I'm curious... did you read the article and WHY it suggested that bare knuckle boxing might be safer?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm curious... did you read the article and WHY it suggested that bare knuckle boxing might be safer?
Then make your argument more than "because I say so." What elements do you disagree so vehemently with?Yes I did read the article, but it is total BS. That's not enough as a backup.
Somebody who wants to tell me, bare-knuckle fights are less dangerous and less lethal than fights ( boxing ) where you wear thick gloves around your fists, is just insane!!
Have you considered the possibility that maybe you don't really understand what gloves do?
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.
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.Because hundreds are not enough if you know there are thousand of thousand more, some sort of backyard fights.
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.Somebody who wants to tell me, bare-knuckle fights are less dangerous and less lethal than fights ( boxing ) where you wear thick gloves around your fists, is just insane!!
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.MAYBE there are differences, but these differences should be searched in the individuals physic not in some sort of mythos.
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.It's totally logical. As I said, boxers from today are much more trained than some random bare knuckle fighters from back then, the most fights were done by the average joe
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.not by ultra-trained with steroid pumped 2 meters tall muscle-speed guys
Check out the modern boxing scene and you will see how much doping there is actually involved..
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
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.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..
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.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.
Your english isn't the problem, your claims are.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.
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
I can't show you any evidence, because I've already mentioned that fights back then were not documented like this.
Evidence of what? That historic bare knuckle boxing was less fatal?How about some evidence ?
Everyone is talking about evidence about old school bare knuckle fighting, but nobody is coming up with evidence.
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.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.
Based on your extensive research into historic matches?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.
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.I think I know very well what I am talking about, just to claim I know nothing about it,
The claim isn't that there were "less injuries" as much as that there were fewer injuries which were permanently debilitating or fatal.without any evidence that exactly proves that there were LESS injuries than in today's boxing, is BS.
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."Come up with some proper evidence and I maybe think about what I've said.
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.I can't show you any evidence, because I've already mentioned that fights back then were not documented like this.
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.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.
Called "The Mark" in most historic manuals.+ never underestimate a strong punch in to your belly or solarplexus.
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.More I can't and wont say about the whole topic.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.