# Straight vs. circular punches... a Western historical perspective



## geezer (Jul 21, 2016)

Here's some stuff I found on youtube from Martin Austwick aka "Oz" on circular vs. straight punching in historical English pugilism or bare knuckle boxing from the pre-modern era. As a WC practitioner, I found his observations based on written statements from boxers of those times to be fascinating and relevant to WC.

The outward similarities between early bare-knuckle boxing or what Austwick terms historical pugilism and Wing Chun which developed around the same time have been noted before.

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0906/box_g_sullivan2_sw_400.jpg

http://www.ewingchun.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-size/profile-images/yip-man-08.jpg

Anyway, I thought the following video clips to be relevant and thought provoking:


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 21, 2016)

In what way do you think it's relevant?  I don't study wing chun.  I just know you WC guys like the direct path of going from point A to B in a straight line.


----------



## geezer (Jul 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> In what way do you think it's relevant?  I don't study wing chun.  I just know you WC guys like the direct path of going from point A to B in a straight line.



_Relevant_ to the previous discussions noting similarities between Wing Chun and early Western pugilism and thought provoking in it's discussion of the relative value of the straight punch to circular or hooking punches ...especially the discussion about the vulnerability of the bare fist  when thrown very hard in a hook or haymaker against a hard target.

Whatever the differences in style, the human body is nearly the same world-wide, so the same kinds of debates, such as this one over straight vs circular, etc., have popped up in the history of both Western and Eastern pugilists. OZ is a noted exponent of historical Western pugilism and I found his observations on this subject very similar to my own as a WC teacher.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 21, 2016)

geezer said:


> _Relevant_ to the previous discussions noting similarities between Wing Chun and early Western pugilism and thought provoking in it's discussion of the relative value of the straight punch to circular or hooking punches ...especially the discussion about the vulnerability of the bare fist  when thrown very hard in a hook or haymaker against a hard target.
> 
> Whatever the differences in style, the human body is nearly the same world-wide, so the same kinds of debates, such as this one over straight vs circular, etc., have popped up in the history of both Western and Eastern pugilists. OZ is a noted exponent of historical Western pugilism and I found his observations on this subject very similar to my own as a WC teacher.


But many kung fu circular punches aren't thrown the same way as the western circular punches that were described in the video.


----------



## paitingman (Jul 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> But many kung fu circular punches aren't thrown the same way as the western circular punches that were described in the video.



I believe the presenters in both videos were talking in general about any hooking/circular/looping punches, and would probably say "yeah i'm talking about those too" with most circular punches we present, but that's just how I took it. 

I don't know much about JowGa or most kung fu styles too in depth, so i'd love to hear some of your insight into circular vs. straight? and do you have some "circular" techniques that may trump or be an exception to the points being made?


----------



## paitingman (Jul 21, 2016)

geezer said:


> _Relevant_ to the previous discussions noting similarities between Wing Chun and early Western pugilism and thought provoking in it's discussion of the relative value of the straight punch to circular or hooking punches ...especially the discussion about the vulnerability of the bare fist  when thrown very hard in a hook or haymaker against a hard target.



Not to derail this thread, but I always found the topic of body conditioning to be an interesting one when comparing east and west. Boxing classically always worries about the broken hand(and it happens quite often), but in asian martial arts, some say: "We can make your hand stronger/like iron/unbreakable" and they train hard to do it. I am seriously ignorant of most western fighting systems, but I have never heard such a notion as "iron body" or "iron palm" within them. 

If anyone has any examples of Western combat system utilizing body conditioning to the extent that we've seen in some Chinese martial arts, I'd like to hear about em!


----------



## anerlich (Jul 22, 2016)

Not strictly Western, but Russian martial arts like Systema make a big deal out of being able to safely absorb blows. Not so much like "iron body", more like being relaxed to absorb the impact and moving the body to dissipate it. as regards boxers,all the decent ones have well conditioned midsections, and often include med ball work involving impacts to the midsection, etc.

