# Kick Boxing 1930's



## ATC (Aug 28, 2011)

Just a little perspective.

Kick boxing of yester-year vs. Kick boxing of today. Just no comparison.

Everything evolves for the better.

[yt]OZaNtm-5mCo[/yt]

vs.

[yt]iXVzFYnngCM[/yt]


----------



## Jenna (Aug 28, 2011)

I think Savate is a terribly underrepresented (and often underrated) art.  I think it is not only a beautiful art to watch, it is hugely competent in defence.  A good post.


----------



## jonbey (Aug 28, 2011)

Love the way the guy in white turns and skips away. It all looked a bit relaxed didn't it?

I guess all sports are just becoming more and more professional. Watching old footage of soccer or tennis makes the game look very lame. Everything was amateurish back in the day. Those chaps in the 1930's probably worked 12 hour days somewhere and only trained a few hours a week.


----------



## StudentCarl (Aug 28, 2011)

ATC said:


> Everything evolves for the better.



Taking your conclusion as premise, I wonder what Taekwondo sparring will look like in 80 years. In 20?


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 28, 2011)

jonbey said:


> Love the way the guy in white turns and skips away. It all looked a bit relaxed didn't it?
> 
> I guess all sports are just becoming more and more professional. Watching old footage of soccer or tennis makes the game look very lame. Everything was amateurish back in the day. Those chaps in the 1930's probably worked 12 hour days somewhere and only trained a few hours a week.



Not just Professional - Modern Styles, or Old Styles in Modern Times, are Increasingly Aggressive in Nature. Which I consider to be Beneficial.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 28, 2011)

jonbey said:


> Love the way the guy in white turns and skips away. It all looked a bit relaxed didn't it?
> 
> I guess all sports are just becoming more and more professional. Watching old footage of soccer or tennis makes the game look very lame. Everything was amateurish back in the day. Those chaps in the 1930's probably worked 12 hour days somewhere and only trained a few hours a week.


I think that the comparison here might be unfair.  I suspect the older clip was part of a demonstration or exhibition match, more than a real fight.  The newer one featured clips from actual championship matches.


----------



## ATC (Aug 28, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> I think that the comparison here might be unfair.  I suspect the older clip was part of a demonstration or exhibition match, more than a real fight.  The newer one featured clips from actual championship matches.


Yeah could be the case but the style is still the style. Just like looking at old time boxing with both fist with palms up and up and down motions. Handle bar mustaches and all. Until Jack Johnson came along. Look at kickboxing during 1800's to early 1900's and it all looked the same as that clip. Things changed a bit after the 50's  and looked more of what we see today in the 60's and 70's.


----------



## frank raud (Aug 29, 2011)

ATC said:


> Yeah could be the case but the style is still the style. Just like looking at old time boxing with both fist with palms up and up and down motions. Handle bar mustaches and all. Until Jack Johnson came along. Look at kickboxing during 1800's to early 1900's and it all looked the same as that clip. Things changed a bit after the 50's and looked more of what we see today in the 60's and 70's.



I am assuming you are referring to the older bare knuckle style boxing, which continued until the rules changed, then the Marquis of Queensbury rules outlawed many previously viable techniques(no tripping, grappling, throwing). The arrival of Jack Johnson signaled the first time a black man had become the heavyweight champion of the world, but did not make significant changes to the fighting style of boxing.


----------



## ATC (Aug 29, 2011)

frank raud said:


> I am assuming you are referring to the older bare knuckle style boxing, which continued until the rules changed, then the Marquis of Queensbury rules outlawed many previously viable techniques(no tripping, grappling, throwing). The arrival of Jack Johnson signaled the first time a black man had become the heavyweight champion of the world, but did not make significant changes to the fighting style of boxing.


Yes you are correct. I was simply trying to point out how old bare knuckle boxers use to fight until the more modern fighters came to be. I used Jack Johnson as an example of a more modern style era but still going back pretty far. See image below of stance and hand positions of old style vs. what we know now.

Then - Very up-right, hands rotaed palms up with hands held low.







Now - More of a crouched position, hands rotated palms down. hands held high.






You never see anyone in a stance like the top photo anymore.


