I'm curious... did you read the article and WHY it suggested that bare knuckle boxing might be safer?
Bare knuckles boxing safer than with gloves
- Thread starter ShortBridge
- Start date
JohnnyEnglish
Green Belt
Yes I did read the article, but it is total BS. That's not enough as a backup.
Then make your argument more than "because I say so." What elements do you disagree so vehemently with?
Have you considered the possibility that maybe you don't really understand what gloves do?
JohnnyEnglish
Green Belt
I am not as stupid as you might think I am
Everyone who has at least a bit knowledge of boxing and it's history, should know that in bare-knuckle fights it was usual to NOT hit the face/head, since it increased the risk of breaking the boxers hand ( while hitting the head, a head is hard ). Gloves protected and still protect boxers hands from breaking, which means a boxer is able to aim for the head and cause bad injuries, gloves may protect the boxers hands, but the impact the punch has when hitting the head, is still devastating. This is the only reason why BOXING as we know it today, caused more deaths than bare-knuckle fighting.
Conclusion: The reason why people die is because fighters aim more for the head with gloves. But let's be honest, there was an amount of bare-knuckle fighters that aimed for the head, they simply hardened their hand over years and years, and if you get hit by a bare hand with the punching power of for example mohammed ali or mike tyson, I can promise you, this will make more damage than one of these guys hitting you wearing a glove, simply because bones on bones increase the risk of actually breaking your head rather than just dealing with the impact and get brain damage. Which means, without gloves you will have brain damage + a broken head, but with gloves you will only have some brain damage. Both sucks!
What I am trying to say, bare-knuckle fighting itself is not LESS dangerous than boxing just because bare-knuckle fighters decide to hit the body not the head. It is not even forbidden to hit the head in bare-knuckle fights. The result is changed because of the fighters decision, not because of the sport itself.
Let's take Kickboxing as an example, if two kickboxers fight against each other, they usually make use of their legs, but statistically we all know that the most knockouts in kickboxing are caused by a PUNCH not by a KICK. Does this make kicks less dangerous ? No! Because an aimed kick to the head, is much more devastating than a punch.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2015
- Messages
- 14,840
- Reaction score
- 6,406
Bare knuckle boxing safer than boxing with gloves? Never. TTake a look at some of the pre MMA days bare knuckle cage fights and you'll see what damage a bare fist can do. A bare fist can cause so much damage even if the person isn't being hit in the face.
Also Johnny English is right. Boxing back then is not the same as boxing now. Just checkout some of the English bare knuckle fights on YouTube. And while you are at it take a look at some of the first filmed boxing matches.
Also Johnny English is right. Boxing back then is not the same as boxing now. Just checkout some of the English bare knuckle fights on YouTube. And while you are at it take a look at some of the first filmed boxing matches.
JohnnyEnglish
Green Belt
I would also recommend to not eat something while watching old school bare knuckle fights. An eye coming out of a head in some sort of squeshy form, or a totally mashed jaw are pretty common injuries in bare-knuckle fighting.
I also would like to say, IF we would see the whole thing of a more " Physic point of view " it is much easier to understand WHY bare-knuckles are much more devastating.
Boxing gloves = more air-resistance while throwing a punch = slowing down the punch = decreasing energy = decreasing damage + soft-cover decreases speed while collision with opponents body = decrease of energy again. = LESS effective.
Bare-knuckles = less air-resistance while throwing a punch = speeding up the punch = increasing energy = increasing damage + NO cover increases impact while collision with opponents body = increase of energy again = MORE effective.
Sorry for my English, but I hope I made it clear for the rest who seriously believes in Boxing being more devastating than bare-knuckle.
Actually it's not the gloves that are the issue it's the wraps, these days they are taped so much they resemble a plaster cast, it's this that allows such hard punching without damaging the hand as much as bare knuckle boxing.
lklawson
Grandmaster
Friend, I don't think you really know what you're talking about. No offense, but it really doesn't look like you've done anything but the most cursory reading on historic bare knuckle fighting. It's extremely well documented.
The available evidence seems to indicate that historic bare knuckle matches were, in fact, less likely to be lethal. Some matches would go all day and could have over 100 rounds.
Maybe? Mythos? What the heck are you talking about? Bare knuckle boxing is extremely well documented. There are dozens upon dozens of manuals and thousands of recorded accounts. Maybe you think it's a myth but there are plenty of researchers who take the subject seriously and dig through historic documents. I get the impression that all of your information on pre-Marquis boxing comes from guesswork and chats at the gym. There's a lot more to it than that and it sure sounds like you didn't get even close to the whole story.
Just as most fights TODAY are "done by the average joe." In pre-Marquis bare knuckle boxing, there were more amateurs than there were Professional boxers, JUST LIKE TODAY. Professional boxers were professional and trained regularly. In some cases we still have their daily training regiment and even diet recorded. They were dedicated and serious about their training. They had to be, it was their livelihood. If their careers tanked, they'd lose their sponsors and starve.
I'm confused here. Are you still arguing that bare knuckle fights are more dangerous since they didn't have "not by ultra-trained with steroid pumped 2 meters tall muscle-speed" boxers? Your argument seems to be getting a little muddied.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
JohnnyEnglish
Green Belt
How about some evidence ?
Everyone is talking about evidence about old school bare knuckle fighting, but nobody is coming up with evidence.
I personally compared today's bare knuckle fights with boxing, and I've seen plenty of them. I have not seen any modern bare knuckle fight where not at least one of the opponents leave the match without any inuries. It had to be similar to old school bare knuckle fights, since people back then had only two hands same as we have only two hands today.
I think I know very well what I am talking about, just to claim I know nothing about it, without any evidence that exactly proves that there were LESS injuries than in today's boxing, is BS.
