# Bareknuckle



## lonecoyote (May 6, 2005)

Been doing some reading about bareknuckle boxing and old time pugilism, and I'm kind of surprised by a couple of things and I'd like some MT input. I've read that actually bareknuckle may be safer than gloved boxing. It's bloodier, and cuts more, but as far as knocking your brain against your skull, which kills people, it is  less likely to happen. I agree with this. Gloves aren't for your head's safety, they are for your hands. Properly wrapped and gloved hands make you feel like you could punch through a brick wall. So you hit harder, and in a way, since you don't care about hurting your hands you can throw more dangerous blows. Getting hit with a gloved fist may actually be a lot worse for your health than getting hit bareknuckle. Does anyone agree with this? anyone surprised? How about the idea that stances and hand positions were different than modern boxing for the bareknuckle reasons, as well as more wide open rules regarding throwing and clinching, and the different structure of rounds. In other words, old time pugilism wasn't primitive, and worse than modern boxing, it just took advantage of a different set of rules. I have only very seldom thrown real punches without gloves or punches on, and I can only say that I realized that targeting was much more important, IMHO, because punching someone on top of the head with a bare fist is a very bad idea. What is your opinion on bareknuckle? Safer, more dangerous? How do you keep from breaking your hands?


----------



## bustr (May 6, 2005)

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2267


----------



## lklawson (May 12, 2005)

lonecoyote said:
			
		

> How about the idea that stances and hand positions were different than modern boxing for the bareknuckle reasons, as well as more wide open rules regarding throwing and clinching, and the different structure of rounds. In other words, old time pugilism wasn't primitive, and worse than modern boxing, it just took advantage of a different set of rules.


 This is almost cirtainly true.

 Here are a few articles reinforcing the idea:

[size=-1]http://www.savateaustralia.com/Savate%20Essays/Bare-Knuckles%20to%20Modern%20Boxing.htm

http://ahfaa.org/boxingstance.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20021013222056/keith.martialartsman.net/american/pug/pugIndex.html
[/size]
http://ejmas.com/jmanly/articles/2001/jmanlyart_myers_0801.htm

 Peace favor your sword,
 Kirk


----------



## Andrew Green (May 12, 2005)

Bareknuckle = Safer in the long run... but uglier fighters 

 The rounds I don't think helped safety as fighters had more recovery time and just had to be able to get to there feet for the bell to keep going...


----------



## automaton (May 12, 2005)

There is also the topic of bare knuckle fighting in southeast asia form burma across to laos and cambodia.  There is a book forthcoming on the topic which will hopefully shed alot of light on this part of history that has sort of fallen by the waist side when talking about bare knuckle.


----------

