try this. www.bbad.co.uk



Did you not spot the vid top left hand corner  Link took me to a different page. Anyway got this after clicking. Oh dear another so called SD site. Those can answer would not need it. Quite funny.


----------



## Tez3

Self defence site? I don't think we are looking at the same thing lol. The link I put up is a promotion company for bare knuckle fights. There's a lot of talk about bare knuckle fighting in the UK, lots of stuff about how illegal it is, how dangerous, it gives it some sort of spurious glamour lol but really it's just unlicensed boxing ( there's plenty of fight nights where boxers wear gloves too). it really isn't as exciting or as 'dangerous' as many make out. it's a big thing with the travellers of course and they like to make out they are the kings of it etc, but as I said it's just boxing.


----------



## K-man

Tez3 said:


> Self defence site? I don't think we are looking at the same thing lol. The link I put up is a promotion company for bare knuckle fights. There's a lot of talk about bare knuckle fighting in the UK, lots of stuff about how illegal it is, how dangerous, it gives it some sort of spurious glamour lol but really it's just unlicensed boxing ( there's plenty of fight nights where boxers wear gloves too). it really isn't as exciting or as 'dangerous' as many make out. it's a big thing with the travellers of course and they like to make out they are the kings of it etc, but as I said it's just boxing.


I tried the link *Transk* was referring to. It has been disabled.  All you need to do is put in "Bbad Youtube" and you get a whole heap of videos coming up.


----------



## Tez3

That's odd because my link went through to the website not any videos!


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> That's odd because my link went through to the website not any videos!



Well you have agreed that a computer may as well be an alien lol


----------



## K-man

Tez3 said:


> That's odd because my link went through to the website not any videos!


The video link is on the left side of the website and even if you go into the videos they won't play, at least not for me on an iPad.


----------



## Tez3

Well I didn't mean you to watch the videos lol I meant you to read the website! Dear me, you can't get the staff these days!


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> Self defence site? I don't think we are looking at the same thing lol. The link I put up is a promotion company for bare knuckle fights. There's a lot of talk about bare knuckle fighting in the UK, lots of stuff about how illegal it is, how dangerous, it gives it some sort of spurious glamour lol but really it's just unlicensed boxing ( there's plenty of fight nights where boxers wear gloves too). it really isn't as exciting or as 'dangerous' as many make out. it's a big thing with the travellers of course and they like to make out they are the kings of it etc, but as I said it's just boxing.



No, it is not Boxing. Bare Knuckle is what it is. Boxing no way. Pugilism is something intrinsic, you either feel or you don't. That is the purist thought here. No, Boxing is unique, simplicity in movement coupled with pace, power and precision.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> Well I didn't mean you to watch the videos lol I meant you to read the website! Dear me, you can't get the staff these days!



Okay so you noticed lol. Yes I have read some of it, I will read some more on it. However I doubt my own personal viewpoint will change.


----------



## K-man

Tez3 said:


> Well I didn't mean you to watch the videos lol I meant you to read the website! Dear me, you can't get the staff these days!


That's a bit like your mum putting a freshly baked cake on the table and saying "it's not for you". 

You're such a tease!


----------



## Tez3

Transk53 said:


> No, it is not Boxing. Bare Knuckle is what it is. Boxing no way. Pugilism is something intrinsic, you either feel or you don't. That is the purist thought here. No, Boxing is unique, simplicity in movement coupled with pace, power and precision.



I can't agree though, it was bare knuckle long before it was fancy gloves. The fancy gloves, I believe and the rules came about because the toffs didn't want to get marked when they boxed. It's like Jujutsu before Judo, with the 'interesting' bits taken out to sanitise it. My father taught me to box when I was a kid, he used to box in the army and would help Freddie Mills out with sparring etc. It's skilful enough but with the wrapped hands in the gloves it's not as brave a s bare knuckle, it's more dangerous too as I've said. If you think there's not skill in bare knuckle I assure you there is.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> I can't agree though, it was bare knuckle long before it was fancy gloves. The fancy gloves, I believe and the rules came about because the toffs didn't want to get marked when they boxed. It's like Jujutsu before Judo, with the 'interesting' bits taken out to sanitise it. My father taught me to box when I was a kid, he used to box in the army and would help Freddie Mills out with sparring etc. It's skilful enough but with the wrapped hands in the gloves it's not as brave a s bare knuckle, it's more dangerous too as I've said. If you think there's not skill in bare knuckle I assure you there is.