----------



## frank raud (Aug 29, 2011)

ATC said:


> Yes you are correct. I was simply trying to point out how old bare knuckle boxers use to fight until the more modern fighters came to be. I used Jack Johnson as an example of a more modern style era but still going back pretty far. See image below of stance and hand positions of old style vs. what we know now.
> 
> Then - Very up-right, hands rotaed palms up with hands held low.
> 
> ...



Short answer, no fights bare knuckle boxing anymore. Gloves and rule changes changed a lot of boxing techniques.  You can check in the western arts sections for discussion by Kirk Lawson and others on the development of modern boxing. The modern stance would not be any more appropriate in a bare knuckle match than a bare knuckle stance would be under modern rules.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 29, 2011)

ATC said:


> Yes you are correct. I was simply trying to point out how old bare knuckle boxers use to fight until the more modern fighters came to be. I used Jack Johnson as an example of a more modern style era but still going back pretty far. See image below of stance and hand positions of old style vs. what we know now.
> 
> Then - Very up-right, hands rotaed palms up with hands held low.
> 
> ...



Of course not.  The rules have changed.  In fact, someone did a really good analysis of stance changes in response to the rules changes; I recall reading it from a link here.  (Maybe lklawson?)  The modern peek-a-boo stance is optimized for the current rules, with limited much more limited targets, larger gloves (even for pros), and limited clinching with no throwing.


----------



## ATC (Aug 29, 2011)

frank raud said:


> Short answer, no fights bare knuckle boxing anymore. Gloves and rule changes changed a lot of boxing techniques.  You can check in the western arts sections for discussion by Kirk Lawson and others on the development of modern boxing. The modern stance would not be any more appropriate in a bare knuckle match than a bare knuckle stance would be under modern rules.


There are plenty of bare knuckle fights still. That is how Kimbo came up. No sanctioned fights but plenty of underground stuff. And they all use modern boxing stances and techniques. The old style is just obsolete.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 29, 2011)

For convenience, here is the post with the discussion of stances and how rules reshaped them.


----------



## ATC (Aug 30, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> For convenience, here is the post with the discussion of stances and how rules reshaped them.


That was very interesting, thanks for that. I think the rules are also a part of evolution as well. Is it for the better? Maybe I need to test them out. I still think the fighters of today have better movement and use science to help advance techniques. We know so much more about how to generate reach and power. Still that was a pretty good article.


----------



## frank raud (Aug 30, 2011)

ATC said:


> There are plenty of bare knuckle fights still. That is how Kimbo came up. No sanctioned fights but plenty of underground stuff. And they all use modern boxing stances and techniques. The old style is just obsolete.


Kimbo would be considered a street fighter, not a bare knuckle boxer. Again, the rules(or lack of) define the techniques and tactics. Did Kimbo fight under London Prize ring rules? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Prize_Ring_Rules


----------



## ATC (Aug 30, 2011)

frank raud said:


> Kimbo would be considered a street fighter, not a bare knuckle boxer. Again, the rules(or lack of) define the techniques and tactics. Did Kimbo fight under London Prize ring rules? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Prize_Ring_Rules


OK, I will agree with that, and after reading the thread posted by *jks9199* I even understand that the changes were made due to the rules changes. However, it is still my opinion that the modern day style is a better style. With the birth of MMA as we know it today grappling was added back into the combat sport. Now true it is not as boxing was in it hay day but with take downs and grappling allowed as well as strikes and knees there are enough similarities that if the old stand up, lean back, hands low, palms up was better you would see some of that come back. I think the rules changes enlightened fighters to the fact that there was a better way.

Now as for street fighting I have seen a few underground fights that were close to the rules of the old pugilism days and none of them fought like those days.

Evolution is evolution, you cannot go back once a better way is found. The rules changes helped find that better way. Once you start training for the new or evolved way you find even better ways. You find that you can move better, faster. You find that your head can move out of the way without blocking. You can react faster, and that you may be protected better.

Yes the rules may have dictated how they fought back in the day vs. now but now is still light years better, in my opinion. Simple test would be to toss out the rules and have someone emulate the old stance and ways vs. someone that uses todays methods. I would put my money on the side of today.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 30, 2011)

ATC

Let me see if I get this straight&#8230; based on one video you state that modern day style is better... You really cannot judge any martial art based on an old video. 

