Straight vs. circular punches... a Western historical perspective

[Tez3]

To say boxers don't condition their hands would be false, many do, some using exercises in common with martial arts, others exercises that have been used for many years. I asked my father who boxed in the fifties and early sixties and he said certainly they did conditioning for their hands. I've looked online as well and there are plenty of boxing sites that offer conditioning exercises/drills for boxers. This is just one Top 5 Methods on How to Strengthen Your Hands

 

[JowGaWolf]

The effectiveness of slipping and hooking is never in question for me.
So I think what's interesting is why early boxers chose not to go this route

In the terms of moving point B and slipping punches, I think they did that even earlier than 1760. I think moving out of the way of a strike is something that has been since the 3 or forth punch man threw, when the other guy realized it's not good to stand there and get punched in the face. I actually think moving out of the way is a natural response. When you look at old drawings of bare knuckle fighters, you see that in many of those pictures the fighter is leaning back to avoid the punch. The leaning back motion moves point B. We even see that same lean back in some of the street fights.

"The earliest records of boxing date from before the great days of the Greek and Roman Empires. Egyptian hieroglyphics from around 4000bc suggest that a sort of combat between soldiers was practised. Thongs were wrapped round the hands and forearms in a primitive forerunner of the boxing glove. The word pugilism is a mixture of Greek and latin “ to fight with the fist “ and the term Boxing arises from the action of clenching of the fist, the folding of fingers and thumb into a box. Learn more about the history of bare-knuckle boxing"
"Source:Bare-Knuckle Boxing History | Learnist"

If boxing has been around that long, then I don't think it took long for people to learn to slip a punch or understand the dangers of hitting the skull. It's also possible that bare knuckle fighting was more targeted in terms of punching the soft areas of the face than what we see today. Bare knuckle boxing is often championed as being safer than boxing with gloves on and if that's true then being maimed was probably not a high risk factor.

I have found that I slip and move more with smaller gloves precisely because the punches hurt more.

Why historical boxers did not. I have no idea.

Have you read that historical boxers didn't try to get out of the way of a punch?

 

[paitingman]

In the terms of moving point B and slipping punches, I think they did that even earlier than 1760. I think moving out of the way of a strike is something that has been since the 3 or forth punch man threw, when the other guy realized it's not good to stand there and get punched in the face. I actually think moving out of the way is a natural response. When you look at old drawings of bare knuckle fighters, you see that in many of those pictures the fighter is leaning back to avoid the punch. The leaning back motion moves point B. We even see that same lean back in some of the street fights.

"The earliest records of boxing date from before the great days of the Greek and Roman Empires. Egyptian hieroglyphics from around 4000bc suggest that a sort of combat between soldiers was practised. Thongs were wrapped round the hands and forearms in a primitive forerunner of the boxing glove. The word pugilism is a mixture of Greek and latin “ to fight with the fist “ and the term Boxing arises from the action of clenching of the fist, the folding of fingers and thumb into a box. Learn more about the history of bare-knuckle boxing"
"Source:Bare-Knuckle Boxing History | Learnist"

If boxing has been around that long, then I don't think it took long for people to learn to slip a punch or understand the dangers of hitting the skull. It's also possible that bare knuckle fighting was more targeted in terms of punching the soft areas of the face than what we see today. Bare knuckle boxing is often championed as being safer than boxing with gloves on and if that's true then being maimed was probably not a high risk factor.

Have you read that historical boxers didn't try to get out of the way of a punch?

Maybe I'm not being clear enough, but my points are only about that specific era of english boxing.
Ancient greek fighting sports and their methods aren't relevant to me.
and just to be perfectly clear: i do not question the effectiveness of slipping, the ability of early fighters to slip punches, or their knowledge of this movement.
My point is that it is interesting that these early english boxers did not claim to use those type of movements, and instead did more of a jabbing/hand fighting thing (sounding similar to WC)

In virtually all the manuals you can read written by boxers of that era they stress 3 things:
footwork, blocking, and straight punching.
There are no slips that I've read about, and only cautionary mentions against hooking punches.

and as far as being safer, I have heard that as well. and believe it is because of the conservative nature of that specific boxing method. with only jabbing punches.
the only way a fight would last a fabled 100 rounds is both of those guys gotta be being very cautious and conservative.