Yeah well, I have never seen a bout. Hey I see the point you are making, but not.


----------



## Tez3

Transk53 said:


> Yeah well, I have never seen a bout. Hey I see the point you are making, but not.


Well I'm going to post up videos from the 19th century to show you just how wrong you are!


----------



## Transk53

Well yeah of course, jeez you watch too much Star Trek.


----------



## KPM

Tez3 said:


> I can't agree though, it was bare knuckle long before it was fancy gloves. The fancy gloves, I believe and the rules came about because the toffs didn't want to get marked when they boxed. It's like Jujutsu before Judo, with the 'interesting' bits taken out to sanitise it. My father taught me to box when I was a kid, he used to box in the army and would help Freddie Mills out with sparring etc. It's skilful enough but with the wrapped hands in the gloves it's not as brave a s bare knuckle, it's more dangerous too as I've said. If you think there's not skill in bare knuckle I assure you there is.



I fear I disagree and agree with both of you.  ;-)  The various videos I have seen up of "bare knuckle boxing" is indeed just unsanctioned modern boxing.  And I have seen footage where they were wearing regular boxing gloves and it looked like any other boxing bout.  Now, this is not to say it is necessarily "good" boxing!  But it is not the bare knuckle boxing of John L Sullivan's day.  They are not using the techniques and methods of "old school boxing" that existed before modern boxing.  This is simply modern boxing without gloves.   And most of these guys wouldn't stand a chance against a pro boxer.


----------



## Transk53

KPM said:


> I fear I disagree and agree with both of you.  ;-)  The various videos I have seen up of "bare knuckle boxing" is indeed just unsanctioned modern boxing.  And I have seen footage where they were wearing regular boxing gloves and it looked like any other boxing bout.  Now, this is not to say it is necessarily "good" boxing!  But it is not the bare knuckle boxing of John L Sullivan's day.  They are not using the techniques and methods of "old school boxing" that existed before modern boxing.  This is simply modern boxing without gloves.   And most of these guys wouldn't stand a chance against a pro boxer.



I agree on the boxing side of things, hence my silly humour above. However not to demean Tez also. The vid I posted just seems like a bunch of blokes up for a brawl. Nothing wrong with that at all, just the way I see it


----------



## Transk53

#bump disagree. Edit not working on my phone.


----------



## Tez3

KPM said:


> I fear I disagree and agree with both of you.  ;-)  The various videos I have seen up of "bare knuckle boxing" is indeed just unsanctioned modern boxing.  And I have seen footage where they were wearing regular boxing gloves and it looked like any other boxing bout.  Now, this is not to say it is necessarily "good" boxing!  But it is not the bare knuckle boxing of John L Sullivan's day.  They are not using the techniques and methods of "old school boxing" that existed before modern boxing.  This is simply modern boxing without gloves.   And most of these guys wouldn't stand a chance against a pro boxer.