You could also say current Sanda/Sanshou  fights and fighters are much better than the old Lei Tei matches and the fighters that fought in them because they have a modern (westerized) stance and look more fit&#8230;. And maybe they are.. for one thing there are rules now that dictate stance and training and no one gets seriously injured or dies during a fight these days either.. but regardless I still would not make that judgement without direct experieince or talking to one who has direct experience

More Old Savate

Count Pierre Baruzy SAVATE - French boxing






SAVATE - FRENCH BOXING - BOXE FRANCAISE





 - FRENCH BOXING - 1894 - Boxe francaise





Before kickboxing it was....SAVATE - French boxing


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 30, 2011)

The argument behind "modern styles are better" is a logical fallacy.  Old bareknuckle fights fought that way because to do power punches with the hands would usually lead to a break in the hand so they kept them a little lower to defend against body punches that they would face more.  Also, you can't compare a staged photo of a fighter and assume that they all fought that way with their hand posture.  Second, to compare that MMA (that has padded gloves to help protect the hands) which is a newer evolution from newer style boxing rules.  So you have people who learned modern boxing and are now putting it back into a sport that has throws and takedowns (MMA) but is still too new to know what kind of innovations in guards and postures will bring in a couple of decades.  

So, all you can REALLY say is that a sport that highlights punching the head will have people keep their hands there to protect it, if you are facing limited head punches and more body punches, you will keep your hands their to protect it.  Has nothing to do with "better", it has all to do with ruleset.

And if you want to compare EITHER position to a "real fight" look at either boxing or MMA and where their "guard" position goes when trading punches, it is almost non-existant and you will see the best fighters winding up for  punch and lowering their hands down before striking.  Melee exchanges are very different then when you are at an artificial sporting distance looking for an opening.


----------



## ATC (Aug 30, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> ATC
> 
> Let me see if I get this straight based on one video you state that modern day style is better... You really cannot judge any martial art based on an old video.
> 
> ...


Very difficult to find anyone with direct experience that could be useful in determining that. Just like people try to compare old school football (american) with the game today. Just can't be done. Like it has already been stated the rules were different back then for that sport also. But all of the old time guys all say that the athletes today are bigger faster and stronger because of better knowledge of everything. All of that is a part of the evolution. The basics are the same but the advancement is in the details and the approach. Understanding better concepts that make you faster, stronger, bigger.

I have seen all the vids that you posted before, and all but the last one (which is more modern age just shot black and white) had so much bad techniques, even for a demo only.

Sorry but I still stick to my opinion.


----------



## ATC (Aug 30, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> The argument behind "modern styles are better" is a logical fallacy.  Old bareknuckle fights fought that way because to do power punches with the hands would usually lead to a break in the hand so they kept them a little lower to defend against body punches that they would face more.  Also, you can't compare a staged photo of a fighter and assume that they all fought that way with their hand posture.  Second, to compare that MMA (that has padded gloves to help protect the hands) which is a newer evolution from newer style boxing rules.  So you have people who learned modern boxing and are now putting it back into a sport that has throws and takedowns (MMA) but is still too new to know what kind of innovations in guards and postures will bring in a couple of decades.
> 
> So, all you can REALLY say is that a sport that highlights punching the head will have people keep their hands there to protect it, if you are facing limited head punches and more body punches, you will keep your hands their to protect it.  Has nothing to do with "better", it has all to do with ruleset.
> 
> And if you want to compare EITHER position to a "real fight" look at either boxing or MMA and where their "guard" position goes when trading punches, it is almost non-existant and you will see the best fighters winding up for  punch and lowering their hands down before striking.  Melee exchanges are very different then when you are at an artificial sporting distance looking for an opening.


All of what you stated has already be stated so nothing new. Yes hand position is based on the rules of the target. If the body is the target then the hands will natrually come down. No disagreeing there either. However even with the rules once you protect the handd with gloves it is only logical to then use what is best for fear of not breaking the hand. You will never see any MMA fighter stand up right with hands inverted, never.