 

[paitingman]

You think boxing styles today work on the principle that getting maimed is an acceptable loss or something?

Not sure there would be many boxers that agree with you there.

I have found that I slip and move more with smaller gloves precisely because the punches hurt more.

Why historical boxers did not. I have no idea.

I have found the same to be true with smaller gloves.

But you will find I haven't made any statements about modern boxing and getting maimed. and there is no intended implication in that direction.

 

[JowGaWolf]

In virtually all the manuals you can read written by boxers of that era they stress 3 things:
footwork, blocking, and straight punching.

How much did they go into detail about the footwork?

 

[JowGaWolf]

In the terms of moving point B and slipping punches, I think they did that even earlier than 1760. I think moving out of the way of a strike is something that has been since the 3 or forth punch man threw, when the other guy realized it's not good to stand there and get punched in the face. I actually think moving out of the way is a natural response. When you look at old drawings of bare knuckle fighters, you see that in many of those pictures the fighter is leaning back to avoid the punch. The leaning back motion moves point B. We even see that same lean back in some of the street fights.

"The earliest records of boxing date from before the great days of the Greek and Roman Empires. Egyptian hieroglyphics from around 4000bc suggest that a sort of combat between soldiers was practised. Thongs were wrapped round the hands and forearms in a primitive forerunner of the boxing glove. The word pugilism is a mixture of Greek and latin “ to fight with the fist “ and the term Boxing arises from the action of clenching of the fist, the folding of fingers and thumb into a box. Learn more about the history of bare-knuckle boxing"
"Source:Bare-Knuckle Boxing History | Learnist"

If boxing has been around that long, then I don't think it took long for people to learn to slip a punch or understand the dangers of hitting the skull. It's also possible that bare knuckle fighting was more targeted in terms of punching the soft areas of the face than what we see today. Bare knuckle boxing is often championed as being safer than boxing with gloves on and if that's true then being maimed was probably not a high risk factor.

Have you read that historical boxers didn't try to get out of the way of a punch?

Just found this about Jack Broughton. I don't know how accurate it is. Source: https://medium.com/pioneers-of-boxing/jack-broughton-the-father-of-prizefighting-7ba0e3efb38c#.b7ajadqpm
"Broughton’s defensive guard was marveled at and the accuracy of his counter punching made him impossible to beat. Broughton was an outstanding body puncher, and his shot to beneath the floating rib was called “Broughton’s mark.” He specialized in what Pierce Egan refers to as “milling in retreat,” which means, like modern fighters such as Juan Manuel Marquez or Floyd Mayweather, he used movement to draw his opponents forward aggressively, into brutal traps."

Anyone have video of what "milling the retreat" looks like?

 

[paitingman]

I'll try and find all the ones I remember to be available online and post em here later today sometime.

The impression I got was the importance of being able to advance and retreat. sort of linear in and out footwork. Moving the point b backward like you talked about.

 

[paitingman]

Just found this about Jack Broughton. I don't know how accurate it is. Source: https://medium.com/pioneers-of-boxing/jack-broughton-the-father-of-prizefighting-7ba0e3efb38c#.b7ajadqpm
"Broughton’s defensive guard was marveled at and the accuracy of his counter punching made him impossible to beat. Broughton was an outstanding body puncher, and his shot to beneath the floating rib was called “Broughton’s mark.” He specialized in what Pierce Egan refers to as “milling in retreat,” which means, like modern fighters such as Juan Manuel Marquez or Floyd Mayweather, he used movement to draw his opponents forward aggressively, into brutal traps."

Anyone have video of what "milling the retreat" looks like?

this is cool. I found it interesting in the manuals that they placed a heavy emphasis on you protecting "the Mark" or your solar plexus.
That's why you see pictures of that lowered rear hand in the guard. To cover the mark. It struck me as similar to some traditional karate and taekwondo guards with the same purpose.

so the mark is the solar plexus, and now I see the floating rib was apparently called Broughton's mark.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I found this on the same website
source: The Transition from Bare Knuckles to Gloves
"In the bare-knuckle era, fighters had to carefully aim and select their punches, in order to protect their hands. In-the-pocket trading of four, five or six punch combinations was far more rare than in modern times."