Boxing overall is not what it was, whether with or without gloves. Pro boxers aren't the standard they used to be and modern bareknuckle_ is_ just boxing without gloves despite people trying to make it out that because it's 'underground' it's more authentic, more tough, more real. It's not, it's just boxing that is unsanctioned by the official ruling bodies. It's not illegal as I said so not 'underground'. It's the betting part that's illegal. There's plenty of unlicensed boxing with gloves as well going on. We have boxing bouts in the cage as well alongside kick boxing and MMA. the standard varies from good to dire. Some of the licensed boxing is pretty dire as well though. 
The travellers like the bareknuckle because it seems more macho and they don't like anything that is licensed anyway or at least anything they may have to pay taxes on, though there are two traveller pro boxers who fought recently amid a lot of smack talk.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> Boxing overall is not what it was, whether with or without gloves. Pro boxers aren't the standard they used to be and modern bareknuckle_ is_ just boxing without gloves despite people trying to make it out that because it's 'underground' it's more authentic, more tough, more real. It's not, it's just boxing that is unsanctioned by the official ruling bodies. It's not illegal as I said so not 'underground'. It's the betting part that's illegal. There's plenty of unlicensed boxing with gloves as well going on. We have boxing bouts in the cage as well alongside kick boxing and MMA. the standard varies from good to dire. Some of the licensed boxing is pretty dire as well though.
> The travellers like the bareknuckle because it seems more macho and they don't like anything that is licensed anyway or at least anything they may have to pay taxes on, though there are two traveller pro boxers who fought recently amid a lot of smack talk.



That I agree with, especially the heavyweight division. Not many fights like this anymore.


----------



## Buka

Nor like this one. Gotta' love heavyweight slugfests.


----------



## Transk53

Buka said:


> Nor like this one. Gotta' love heavyweight slugfests.



Yeah, them were the days. Did not know that was his first fight back from Ali.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Transk53 said:


> This may well have been seen already and is 27 minutes. It is compelling viewing though, and some of it quite profound. If you have time, worth a watch IMHO.



Interesting to see the confined space they fight in. I'm sure that changes the game as it negates most footwork.

If you're going to fight bareknuckle rules, I'd love to see someone do it under the old pre-Marquis of Queensbury rules. Throws and takedowns were permitted, but no groundfighting. Instead of rounds, you had falls - the action goes until one fighter gets knocked down or thrown. Once that happens, they have a limited time to stand back up and toe the line or else lose the match.


----------



## Transk53

Tony Dismukes said:


> Interesting to see the confined space they fight in. I'm sure that changes the game as it negates most footwork.
> 
> If you're going to fight bareknuckle rules, I'd love to see someone do it under the old pre-Marquis of Queensbury rules. Throws and takedowns were permitted, but no groundfighting. Instead of rounds, you had falls - the action goes until one fighter gets knocked down or thrown. Once that happens, they have a limited time to stand back up and toe the line or else lose the match.



Really. Interesting format. Where I am and work, there is a boxing instructor called Nigel Sayers. Now I know that a relative was a bare knuckle champion. Whether that was Tom Sayers I am not sure, but I will ask him when I see him next. Perhaps I have been a little fervent in my belief that bare knuckle should not be counted as boxing. Really is interesting stuff.


----------



## Tez3

Calling Mr. Lawson! if anyone can, could you ask him nicely to come and talk to us on this? His input would be invaluable.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> Calling Mr. Lawson! if anyone can, could you ask him nicely to come and talk to us on this? His input would be invaluable.



That would be in regards to that thread with the image of the different forms?, moves. Pretty certain I posted in there, but can't remember when.


----------



## Tez3

Transk53 said:


> That would be in regards to that thread with the image of the different forms?, moves. Pretty certain I posted in there, but can't remember when.



Not sure tbh, but this is the chap I mean, he's hugely knowledgeable about boxing and it's history.
What is The Mark in historic boxing MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> Not sure tbh, but this is the chap I mean, he's hugely knowledgeable about boxing and it's history.
> What is The Mark in historic boxing MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community


 
Yeah that he I believe. That has saved me some searching.


----------



## Tez3

Transk53 said:


> Yeah that he I believe. That has saved me some searching.




I think you'd enjoy his downloads.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> I think you'd enjoy his downloads.



Cool, Bartitsu was what I was trying to remember. Looks quite fascinating.