Just by saying they used this stance and this way to protect the hands you are defacto saying that the way is flawed and not the best way to do it. You only do it this way becasue if I did it the better way I would break my hand. Put some protection on and I would use this way. Well then you are proving the argument that take away all conserns then it is better to do it this way. So if you pitted a guy with no gloves vs. the guy with gloves then the guy with gloves would have a better stance and style vs. the guy with no gloves. Put gloves on that bare knuckle guy and still have him fight the same way would be pointless as he nolonger would fear injury to his hands.

So your statements just reinforced to me my opinion.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 30, 2011)

ATC said:


> Sorry but I still stick to my opinion.



That's fine, I'm not really trying to change it.

But I still find it hard to make any meaningful judgment based solelyon old videos. And the statement "Very difficult to find anyone withdirect experience" means it is hard to find out the truth of it, does notmean it is impossible, if someone wants to know the reality of it then they look if not... they don't. Could be they are films of bad fights or fighters too.

There is or was a film floating around that was a fightbetween the Head of the Southern Wu Taijiquan family and I believe a whitecrane guy. It has been shown as everything from proof how bad CMA is to proofhow good CMA is. The reality is that at the time no one could quite figure outwhy the head of the Wu family was in this fight at all, there was a youngermember people thought should fight. But regardless it was much like an AliFrazer fight when it came to ticket sales and audience numbers. However thetruth of the fight was that the people there and all the martial artists therein the audience felt it was a rather pathetic fight. People were booing and thefight was pretty much stopped to prevent a riot and to prevent a major embarrassmentto the Head of the Wu family. It was a bad example of the CMA fighting ofeither style at the time, even the CMA guys that were there through it was badand I know this because my Taiji sifu was there with his sifu. 

You can't judge any style of fighting on a video or claim itbetter or worse than another or better now than it used to be. At best you canonly judge the fighters and they may or may not be a good representation ofthat style. So without a direct attestation from someone there you really can&#8217;ttell much.

But if you want to believe that, that&#8217;s cool, you may or maynot be correct&#8230; that is all I am getting at.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 30, 2011)

ATC said:


> All of what you stated has already be stated so nothing new. Yes hand position is based on the rules of the target. If the body is the target then the hands will natrually come down. No disagreeing there either. However even with the rules once you protect the handd with gloves it is only logical to then use what is best for fear of not breaking the hand. You will never see any MMA fighter stand up right with hands inverted, never.
> 
> Just by saying they used this stance and this way to protect the hands you are defacto saying that the way is flawed and not the best way to do it. You only do it this way becasue if I did it the better way I would break my hand. Put some protection on and I would use this way. Well then you are proving the argument that take away all conserns then it is better to do it this way. So if you pitted a guy with no gloves vs. the guy with gloves then the guy with gloves would have a better stance and style vs. the guy with no gloves. Put gloves on that bare knuckle guy and still have him fight the same way would be pointless as he nolonger would fear injury to his hands.
> 
> So your statements just reinforced to me my opinion.



So again, you are basing your "inverted hands" theory on old staged photos and not actual techniques that were taught at the time (look through some of the free old boxing manuals that Mr. Lawson has posted for free).  I also never said that the gaurd position or where they held their hands was to protect them.  I said that they delivered more body punches so they didn't risk breaking their hands in the fights because they were so long.  

You are creating and twisting arguments that don't have a basis in logic.


> Put gloves on that bare knuckle guy and still have him fight the same way would be pointless as he nolonger would fear injury to his hands.



That has absolutely nothing to do with the fighters being better, only that they would adapt to take advantage of the new rules.  So to apply your logic of "better", take away the boxing gloves and wraps of today's pro boxers and add in foot stomps and hip tosses and then give it a few decades and when they go back to what bareknuckle fighting looked like they would be better fighters?  Huh?


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 30, 2011)

ATC said:


> Very difficult to find anyone with direct experience that could be useful in determining that. Just like people try to compare old school football (american) with the game today. Just can't be done. Like it has already been stated the rules were different back then for that sport also. But all of the old time guys all say that the athletes today are bigger faster and stronger because of better knowledge of everything. All of that is a part of the evolution. *The basics are the same but the advancement is in the details and the approach. Understanding better concepts that make you faster, stronger, bigger.
> *.



No drugs make them bigger, faster and stronger.  Better equipment just makes them last longer for the damage they inflict on their own bodies.