I made a conscious decision not to do any iron palm training as it didn't really match my personal goals, but my instructor has done numerous cycles over time and taken a number of students through it. It certainly hardens the bones but can make them more brittle also. He did some pretty hardcore iron palm leading up to an international full contact tournament in 1982, but still ended up breaking a hand in the semi final match (he still fought and won in the final). There is a saying that "iron palm drives you mad". Some guys of my acquaintance found it disrupted their sleep, etc.

Some may try to tell me "you guys obviously weren't doing the real iron palm" but  ... here's a dollar, call someone who will GAF.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 22, 2016)

paitingman said:


> I believe the presenters in both videos were talking in general about any hooking/circular/looping punches, and would probably say "yeah i'm talking about those too" with most circular punches we present, but that's just how I took it.
> 
> I don't know much about JowGa or most kung fu styles too in depth, so i'd love to hear some of your insight into circular vs. straight? and do you have some "circular" techniques that may trump or be an exception to the points being made?


 With circular punches in kung fu the circular movement is used to redirect and to counter.  if you throw a straight punch I'll use a circular motion to redirect that punch and to counter. The circular movement allows me to use the momentum of one circular movement to feed the movement of another circular movement.

In Jow Ga the fist is not mad the same way as it is made in boxing.  We do not wrap the thumb around the knuckles and this allows us to hit with the 2 different sets of knuckles (the knuckles boxers hit with and the knuckles we use to knock on a door) and the flat part of the fist which is made of the palm and knuckle. Making a fist this ways changes the alignment of the bones in the hand. Shown in the video below





Our hooks which are in a similar motion as the hooks that he has shown.  We throw our hooks in a forward facing stance and a side ways stance.  Our techniques when using these hooks target the soft and vital areas of the head.  It is my belief that the founder of Jow Ga fought a lot of Wing Chun fighters as our techniques seem to mess up the concept of A to B being the fastest route.  A to B is only the fastest route if B does not move before the hit.  If I throw a circular punch at the same time you throw a linear punch then I can land my punch first provided that I move in a different position.  In the video below you can see a circular punch beat a direct punch by moving B





The other thing about the circular punches of eastern systems is that they have a tendency to go outside a persons field of vision so for a short period of time the person is unaware of where the punch is. Curve punches often strike around a person's guard.  This can also be seen in the video.  I don't hate or think that straight punches are weak. Because we use quite a few of straight punch.  A circular system doesn't mean that all the punches used are circular. 

When I watched the video my assumption was that he was only talking about the curve punches and straight punching from early western boxing.  If so then that means some of his comments about circular punches won't apply to circular martial arts.  The only thing that applies universal, is the theory about the straight linear punch, provided that B does not move while the punch is being executed.

Straight vs linear is often viewed with the assumption that one is better or faster than the other instead of viewing them as a tool of attack that works well this way or that way. If your goal is to hit the front of the face then the jab is best for the task. If the target is to the side of the head then the best attack is a circular one.  A person can break their hand just as easily from a jab as they can from a circular punch.  For Jow Ga, a person is probably more likely to damage their forearm and soft tissue areas on the arm from a circular punch as a result of hitting the elbow.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 22, 2016)

paitingman said:


> I am seriously ignorant of most western fighting systems, but I have never heard such a notion as "iron body" or "iron palm" within them.


Western boxing doesn't condition their hands. Most of their hand conditioning comes from just hitting the bad.  There's no specific exercises that are for the purpose of conditioning the hands or the knuckles.  Like the examples you gave, iron body and iron palm is a conditioning process. Western boxing doesn't have it. I'm not even sure bare knuckle fighters even do that type of conditioning.
This is usually the concept of hand conditioning from a western point of view.  Notice how he makes the assumption that conditioning of the hand means hitting something hard with a hard strike. Where many Chinese martial arts start by hitting something relatively soft and eventually work up to the point where they can hit something hard.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 22, 2016)

anerlich said:


