Rotation differences between Eastern/Western styles.

[Martial D]

Thats part of my point. Which ref you get, makes a big difference in how the fight is fought. (sometimes, way too much) What gets used in the ring, is dictated by who the ref is as much as what is the best way to win the fight. (see Mayweather v Maidana 1)

There is another variable in play, the fans. Specifically, what the fans want to see. There are some really good boxers, whose names most of us don't know, and they don't make as much money as they could, because they are not "fan friendly." They can win their fights, but they do it in a way that makes for a boring fight. Thus they don't get the big name opponents very often or the big money spots. What the fans want to see, dictates what type of refs we have and what kind of rules are used, written and applied in the ring. Boxing used to include grappling and throws. The fans, at one period of time, did not want to watch that. They wanted punching. The rules were changed, and applied in the way the fans at the time wanted to be entertained. In order to succeed as a boxer, you not only have to win your matches, you need to entertain the fans... which means fighting in the style that the fans want to see. The fans are changing again. Now people want to see the grappling mixed with the strikes... MMA.

Over the last 200 years, what fans want to see has changed and continues to change. The rules, written and applied change with what the fans want to see. Thus, the fighters change to remain in the ring, winning money. We can see today, the difference just changing out a ref makes. Now change out what the fans want to see, what the rules say and which rules are enforced over 200 years, and that explains quite a bit of why things look different. I expect that when the fans wanted to see the same things, they generally did, whether that be punching or punching and grappling. After all the fans provide the money.

Have you really thought this through?

 

[wab25]

Let's just ignore the fact that because they were using the moq rules in those turn of the century vids I gave you it clearly shows that it's the techniques, not 'the rules', that have changed the game from then till now. I stated they fought stationary and upright with minimal footwork, that's what the vids show(actual people in motion, doing it at what was the top level back then. I know it's not a stationary diagram on a free geocities site, but it's something...)

Plenty of footwork and head movement here:

(boxing footage starts around 1:16)

 

[drop bear]

Sure, it changes what gets between your guard. It's not a huge change but it's a change. Apparently we weren't comparing old style boxing vs boxing but no rules fighting to boxing.

Which sort of begs the question, why don't MMA fighters look like old time boxers in motion?

I'd answer, but I don't have a website full of still images from 100 years ago that would somehow prove it.

Mma has changed considerably as well. But it was not really rules dictated as much as trial and error.

No holds barred in Australia. Which was very bjj rather than mma on the ground.

Wing chun kind of run all the same arguments in that they suggest they specialize in some unique dynamic. And that every vertical fist thrown in MMA is some sort of validation of their whole method.

But unless fighters are coming up through these systems and becoming successful I am not sure how much weight of evidence I can put behind those systems.

Especially when there are systems like MMA that produce these multiple rule set successes.

Otherwise as far as pugilism goes. I compare it to GJJ. At one point there you could jump guard on a striker and just sub him straight out. But now it is a lot less likely he will let you do it. That wasn't because of the rules. It was because fighters got better.

The rules have changed as well. But correlation doesn't always equal causation.

 

[Martial D]

Mma has changed considerably as well. But it was not really rules dictated as much as trial and error.

No holds barred in Australia. Which was very bjj rather than mma on the ground.

Wing chun kind of run all the same arguments in that they suggest they specialize in some unique dynamic. And that every vertical fist thrown in MMA is some sort of validation of their whole method.

But unless fighters are coming up through these systems and becoming successful I am not sure how much weight of evidence I can put behind those systems.

Especially when there are systems like MMA that produce these multiple rule set successes.

Otherwise as far as pugilism goes. I compare it to GJJ. At one point there you could jump guard on a striker and just sub him straight out. But now it is a lot less likely he will let you do it. That wasn't because of the rules. It was because fighters got better.

The rules have changed as well. But correlation doesn't always equal causation.

Yup.

 

[Dirty Dog]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Keep the conversation friendly, polite, and professional. The snide comments and general nastiness needs to stop, or points will be forthcoming.

Thank you.
Mark A. Cochran
@Dirty Dog
MartialTalk Senior Moderator