# Article: A Discussion of Boxing Stances Through History



## lklawson (Jan 12, 2009)

Ken Pfrenger has generously given permission to republish his article, A Discussion of Boxing Stances Through History, on the Cumann Bhata Dayton website.

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

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## arnisador (Jan 12, 2009)

Very interesting, esp. with regard to the  vertical fist and its effects on the stance!


----------



## Skpotamus (Jan 18, 2009)

Hmm, I've tried to post twice now and it hasn't shown up, stupid browser...

Oh well.

An interesting article, but a couple of things seem to stick out to me. 

The stance the author shows as a modern boxing stance isn't what I've seen taught in boxing gyms throughout the midwest or west coast. Do a youtube search for Russ Anber as an example of what I normally see. The authors stance is much more upright, his feet much closer together and his body is much more square to his target. 

I honestly get more range out of a horizontal fist than a vertical fist. I get my shoulder rotated into the punch more and it gives me more reach. However, I've trained horizontal punching more than vertical. I'm sure a person using a vertical fist that practiced getting their shoulder into it would get the same range. When I put my vertical fist against a wall and turn it to horizontal, I get puched back from the wall. 

One thing I always thought the upright stance used in the old bare knuckle manuals was somewhat contradictory. Supposedly it was due to grappling being allowed. However, when you look at any grappling oriented sport, wrestling, Judo, BJJ, etc they typically use a much lower stance with more bend in both the knees and the waist. Look at most mma fighters today. Most use a stance much closer to a modern boxing stance, with their knees bent with their legs wider. Many of the pictures and drawings from the old manuals show fighters leaning back as well to defend from attacks. 

I wonder if the vertical stance was a modification for the rules (The LPR rules listed in the article mention no grabbing from the waist down, even the Broughton era rules listed no grabbing of the hams or breeches or any part below the waist) that didn't allow for wrestling style takedowns such as single and double legs which have proven to be the most effective takedowns in various grappling and striking/grappling competitions, leaning back while keeping your hands forward and out can lessen the amount of blows you take to the head while allowing you to spring in for your own strikes and clinches. See modern point karate for similar upright and backwards leaning postures (albeit they use a much more bladed stance).


----------



## lklawson (Jan 19, 2009)

Skpotamus said:


> Hmm, I've tried to post twice now and it hasn't shown up, stupid browser...
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> ...


Ken was just remarking that he didn't like the pics he took for it.  Was thinking of taking new pics or even rewriting it from scratch.




> I honestly get more range out of a horizontal fist than a vertical fist. I get my shoulder rotated into the punch more and it gives me more reach. However, I've trained horizontal punching more than vertical. I'm sure a person using a vertical fist that practiced getting their shoulder into it would get the same range. When I put my vertical fist against a wall and turn it to horizontal, I get puched back from the wall.


I'll take your word on it.  

FWIW, it seems to work right for me but I don't get a LOT of extra.

Could just be due to different skeletal structures.  [shrug]



> One thing I always thought the upright stance used in the old bare knuckle manuals was somewhat contradictory. Supposedly it was due to grappling being allowed. However, when you look at any grappling oriented sport, wrestling, Judo, BJJ, etc they typically use a much lower stance with more bend in both the knees and the waist. Look at most mma fighters today. Most use a stance much closer to a modern boxing stance, with their knees bent with their legs wider. Many of the pictures and drawings from the old manuals show fighters leaning back as well to defend from attacks.


It's pretty much as you guess.  Don't have to worry about leg grapples (trips, on the other hand...) so you can use a more upright, natural, less physically demanding stance.  Being able to stay out of range of powerful dropstep linear punches to the face is considered a very useful thing.

It is noteworthy that the Brougton era stances were often much more crouched with higher hands.  There are several examples, but one you can see is in my repub of the Owen Swift manual (on my lulu site: http://stores.lulu.com/lawson )






Then there's the art from Mendoza's:





Finally, Johnson's "Attitude" as recorded by Fewtrell in his manual:





Personally, I favor these sort of stances more than the LPR type, but the LPR were used for a reason.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