> Not strictly Western, but Russian martial arts like Systema make a big deal out of being able to safely absorb blows. Not so much like "iron body", more like being relaxed to absorb the impact and moving the body to dissipate it. as regards boxers,all the decent ones have well conditioned midsections, and often include med ball work involving impacts to the midsection, etc.
> 
> I made a conscious decision not to do any iron palm training as it didn't really match my personal goals, but my instructor has done numerous cycles over time and taken a number of students through it. It certainly hardens the bones but can make them more brittle also. He did some pretty hardcore iron palm leading up to an international full contact tournament in 1982, but still ended up breaking a hand in the semi final match (he still fought and won in the final). There is a saying that "iron palm drives you mad". Some guys of my acquaintance found it disrupted their sleep, etc.
> 
> Some may try to tell me "you guys obviously weren't doing the real iron palm" but  ... here's a dollar, call someone who will GAF.


Some people think that iron palm training makes the hand unbreakable, it doesn't. It just makes the hand more resistant to breaking and being damage.  My Sifu says that thing about people going crazy because of iron palm training is because it wasn't done properly.  He mentioned that Qi Gong had to be part of the training because of the energy points in the hand will be damaged. Generally speaking when Iron Palm training is done it is damaging things other than your hand.  I also choose not to do Iron Palm training but mainly because I don't have knowledgeable supervision and part because I don't think I need my hand conditioned to that level of durability.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 22, 2016)

I second the notion that in at least some Chinese methods, a "circular" punch can have a fundamentally different meaning. In our Tibetan White Crane, we use a specific body rotation to drive our techniques, and a circular movement with the punch itself naturally drives off from the rotation. But we also drive our straight punches in this way, so even a straight punch is still circular.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 22, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I second the notion that in at least some Chinese methods, a "circular" punch can have a fundamentally different meaning. In our Tibetan White Crane, we use a specific body rotation to drive our techniques, and a circular movement with the punch itself naturally drives off from the rotation. But we also drive our straight punches in this way, so even a straight punch is still circular.


I forgot about that.  The concept of circular in an eastern fighting system may not have the same definition as the western definition.  Come to think of it, even the definition of "a punch" is different.  In western boxing the discussion of a punch begins with the arm.  In many Chinese martial arts the discussion of a punch begins from the root (legs and stance).


----------



## paitingman (Jul 22, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> With circular punches in kung fu the circular movement is used to redirect and to counter.  if you throw a straight punch I'll use a circular motion to redirect that punch and to counter. The circular movement allows me to use the momentum of one circular movement to feed the movement of another circular movement.
> 
> In Jow Ga the fist is not mad the same way as it is made in boxing.  We do not wrap the thumb around the knuckles and this allows us to hit with the 2 different sets of knuckles (the knuckles boxers hit with and the knuckles we use to knock on a door) and the flat part of the fist which is made of the palm and knuckle. Making a fist this ways changes the alignment of the bones in the hand. Shown in the video below
> 
> ...



I think one of the main points in classical boxing is just that jabbing attacks are safer due to less variables and openings.

1. You don't open your guard up too much.
2. and it's such a quick, short movement that the variables are relatively low compared a big swing.

When I jab I've never worried about harming my hand because I am going to land relatively how I thought I would (timing and positioning wise) or I'm just not going to land. And it's not a very hard strike.

You are considerably more likely to break your hand with a hook or power punch than a jab. The more power, the more risk of injury if something goes wrong. Not to say you can't hurt your hand with a jab, but just not nearly as dangerous of a strike.

As far as the video, there's not great movement from either fighter. Obviously the wing chun dude wasn't doing so hot, but any decent boxer could've picked apart the choy li fut guy with just a good jab.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 22, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> A to B is only the fastest route if B does not move before the hit. If I throw a circular punch at the same time you throw a linear punch then I can land my punch first provided that I move in a different position.



Yep. I'm a big believer in moving offline while throwing circular strikes.



JowGaWolf said:


> In western boxing the discussion of a punch begins with the arm.