I'm not sure about the 4, 5, or 6 punch combinations are rare statement. I don't think it was limited because it protects hands. I think it was limited because after 4 punches your opponent starts to key in on the timing of the punches coming in. I think I have a video of me fighting where I'm taking punches to the face and it looks bad, but in the storm I fire a well aimed shot to my opponents chest. Just thought of this. I should probably stop punching him in the heart when I do this technique. But anyway. the body has the excellent ability to recognize patterns, so a 4, 5, 6 combo is likely to put someone into danger as it sets the predictability of when the next impact will occur.

I usually refer to it as sitting through the storm, waiting for the opening that will appear.

 

[paitingman]

I found a few and actually almost all of them at least mention dipping and ducking/slipping and angles.

Skimming through some manuals you will see the change in emphasis based on the date.
As boxing progressed to what it is today you see slipping and hooks becoming refined and perfected until they seem to be a cornerstone by the 1930s.

The funniest and most interesting one to me is Jim Driscoll's book: The Straight Left and How to Cultivate It. It's a sort of scathing write up of his defense for what he calls "the old English/undeniably superior" school of Boxing i.e. straight hitting. I'm certain this is what left me with such a strong impression haha.
Although from his description of things, hooking was a still unrefined maneuver at the time. It has almost no credit when applied to modern boxing hook punching.
He's cites a lot of specific fights and fighters from his era and it's a pretty cool read. but even admits to hooking now and again.

This is the writer that influenced Bruce Lee's boxing mindset as well I believe.

All the manuals I found for free I'll post right here:
1800s
these mostly give instruction on exclusively straight punching or condemn round punching.
they also give little to no instruction on slipping and emphasize defense with the arms. but some describe shifting and retreating tactics meant to run from and tire out your opponent

http://www.nycsteampunk.com/bartitsu/manuals/TheArtOfBoxingAndManualOfTraining1888.pdf

Dick's Art of Wrestling & Bare Knuckle Boxing - 1887

Defensive Exercises - Donald Walker 1840

http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/Fewtrell/Fewtrell.pdf

Mendoza: Library: The Linacre School of Defence


1900's

Boxing by Philadelphia Jack O'Brien (eBook) - Lulu

Boxing by R. G. Allanson-Winn (eBook) - Lulu

Boxing by D. C. Hutchison (eBook) - Lulu

http://www.nycsteampunk.com/bartitsu/manuals/TheStraightLeftAndHowToCultivateItCirca1910.pdf

All of these links are free and would be a good read for anyone interested.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I found a few and actually almost all of them at least mention dipping and ducking/slipping and angles.

Skimming through some manuals you will see the change in emphasis based on the date.
As boxing progressed to what it is today you see slipping and hooks becoming refined and perfected until they seem to be a cornerstone by the 1930s.

The funniest and most interesting one to me is Jim Driscoll's book: The Straight Left and How to Cultivate It. It's a sort of scathing write up of his defense for what he calls "the old English/undeniably superior" school of Boxing i.e. straight hitting. I'm certain this is what left me with such a strong impression haha.
Although from his description of things, hooking was a still unrefined maneuver at the time. It has almost no credit when applied to modern boxing hook punching.
He's cites a lot of specific fights and fighters from his era and it's a pretty cool read. but even admits to hooking now and again.

This is the writer that influenced Bruce Lee's boxing mindset as well I believe.

All the manuals I found for free I'll post right here:
1800s
these mostly give instruction on exclusively straight punching or condemn round punching.
they also give little to no instruction on slipping and emphasize defense with the arms. but some describe shifting and retreating tactics meant to run from and tire out your opponent

http://www.nycsteampunk.com/bartitsu/manuals/TheArtOfBoxingAndManualOfTraining1888.pdf

Dick's Art of Wrestling & Bare Knuckle Boxing - 1887

Defensive Exercises - Donald Walker 1840

http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/Fewtrell/Fewtrell.pdf

Mendoza: Library: The Linacre School of Defence


1900's

Boxing by Philadelphia Jack O'Brien (eBook) - Lulu

Boxing by R. G. Allanson-Winn (eBook) - Lulu

Boxing by D. C. Hutchison (eBook) - Lulu

http://www.nycsteampunk.com/bartitsu/manuals/TheStraightLeftAndHowToCultivateItCirca1910.pdf

All of these links are free and would be a good read for anyone interested.