----------



## ATC (Aug 30, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> No drugs make them bigger, faster and stronger.  Better equipment just makes them last longer for the damage they inflict on their own bodies.


For some sure, but not all. It is a fact that we on a whole are bigger that our ancestors. The average height and weight of man and woman is larger. New and better training methods also make them all that is better also.


----------



## frank raud (Aug 30, 2011)

ATC said:


> . I still think the fighters of today have better movement and use science to help advance techniques. We know so much more about how to generate reach and power. pretty .


 Which of course explains why Bruce Lee took the straight lead directly from Jim Driscoll to use as the basis of JKD.


----------



## frank raud (Aug 30, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eha9nEcrMqQ&feature=related  Notice how Jack Dempsey holds his hands? Although he was definitely from the gloved era, some of his trainers were old school BKB boxers. Think a modern boxer would fair well against Dempsey in his prime?


----------



## ATC (Aug 30, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> So again, you are basing your "inverted hands" theory on old staged photos and not actual techniques that were taught at the time (look through some of the free old boxing manuals that Mr. Lawson has posted for free).  I also never said that the gaurd position or where they held their hands was to protect them.  I said that they delivered more body punches so they didn't risk breaking their hands in the fights because they were so long.


Not just the hands, but the stances, techniques, and training methods, the entire shabang. Todays stances and body techniques are just as effective, better in fact. If not then why are the old techniques not use, regardless of rules? Many techniques carried over while some just went to the way side for the sake of fighting in general just advancing.



> You are creating and twisting arguments that don't have a basis in logic.


That is your perception, and that is fine with me but I do see it that way.




> That has absolutely nothing to do with the fighters being better, only that they would adapt to take advantage of the new rules.  So to apply your logic of "better", take away the boxing gloves and wraps of today's pro boxers and add in foot stomps and hip tosses and then give it a few decades and when they go back to what bareknuckle fighting looked like they would be better fighters?  Huh?


Not that I can see. Todays techniques would nullify a great deal of those techniques. They did not even have a jab back then. Like you said mostly power punches. Run into a few stiff jabs while trying to get close enough to foot stomp and that foot stomp goes away. Hip toss would require me to enguage in a grapple, well that is ok as that is one technique that is still use. I did not say all techniques went away just the ones that were no good and evolved away. That is that stance and the hand position. Now days we have also added more techniques as well. More footwork, more punches on diferent angles and so on.

Being better does not mean that today they don't use some of what use to be used, it means that they have taken away some and added some, regardless of the rules. The rules just exposed a need to change faster than no rules changes. The change may have come anyway but because of the rules it just happened much faster. Again in my opinion.


----------



## ATC (Aug 30, 2011)

frank raud said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eha9nEcrMqQ&feature=related  Notice how Jack Dempsey holds his hands? Although he was definitely from the gloved era, some of his trainers were old school BKB boxers. Think a modern boxer would fair well against Dempsey in his prime?


Sure do. Dempsey for his time was one of the best. A great brawler. As this fight clearly shows his opponent is right there in front of him, not moving and attempting to brawl with him. Dempsey on the other hand was clearly a step ahead as he had way more movement. Dempsey was not fast by any means but he was one tough SOB. But even in his prime for todays fighter I am not sure he could land enough punches without getting hit multiple times and then break down in the end and be KO'd even. However we will never know because like I stated with my football analogy, we will never know because we cannot have anyone from that time fight anyone from this time. The best we can do is have someone try to emulate the style of old.

The rules have not chaned that much from Dempsey's time till now so why do we see not a single boxer fight this way anymore? Because someone found a better way. Then others follwed suite.

Just take swimming as a simple example. With todays training methods and better knowledge of the body and how to do things, the fastest times in the early and mid 1900's by men, are matched and surpassed by todays women.


----------



## frank raud (Aug 30, 2011)

ATC said:


> They did not even have a jab back then.


 I'm curious, as you keep making statements about what they had or didn't have "Back then", yet seemed unaware of some fairly basic knowledge on BKB as listed in this http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...ances-Through-History&highlight=boxing+stance . Have you studied at all, any BKB styles prior to making this thread? 