Nope. Boxing punches start from the feet and should be taught that way.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 22, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Nope. Boxing punches start from the feet and should be taught that way.


Yep!
Proper boxing does so.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 22, 2016)

paitingman said:


> I think one of the main points in classical boxing is just that jabbing attacks are safer due to less variables and openings.
> 
> 1. You don't open your guard up too much.
> 2. and it's such a quick, short movement that the variables are relatively low compared a big swing.
> ...


boxers follow the same rule by moving point B in the form of slipping a punch and countering. 




I agree that there is less to worry about in terms of smashing the fist on elbows with a jab in terms of western boxing. Especially with upper cuts.  I purposely back off on power for uppercut when my opponent's elbows are down.  I try to sneak body shots because it's safer for my hands

As for the WC fighter he over committed on his forward movement. He punched with the expectation that his opponent would retreat in a linear manner without changing direction or moving off center.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 22, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Nope. Boxing punches start from the feet and should be taught that way


 That's why I used the word "discussions" and not training.


----------



## paitingman (Jul 22, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> boxers follow the same rule by moving point B in the form of slipping a punch and countering.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have been boxing for quite sometime and while I agree with your points on moving point b and using circular attacks,I do both quite often, I don't find them relevant. 
I thought this thread was about Classical/Western Historical boxing and it's similarities to wing chun. Roy Jones Jr. videos are pretty much the furthest thing from that. 
Slipping, moving, and hooking are very much modern boxing techniques as opposed to the Jabbing and Blocking game early english boxing was. 

The effectiveness of slipping and hooking is never in question for me. 
So I think what's interesting is why early boxers chose not to go this route. 
I postulate that it was due to the nature of bareknuckle fighting in that specific time period.
If you're fighting a bareknuckle boxing match in the year 1760,
you risk getting maimed because you didn't cover your face from those bareknuckles,
or crippling yourself and having no work because you were swinging for the fences on some guys skull.
Hospitals can fix those today, but people were crippled all the time back then.
So they would sacrifice power and movement in return for careful cover and safer punches.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 23, 2016)

paitingman said:


> I have been boxing for quite sometime and while I agree with your points on moving point b and using circular attacks,I do both quite often, I don't find them relevant.
> I thought this thread was about Classical/Western Historical boxing and it's similarities to wing chun. Roy Jones Jr. videos are pretty much the furthest thing from that.
> Slipping, moving, and hooking are very much modern boxing techniques as opposed to the Jabbing and Blocking game early english boxing was.
> 
> ...



You think boxing styles today work on the principle that getting maimed is an acceptable loss or something?

Not sure there would be many boxers that agree with you there.

I have found that I slip and move more with smaller gloves precisely because the punches hurt more.

Why historical boxers did not. I have no idea.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 23, 2016)

geezer said:


> Here's some stuff I found on youtube from Martin Austwick aka "Oz" on circular vs. straight punching in historical English pugilism or bare knuckle boxing from the pre-modern era. As a WC practitioner, I found his observations based on written statements from boxers of those times to be fascinating and relevant to WC.
> 
> The outward similarities between early bare-knuckle boxing or what Austwick terms historical pugilism and Wing Chun which developed around the same time have been noted before.
> 
> ...



If you move away from professional boxing which tends to be a bit less authodox and look at amateur boxing. You will see that mind set reflected.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 23, 2016)

To say boxers don't condition their hands would be false, many do, some using exercises in common with martial arts, others exercises that have been used for many years. I asked my father who boxed in the fifties and early sixties and he said certainly they did conditioning for their hands. I've looked online as well and there are plenty of boxing sites that offer conditioning exercises/drills for boxers. *This is just one* Top 5 Methods on How to Strengthen Your Hands


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 23, 2016)

paitingman said:


> The effectiveness of slipping and hooking is never in question for me.
> So I think what's interesting is why early boxers chose not to go this route


In the terms of moving point B and slipping punches, I think they did that even earlier than 1760.  I think moving out of the way of a strike is something that has been since the 3 or forth punch man threw, when the other guy realized it's not good to stand there and get punched in the face.  I actually think moving out of the way is a natural response.  When you look at old drawings of bare knuckle fighters, you see that in many of those pictures the fighter is leaning back to avoid the punch.  The leaning back motion moves point B.  We even see that same lean back in some of the street fights.