Thanks. I appreciate the time you put into finding the info. I know others will enjoy the reading

 

[drop bear]

Have you read that historical boxers didn't try to get out of the way of a punch?

Yeah. In the post I responded to.

 

[drop bear]

I found this on the same website
source: The Transition from Bare Knuckles to Gloves
"In the bare-knuckle era, fighters had to carefully aim and select their punches, in order to protect their hands. In-the-pocket trading of four, five or six punch combinations was far more rare than in modern times."

I'm not sure about the 4, 5, or 6 punch combinations are rare statement. I don't think it was limited because it protects hands. I think it was limited because after 4 punches your opponent starts to key in on the timing of the punches coming in. I think I have a video of me fighting where I'm taking punches to the face and it looks bad, but in the storm I fire a well aimed shot to my opponents chest. Just thought of this. I should probably stop punching him in the heart when I do this technique. But anyway. the body has the excellent ability to recognize patterns, so a 4, 5, 6 combo is likely to put someone into danger as it sets the predictability of when the next impact will occur.

I usually refer to it as sitting through the storm, waiting for the opening that will appear.

You get hit more often in smaller gloves and they hurt more. So you trade a bit less.

Also a modern dynamic.

 

[drop bear]

I found a few and actually almost all of them at least mention dipping and ducking/slipping and angles.

Skimming through some manuals you will see the change in emphasis based on the date.
As boxing progressed to what it is today you see slipping and hooks becoming refined and perfected until they seem to be a cornerstone by the 1930s.

The funniest and most interesting one to me is Jim Driscoll's book: The Straight Left and How to Cultivate It. It's a sort of scathing write up of his defense for what he calls "the old English/undeniably superior" school of Boxing i.e. straight hitting. I'm certain this is what left me with such a strong impression haha.
Although from his description of things, hooking was a still unrefined maneuver at the time. It has almost no credit when applied to modern boxing hook punching.
He's cites a lot of specific fights and fighters from his era and it's a pretty cool read. but even admits to hooking now and again.

This is the writer that influenced Bruce Lee's boxing mindset as well I believe.

All the manuals I found for free I'll post right here:
1800s
these mostly give instruction on exclusively straight punching or condemn round punching.
they also give little to no instruction on slipping and emphasize defense with the arms. but some describe shifting and retreating tactics meant to run from and tire out your opponent

http://www.nycsteampunk.com/bartitsu/manuals/TheArtOfBoxingAndManualOfTraining1888.pdf

Dick's Art of Wrestling & Bare Knuckle Boxing - 1887

Defensive Exercises - Donald Walker 1840

http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/Fewtrell/Fewtrell.pdf

Mendoza: Library: The Linacre School of Defence


1900's

Boxing by Philadelphia Jack O'Brien (eBook) - Lulu

Boxing by R. G. Allanson-Winn (eBook) - Lulu

Boxing by D. C. Hutchison (eBook) - Lulu

http://www.nycsteampunk.com/bartitsu/manuals/TheStraightLeftAndHowToCultivateItCirca1910.pdf

All of these links are free and would be a good read for anyone interested.

Boxing bare knuckle is still a bit frisky for my pallet. But I have done it in mma gloves. Have you tried it? It is an interesting experiment.

 

[SenseiHitman]

I did not watch the video, but I know that proper strikes can travel in both linear and circular directions. For example, one circular punch I use is based on the corkscrew, it looks similar to an upward block done level with the floor. I also use the classical vertical punch. Anyway, what matters in my opinion is did the power start from the ground/legs and leverage through the attacker without a loss of force/leverage in any of my joints as the force/power was transferred into the target and did it apply force on as much of the core of the body that was available or did it not?

 

[drop bear]

You get hit more often in smaller gloves and they hurt more. So you trade a bit less.

Also a modern dynamic.

Not historical but you don't see long combinations here in cmt where the only real change is the glove sise.