----------



## Transk53

Anyway, talking of then and now, Nigel Benn is my all time favourite English middleweight. I like boxers obviously, but I tend to lean towards the punchers. Turn up, beat the wotsit out of them, display great heart. For me the seminal moment was against Gerald McClellan. Oh my, what a fight that was. I remember watching it and quickly fearing the worst in the first round. But he got up and prevailed. The tragedy of the end result was GC suffered dearly. Sustained a blood clot and rendered disabled. I checked Wiki tonight and despite appalling injuries to his senses, in 2007 he managed to walk with a cane. Not much else after that, but I continue to wish him well. I have always kind of wondered if Nigel Benn had an advantage with being ex forces. British Army training is top notch as the world knows. Well rather than the Dark Destroyer, I  monikered him the Machine Gun Benn. Seemed quit apt.






The full fight with commentry with an apearence from the legendary Barry McGuigan. I know being a forum most are just browsing, but if you lot have some time, watch on Youtube.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Tez3 said:


> Calling Mr. Lawson! if anyone can, could you ask him nicely to come and talk to us on this? His input would be invaluable.



I just shot him a note on Facebook.


----------



## Tez3

My shift partner before I retired was in the army with Nigel Benn. Army boxing isn't that good, there's a lot of pride involved lol with the regiments competing against each other. The benefit of being in the forces is not the military training but the fact that if you are really good at something you will be allowed to just train and compete because it looks good on the recruiting side. Though over the past few years with the redundancies and Afghan you would have to be capable of being picked for your country now before you get any special treatment.


----------



## Tez3

Army boxing finals.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> Army boxing isn't that good



Makes sense then, Nigel Benn is a natural puncher, which I knew anyway. Lets face it, he was not a great boxer, just pace, power and precision. Can't argue against that. That is just my take on it. If you go in heavy and breach that defence. you have won. That was just so pleasing to see.



Tez3 said:


> .There's a lot of pride involved lol with the regiments competing against each other. The benefit of being in the forces is not the military training but the fact that if you are really good at something you will be allowed to just train and compete because it looks good on the recruiting side. Though over the past few years with the redundancies and Afghan you would have to be capable of being picked for your country now before you get any special treatment.



Yeah I can't post what I feel, but yeah, that is messed up.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> Army boxing finals.



Do I really want to watch this?


----------



## Tez3

Transk53 said:


> Do I really want to watch this?



Of course you do, it's honest competitive boxing! Look at the audience though and you will see the officers there in their mess dress, shouting in posh voices.  Watch for the Paras, always mad.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> Of course you do, it's honest competitive boxing! Look at the audience though and you will see the officers there in their mess dress, shouting in posh voices.  Watch for the Paras, always mad.



In my experience you are mad. Worked with a RAF current. Worked with a Squaddie, You are all mad


----------



## Tez3

Transk53 said:


> In my experience you are mad. Worked with a RAF current. Worked with a Squaddie, You are all mad




Shh I was trying to keep that quiet! I was in the RAF, my other half was in the RAF Regiment, that makes him madder than me lol.

Talking of boxers, the Lancs Regt up here asked Amir Khan to come and visit them, he said no  he didn't want to upset his Muslim supporters.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> Shh I was trying to keep that quiet! I was in the RAF, my other half was in the RAF Regiment, that makes him madder than me lol.





Tez3 said:


> Talking of boxers, the Lancs Regt up here asked Amir Khan to come and visit them, he said no he didn't want to upset his Muslim supporters.





Tez3 said:


> Shh I was trying to keep that quiet! I was in the RAF, my other half was in the RAF Regiment, that makes him madder than me lol.
> 
> Talking of boxers, the Lancs Regt up here asked Amir Khan to come and visit them, he said no  he didn't want to upset his Muslim supporters.



No, you are all mad  mind you, I would venture that you would have liked to met my Granddad, he was just mental, but had a presence. Yeah he boxed too, that is where my passion comes from. Amir Khan, never been sure of him.


----------



## lklawson

Tez3 said:


> Calling Mr. Lawson! if anyone can, could you ask him nicely to come and talk to us on this? His input would be invaluable.