"The earliest records of boxing date from before the great days of the Greek and Roman Empires. Egyptian hieroglyphics from around 4000bc suggest that a sort of combat between soldiers was practised. Thongs were wrapped round the hands and forearms in a primitive forerunner of the boxing glove. The word pugilism is a mixture of  Greek and latin “ to fight with the fist “ and the term Boxing arises from the action of clenching of the fist, the folding of fingers and thumb into a box. Learn more about the history of bare-knuckle boxing"
"Source:Bare-Knuckle Boxing History | Learnist"

If boxing has been around that long, then I don't think it took long for people to learn to slip a punch or understand the dangers of hitting the skull. It's also possible that bare knuckle fighting was more targeted in terms of punching the soft areas of the face than what we see today. Bare knuckle boxing is often championed as being safer than boxing with gloves on and if that's true then being maimed was probably not a high risk factor.  



drop bear said:


> I have found that I slip and move more with smaller gloves precisely because the punches hurt more.
> 
> Why historical boxers did not. I have no idea.


 Have you read that historical boxers didn't try to get out of the way of a punch?


----------



## paitingman (Jul 23, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> In the terms of moving point B and slipping punches, I think they did that even earlier than 1760.  I think moving out of the way of a strike is something that has been since the 3 or forth punch man threw, when the other guy realized it's not good to stand there and get punched in the face.  I actually think moving out of the way is a natural response.  When you look at old drawings of bare knuckle fighters, you see that in many of those pictures the fighter is leaning back to avoid the punch.  The leaning back motion moves point B.  We even see that same lean back in some of the street fights.
> 
> "The earliest records of boxing date from before the great days of the Greek and Roman Empires. Egyptian hieroglyphics from around 4000bc suggest that a sort of combat between soldiers was practised. Thongs were wrapped round the hands and forearms in a primitive forerunner of the boxing glove. The word pugilism is a mixture of  Greek and latin “ to fight with the fist “ and the term Boxing arises from the action of clenching of the fist, the folding of fingers and thumb into a box. Learn more about the history of bare-knuckle boxing"
> "Source:Bare-Knuckle Boxing History | Learnist"
> ...



Maybe I'm not being clear enough, but my points are only about that specific era of english boxing. 
Ancient greek fighting sports and their methods aren't relevant to me. 
*and just to be perfectly clear: i do not question the effectiveness of slipping, the ability of early fighters to slip punches, or their knowledge of this movement.* 
My point is that it is interesting that these early english boxers did not claim to use those type of movements, and instead did more of a jabbing/hand fighting thing (sounding similar to WC)

In virtually all the manuals you can read written by boxers of that era they stress 3 things:
footwork, blocking, and straight punching. 
There are no slips that I've read about, and only cautionary mentions against hooking punches. 

and as far as being safer, I have heard that as well. and believe it is because of the conservative nature of that specific boxing method. with only jabbing punches. 
the only way a fight would last a fabled 100 rounds is both of those guys gotta be being very cautious and conservative.


----------



## paitingman (Jul 23, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You think boxing styles today work on the principle that getting maimed is an acceptable loss or something?
> 
> Not sure there would be many boxers that agree with you there.
> 
> ...



I have found the same to be true with smaller gloves.

But you will find I haven't made any statements about modern boxing and getting maimed. and there is no intended implication in that direction.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 23, 2016)

paitingman said:


> In virtually all the manuals you can read written by boxers of that era they stress 3 things:
> footwork, blocking, and straight punching.