Come up with some proper evidence and I maybe think about what I've said.
lklawson
Grandmaster
Please list historic references for popped out eyes being a common injury in pre-Marquis bare knuckle boxing matches. Reference book, author and date or, if in a news paper or gentleman's magazine, reference publication, date, author if available, and Volume number.
Sorry friend, but that's just plain wrong. The speeds at which a human can throw a punch are below the threshold where air resistance can make an appreciable difference, over the 2.5-3 foot distance, traveled between the surface area of a bare fist or a glove.
Your english isn't the problem, your claims are.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
JohnnyEnglish
Green Belt
I can't show you any evidence, because I've already mentioned that fights back then were not documented like this. The techniques might were!
It's a FACT that bare-knuckles are only called less dangerous because they ususally were going for your chest not your head. But the few bare-knuckle fights where they went for your head, were much more devastating ( for both opponents ) than todays boxing with gloves.
+ never underestimate a strong punch in to your belly or solarplexus.
More I can't and wont say about the whole topic.
You do realize that you are "mentioning" this idea to someone (Kirk) who has made a serious study of the primary historical sources on the subject and knows very well what documentation is available? When it comes down to an assertion without evidence from someone with no particular background in the topic vs the word of a subject matter expert who can provide historical documentation, I think just about everybody here is going to go with Kirk on this one.
lklawson
Grandmaster
Evidence of what? That historic bare knuckle boxing was less fatal?
Go here. Download lots of old manuals for free. Kirk Lawson s Books and Publications Spotlight
Pay particular attention to Own Swift's Hand-book to Boxing. He lists a full 100 years of Professional matches and spends most of the Chapter 1 on exactly how deadly-dangerous its practice isn't.
Your turn.
That's nice. So people get split lips, mashed noses, and cut eyebrows? So what? First, I've already stipulated this happened. Second, it's not particularly deadly. Third, this happens in gloved boxing too.
Based on your extensive research into historic matches?
Really? Because you just said that you only have experience with some modern "fights" and you don't know what actually happened in historic matches but that they "had to be similar." That's an admission that you haven't actually done any research or reading.
The claim isn't that there were "less injuries" as much as that there were fewer injuries which were permanently debilitating or fatal.
Sure, there were plenty of times that a pre-Marquis boxer would "draw the claret." But it didn't kill the other guy and it typically didn't cause traumatic brain injury as is so common in modern gloved boxing.
Start thinking. Then start backing up your claims with more than just "I saw some fights and I assume that pre-Marquis boxing was such-n-so." How about something like, "I've surveyed 100 years of newspaper articles on pugilism, ranging from 1750 to 1850 and I found X% ended in fatalities and Y% ended in permanent debilitating injuries."
Sorry friend, but you're just making a lot of unfounded assumptions.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
lklawson
Grandmaster
I've got a century or two of records and dozens of books and accounts which disagree with that statement. I've pointed you to most of them already. You're still just using your "because I said so" evidence.
That's just plain wrong. I've already quoted the Mendoza/Humphries fight. I'll also point out, EVERY BLASTED MANUAL that I can think of shows the very first punch being taught is a punch to the face. Every. Last. One. They even had specialized strikes, which are illegal under the MoQ, which only make sense as a strike to the face. You don't Chopper someone in the gut. Finally, even the slang is indicative of the face and head being a common target. "Draw the Claret" isn't literally about red wine. And, yet, the vast majority of these fighters suffered no debilitating, long term, injuries and most fights weren't fatal.
Called "The Mark" in most historic manuals.
You can't say because you've not done the primary research or reading on the subject. Your entire position is made up of assumptions which turn out to be wrong.
As I wrote above, no one wants to get their nose smashed or lose a tooth (I certainly don't) but those aren't particularly fatal injuries and they're certainly not typically going to lead to traumatic brain injury as is common in modern gloved boxing.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
#facepalm
Maybe you don't realize this, but the guy you're trying to argue with is widely recognized for his expertise in exactly this subject: historic boxing...
Perhaps for your next trick, you'd like to teach stick fighting to Datu Tim Hartman?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2015
- Messages
- 14,840
- Reaction score
- 6,406
I guess the wraps are necessary because of the shape of the glove. I'm not a boxer but I can see how the glove causes poor fist structure from the inside and and creates a wider impact point on the outside which would cause the wrist to bend.
Danny T
Senior Master
Johnny whether you dislike it or disagree with what Mr Lawson states he is a well known historian and considered an expert on historic boxing (bear knuckle). Instead of disagreeing with his statements it would probable serve you better to look at some of the references he has given on bare knuckle fighting. No one likes to be wrong or to be proven wrong and I not saying you are but when someone who has done the research, as Mr. Lawson has, opines it is usually a good idea to consider that information and to look a bit deeper into what they are saying.
You are asking for data, he has given references, where is your data and references?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2015
- Messages
- 14,840
- Reaction score
- 6,406
I would never compare 1800 boxing to modern boxing. Boxing as a technique has improved greatly. Today's training is 1000 times better than boxing training from the 1800s. Boxers are more powerful know than they were then. The footwork alone is an incredible difference.
Danny T
Senior Master
Wraps do support the wrist however, the wrist is not the major concern. It is the metacarpal bones, more so the 4th and 5th with the 5th being broken the most. When the fist strikes a hard object (like the head) in manner a modern boxer punches the metacarpals tend to spread apart, distorts, and break under the stress. The wrapping helps prevent the spreading apart and distorting of the metacarpals as well as helping to support the wrist. The shape of the glove actually prevents the fist from being fully formed which helps prevent the distorting of the metacarpals.