PS. Yes, it is true, they did not have a jab. However, a jab is less effective in a sideways stance than it is when your hips are squared. There were several techniques used in a similar fashion to a jab, do you know what they are?


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 30, 2011)

ATC said:


> All of what you stated has already be stated so nothing new. Yes hand position is based on the rules of the target. If the body is the target then the hands will natrually come down. No disagreeing there either. However even with the rules once you protect the handd with gloves it is only logical to then use what is best for fear of not breaking the hand. You will never see any MMA fighter stand up right with hands inverted, never.
> 
> Just by saying they used this stance and this way to protect the hands you are defacto saying that the way is flawed and not the best way to do it. You only do it this way becasue if I did it the better way I would break my hand. Put some protection on and I would use this way. Well then you are proving the argument that take away all conserns then it is better to do it this way. So if you pitted a guy with no gloves vs. the guy with gloves then the guy with gloves would have a better stance and style vs. the guy with no gloves. Put gloves on that bare knuckle guy and still have him fight the same way would be pointless as he nolonger would fear injury to his hands.
> 
> So your statements just reinforced to me my opinion.



It's not that one approach or another is "flawed."  Each approach reflects the needs and goals of the situation.  For sporting events, hand positions are dictated by the rules, and in the case of MMA, by the fighter's preference of fighting mode.  A grappler or ground fighter's stance and hand position is selected to afford the best opportunity to trap and perform takedowns.  A stand-up fighter will have more of a boxer's stance, with some alterations related to defending takedowns.  As we look at historic fighting stances, we have to consider the difference in targets and rules.  The head is a crappy target to strike with the fist, as a general rule.  With proper fist formation and conditioning, sure, you can strike the head without breaking your own hand... but it's still easy to break the hand striking the head.  Body shots become more important.  (See the thread about where "the mark" is...)  Stances and hand positions reflect that.

It's also important to recognize that the static poses we see for the older stuff are often reflections of other needs -- like very long camera exposures, limited framing... or even just a desire to present a certain image for a book illustration.  Remember in the first *Rocky *movie; Rocky's big picture above the ring looks like he's cowering, while Apollo Creed's looks confident and like he's already won.  A lot of the old savate videos and clips posted were clearly set up as exhibitions.  I suspect that a true match wouldn't look quite the same...  Does a sparring exercise in class look exactly like a real match?  Or the rules demo before a tournament resemble the fights within the tournament?

There's a classic picture of John Sullivan that I'll use to illustrate this:


I suspect that this pose was more almost a portrait; I doubt he kept his legs so straight, and I suspect his arms were probably looser, among other things.


----------



## ATC (Aug 30, 2011)

Well I have my opinions and you have yours. I made my points and counter points and you made yours. You believe what you will, and I will as well. I am not here to convince you of anything and you surely won't convinceme of what I don't believe. There is no way to truely compare the two eras but that is why we can only have two opposed points of view and the debate will be never ending. With that said I leave this thread for others to read and debate because we seem to be at the beginning of the circle.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 30, 2011)

Personally, i think both have their Perks.
I prefer the Modern Style for the way it Moves;
BUT, im inclined to prefer the Old Style for being more Power Dedicated.

Just my Contribution.


----------



## Buka (Aug 30, 2011)

Sorry to jump in so late, the storm wreaked havoc with the power. Coming up in a week, is the anniversary (Sept 7, 1892) of Gentleman Jim Corbett defeating John L. Sullivan. Corbett changed boxing forever. He was the first boxer to use quick and elusive footwork, a great jab, and he is credited with inventing the left hook that grew to what boxing knows today. Boxing went from a slower, steadier smashing of men of "who had the better punch" to who can box.


----------



## ATC (Aug 31, 2011)

Buka said:


> Sorry to jump in so late, the storm wreaked havoc with the power. Coming up in a week, is the anniversary (Sept 7, 1892) of Gentleman Jim Corbett defeating John L. Sullivan. Corbett changed boxing forever. He was the first boxer to use quick and elusive footwork, a great jab, and he is credited with inventing the left hook that grew to what boxing knows today. Boxing went from a slower, steadier smashing of men of "who had the better punch" to who can box.


Yep a point in time where we can see the evolution take place.


----------