 How much did they go into detail about the footwork?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 23, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> In the terms of moving point B and slipping punches, I think they did that even earlier than 1760.  I think moving out of the way of a strike is something that has been since the 3 or forth punch man threw, when the other guy realized it's not good to stand there and get punched in the face.  I actually think moving out of the way is a natural response.  When you look at old drawings of bare knuckle fighters, you see that in many of those pictures the fighter is leaning back to avoid the punch.  The leaning back motion moves point B.  We even see that same lean back in some of the street fights.
> 
> "The earliest records of boxing date from before the great days of the Greek and Roman Empires. Egyptian hieroglyphics from around 4000bc suggest that a sort of combat between soldiers was practised. Thongs were wrapped round the hands and forearms in a primitive forerunner of the boxing glove. The word pugilism is a mixture of  Greek and latin “ to fight with the fist “ and the term Boxing arises from the action of clenching of the fist, the folding of fingers and thumb into a box. Learn more about the history of bare-knuckle boxing"
> "Source:Bare-Knuckle Boxing History | Learnist"
> ...


Just found this about Jack Broughton.  I don't know how accurate it is.  Source: https://medium.com/pioneers-of-boxing/jack-broughton-the-father-of-prizefighting-7ba0e3efb38c#.b7ajadqpm
"Broughton’s defensive guard was marveled at and the accuracy of his counter punching made him impossible to beat. Broughton was an outstanding body puncher, and his shot to beneath the floating rib was called “Broughton’s mark.” He specialized in what Pierce Egan refers to as “milling in retreat,” which means, like modern fighters such as Juan Manuel Marquez or Floyd Mayweather, he used movement to draw his opponents forward aggressively, into brutal traps."

Anyone have video of what "milling the retreat" looks like?


----------



## paitingman (Jul 23, 2016)

I'll try and find all the ones I remember to be available online and post em here later today sometime.

The impression I got was the importance of being able to advance and retreat. sort of linear in and out footwork. Moving the point b backward like you talked about.


----------



## paitingman (Jul 23, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Just found this about Jack Broughton.  I don't know how accurate it is.  Source: https://medium.com/pioneers-of-boxing/jack-broughton-the-father-of-prizefighting-7ba0e3efb38c#.b7ajadqpm
> "Broughton’s defensive guard was marveled at and the accuracy of his counter punching made him impossible to beat. Broughton was an outstanding body puncher, and his shot to beneath the floating rib was called “Broughton’s mark.” He specialized in what Pierce Egan refers to as “milling in retreat,” which means, like modern fighters such as Juan Manuel Marquez or Floyd Mayweather, he used movement to draw his opponents forward aggressively, into brutal traps."
> 
> Anyone have video of what "milling the retreat" looks like?


this is cool. I found it interesting in the manuals that they placed a heavy emphasis on you protecting "the Mark" or your solar plexus. 
That's why you see pictures of that lowered rear hand in the guard. To cover the mark. It struck me as similar to some traditional karate and taekwondo guards with the same purpose.

so the mark is the solar plexus, and now I see the floating rib was apparently called Broughton's mark.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 23, 2016)

I found this on the same website
source: The Transition from Bare Knuckles to Gloves
"In the bare-knuckle era, fighters had to carefully aim and select their punches, in order to protect their hands. In-the-pocket trading of four, five or six punch combinations was far more rare than in modern times."

I'm not sure about the 4, 5, or 6 punch combinations are rare statement.  I don't think it was limited because it protects hands.  I think it was limited because after 4 punches your opponent starts to key in on the timing of the punches coming in.  I think I have a video of me fighting where I'm taking punches to the face and it looks bad, but in the storm I fire a well aimed shot to my opponents chest.  Just thought of this. I should probably stop punching him in the heart when I do this technique.  But anyway.  the body has the excellent ability to recognize patterns, so a 4, 5, 6 combo is likely to put someone into danger as it sets the predictability of when the next impact will occur.

I usually refer to it as sitting through the storm, waiting for the opening that will appear.


