Did the old Bare Knuckle pugilism have hooks and uppercuts?

[Bullshidog]

Both the hook and uppercut has become such a fundamental part of boxing that to box without them is like driving without rear mirrors or writing down an essay on old filler paper without eraser.

I already know that the bare knuckle style ws so wildly different from modern boxing but my reearch shocks me that old styles did not have hook and uppercuts.

Is this true? I ask because in addition to being such a basic part of modern boxing that its difficult to think of the sport without them, my research also shows me that as early as the 1700s hundreds individual boxers were already developing their own variation to punches and defenses and such so I find it very difficult and even ludicrous to believe that old boxers didn't at least have a technique that resembles the uppercut and hook taht eventually evolved into its modern form int he sport today.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Gloves allow you to do things the human body was not meant to do. Take away the gloves, and it all goes back to reality.

 

[drop bear]

Gloves allow you to do things the human body was not meant to do. Take away the gloves, and it all goes back to reality.

You can uppercut pretty safely bare knuckle.

 

[Buka]

The left hook was first used by Gentleman Jim Corbett against John L Sullivan. 1892

The left hook should not be confused with a wide swing.

 

[Danny T]

The boxer 'Jab' was developed out of the the front hand uppercut punch from bare knuckle competition fighting. During bare knuckle fighting the presentation was different but was still an uppercut.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Both the hook and uppercut has become such a fundamental part of boxing that to box without them is like driving without rear mirrors or writing down an essay on old filler paper without eraser.

I already know that the bare knuckle style ws so wildly different from modern boxing but my reearch shocks me that old styles did not have hook and uppercuts.

Is this true? I ask because in addition to being such a basic part of modern boxing that its difficult to think of the sport without them, my research also shows me that as early as the 1700s hundreds individual boxers were already developing their own variation to punches and defenses and such so I find it very difficult and even ludicrous to believe that old boxers didn't at least have a technique that resembles the uppercut and hook taht eventually evolved into its modern form int he sport today.

I think part of your post was already answered by Kung Fu Wang (post #2) in your other post here

The hook and uppercut exist in both the "long fist" system and the "praying mantis" system. The uppercut also exist in the "XingYi" system.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

One important factor is that the old bare-knuckle boxing was usually practiced at longer range than modern boxing. Once you got close enough for uppercuts, your opponent was likely to clinch and try to throw you.

 

[Mephisto]

Both the hook and uppercut has become such a fundamental part of boxing that to box without them is like driving without rear mirrors or writing down an essay on old filler paper without eraser.

I already know that the bare knuckle style ws so wildly different from modern boxing but my reearch shocks me that old styles did not have hook and uppercuts.

Is this true? I ask because in addition to being such a basic part of modern boxing that its difficult to think of the sport without them, my research also shows me that as early as the 1700s hundreds individual boxers were already developing their own variation to punches and defenses and such so I find it very difficult and even ludicrous to believe that old boxers didn't at least have a technique that resembles the uppercut and hook taht eventually evolved into its modern form int he sport today.

Where did you do your research? Let's start there. If it's a legit source, in what context is the statement made? Did you find other sources to crosscheck the first source? If multiple sources corroborate an account there is good reason to believe it is true. In which case why would you ask a bunch of random guys on the Internet about your research?

Or did you just watch a tv show and are considering it the same thing as research? (Like in your other thread)

If you want to do some research maybe you could ask for help finding sources. But don't be lazy and act like you've been doing research when clearly you haven't.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Where did you do your research? Let's start there. If it's a legit source, in what context is the statement made? Did you find other sources to crosscheck the first source? If multiple sources corroborate an account there is good reason to believe it is true. In which case why would you ask a bunch of random guys on the Internet about your research?

Or did you just watch a tv show and are considering it the same thing as research? (Like in your other thread)

If you want to do some research maybe you could ask for help finding sources. But don't be lazy and act like you've been doing research when clearly you haven't.

I was going to say that last night, but it is much more fun to argue.

 

[drop bear]

One important factor is that the old bare-knuckle boxing was usually practiced at longer range than modern boxing. Once you got close enough for uppercuts, your opponent was likely to clinch and try to throw you.

Surprised there wasn't a degree of hooking the back of the head and feeding them.