What can I say? Tony has it exactly right.  Throws, trips, standing grappling, etc.  All were allowed.  Under some early rule sets even kicking was technically legal, though it wasn't actually done cuz, well... BOXING!  (and the fans might crash the ring and beat you to death - no, I'm not exaggerating).

The inclusion of throws had a tendency to push range out.  There really was not "boxing range" as we think of it today.  It was all "out-fighting" range.  In-fighting would happen but it tended to be short and clinch happened quickly.  Punch from range -> crash distance -> clinch -> throw.

Lather, rinse, repeat. 

Unless you were good at range fighting and could convince your opponent to stay that range (which did happen), or if you could knock him down as he enters into clinch range.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

On a side note, though rare, it wasn't unheard of for women to box as well in the 18th and 19th Centuries.

From Handbook to Boxing by Owen Swift, 1840,

"1793 Aug. -- Two females, 45 min. (with their husbands for seconds). Chelmsford, Essex."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Transk53

lklawson said:


> On a side note, though rare, it wasn't unheard of for women to box as well in the 18th and 19th Centuries.
> 
> From Handbook to Boxing by Owen Swift, 1840,
> 
> "1793 Aug. -- Two females, 45 min. (with their husbands for seconds). Chelmsford, Essex."
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Yeah my home City is a bit is a bit eclectic. Thanks for posting, I will look that up.


----------



## Tez3

OMG an Essex boy!


----------



## Transk53

Y





Tez3 said:


> OMG an Essex boy!



Yes. "the only way is Essex" is not real lol


----------



## lklawson

Transk53 said:


> Yeah my home City is a bit is a bit eclectic. Thanks for posting, I will look that up.


Handbook to Boxing by Owen Swift, 1840,
"1822 Jan. 30. Evans and Coulthorpe, 40 rounds; £20 and a woman (drawn). Harrow-road."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Tony Dismukes said:


> Instead of rounds, you had falls - the action goes until one fighter gets knocked down or thrown. Once that happens, they have a limited time to stand back up and toe the line or else lose the match.


Handbook to Boxing by Owen Swift, 1840,
"1790 Aug. 30. Big Ben and Hooper, 210 min., 180 rounds, £50 (drawn). Near Newbury."
"1822 Feb. 28. Acton beat Kendrick, 35 min., 32 rounds; 25 guineas. Moulsey Hurst."
"1822 July 23. Bill Hull beat Sampson, 99 min., 94 rounds; £50. Near Warwick."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Transk53

lklawson said:


> Handbook to Boxing by Owen Swift, 1840,
> "1822 Jan. 30. Evans and Coulthorpe, 40 rounds; £20 and a woman (drawn). Harrow-road."
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Harrow Road in Chelsea? I know Harrow Way, Great Baddow just of the Essex Yeomanry Way.


----------



## lklawson

Transk53 said:


> Harrow Road in Chelsea? I know Harrow Way, Great Baddow just of the Essex Yeomanry Way.


Well, the publication date is 1840 so there may have been a few changes between then and now.    <ducking>

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Transk53

lklawson said:


> Well, the publication date is 1840 so there may have been a few changes between then and now.    <ducking>
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk





lklawson said:


> Well, the publication date is 1840 so there may have been a few changes between then and now.    <ducking>
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



No worries. Bartitsu I would to see some in action. There are some links to London, have you any knowledge of that?


----------



## lklawson

Transk53 said:


> No worries. Bartitsu I would to see some in action. There are some links to London, have you any knowledge of that?


I've met a few from that side of the Ocean.  Not sure if they're practicing in London.  I've been told it's a pretty big city.  

The folks I've met seemed to be competent.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Transk53

lklawson said:


> I've met a few from that side of the Ocean.  Not sure if they're practicing in London.  I've been told it's a pretty big city.
> 
> The folks I've met seemed to be competent.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Thanks.


----------