----------



## paitingman (Jul 23, 2016)

I found a few and actually almost all of them at least mention dipping and ducking/slipping and angles.

Skimming through some manuals you will see the change in emphasis based on the date.
As boxing progressed to what it is today you see slipping and hooks becoming refined and perfected until they seem to be a cornerstone by the 1930s.

The funniest and most interesting one to me is Jim Driscoll's book: The Straight Left and How to Cultivate It. It's a sort of scathing write up of his defense for what he calls "the old English/undeniably superior" school of Boxing i.e. straight hitting. I'm certain this is what left me with such a strong impression haha.
Although from his description of things, hooking was a still unrefined maneuver at the time. It has almost no credit when applied to modern boxing hook punching.
He's cites a lot of specific fights and fighters from his era and it's a pretty cool read. but even admits to hooking now and again.

This is the writer that influenced Bruce Lee's boxing mindset as well I believe.

All the manuals I found for free I'll post right here:
1800s
these mostly give instruction on exclusively straight punching or condemn round punching.
they also give little to no instruction on slipping and emphasize defense with the arms. but some describe shifting and retreating tactics meant to run from and tire out your opponent

http://www.nycsteampunk.com/bartitsu/manuals/TheArtOfBoxingAndManualOfTraining1888.pdf

Dick's Art of Wrestling & Bare Knuckle Boxing - 1887

Defensive Exercises - Donald Walker 1840

http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/Fewtrell/Fewtrell.pdf

Mendoza: Library: The Linacre School of Defence


1900's

Boxing by Philadelphia Jack O'Brien (eBook) - Lulu

Boxing by R. G. Allanson-Winn (eBook) - Lulu

Boxing by D. C. Hutchison (eBook) - Lulu

http://www.nycsteampunk.com/bartitsu/manuals/TheStraightLeftAndHowToCultivateItCirca1910.pdf

All of these links are free and would be a good read for anyone interested.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 23, 2016)

paitingman said:


> I found a few and actually almost all of them at least mention dipping and ducking/slipping and angles.
> 
> Skimming through some manuals you will see the change in emphasis based on the date.
> As boxing progressed to what it is today you see slipping and hooks becoming refined and perfected until they seem to be a cornerstone by the 1930s.
> ...


Thanks. I appreciate the time you put into finding the info.  I know others will enjoy the reading


----------



## drop bear (Jul 23, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Have you read that historical boxers didn't try to get out of the way of a punch?



Yeah. In the post I responded to.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 23, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I found this on the same website
> source: The Transition from Bare Knuckles to Gloves
> "In the bare-knuckle era, fighters had to carefully aim and select their punches, in order to protect their hands. In-the-pocket trading of four, five or six punch combinations was far more rare than in modern times."
> 
> ...



You get hit more often in smaller gloves and they hurt more. So you trade a bit less. 

Also a modern dynamic.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 23, 2016)

paitingman said:


> I found a few and actually almost all of them at least mention dipping and ducking/slipping and angles.
> 
> Skimming through some manuals you will see the change in emphasis based on the date.
> As boxing progressed to what it is today you see slipping and hooks becoming refined and perfected until they seem to be a cornerstone by the 1930s.
> ...



Boxing bare knuckle is still a bit frisky for my pallet. But I have done it in mma gloves. Have you tried it? It is an interesting experiment.


----------



## SenseiHitman (Jul 23, 2016)

I did not watch the video, but I know that proper strikes can travel in both linear and circular directions. For example,  one circular punch I use is based on the corkscrew, it looks similar to an upward block done level with the floor. I also use the classical vertical punch.  Anyway, what matters in my opinion is did the power start from the ground/legs and leverage through the attacker without a loss of force/leverage in any of my joints as the force/power was transferred into the target and did it apply force on as much of the core of the body that was available or did it not?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You get hit more often in smaller gloves and they hurt more. So you trade a bit less.
> 
> Also a modern dynamic.



Not historical but you don't see long combinations here in cmt where the only real change is the glove sise.


----------

