Loc: North Carolina
Quote: Boxers before the early 1900's fought bare-knuckle and had a completely different style. Then people started using gloves and then larger and larger gloves and more and more rules (or different rules) and strangely boxing changed as the rules changed.
1) Boxing changed a lot when US servicemen went into the Philippines. At that time they still fought in the manner of John L. Sullivan (arms outstretched, etc). The Filipinos with whom they sparred had a different style of striking. They fought with their hands close to the face/torso because, having your arms outstretched over there would have them carved up by knives (the Filipino martial arts being, heavily "blade oriented"). Their empty hands approach was an extension of their weapons approach and thus they kept their hands close even when fighting empty handed. The had greater mobility and footwork than their Western counterparts who basically stood motionless like statues. Clueless statues. These Filipinos are said to have greatly influenced American boxing subsequently.
Primitive you ask? You betcha.
Bareknuckle boxers fought much more like traditional Karate fighters than "modern" boxers. IS that because they were "less scientific" and more premitive in their use of boxing?
That they may have fought similarly, doesn't mean that they were doing the same thing or even had the same goals. Primitive, you ask? No more primitive perhaps than someone in the NBA reverting to using a two handed set-shot as their primary shooting mechnanic.
It seems odd that all of the sudden in a period of maybe 40 or 50 years the techniques of boxing would increase drastically and all those years before the techniques had stagnated and no one progressed in knowledge or skill and would just less skilled.
You're just assuming that boxing stagnated. Who is really to say what happened in other part of the world (the Philippines for example) where boxing looked more like it does today? Boxing there had a great effect on the nature of boxing as I mentioned. That's one big reason why the styles began to evolve. Living arts evolve, dead arts don't.
Jkogas would you say fighters of recent times are more skilled than fighters of the bareknuckle days or early days of gloved boxing? I find that hard to believe.
Unequivocally. Let me answer it this way; are today's football players better than those of a hundred years ago? What about today's basketball players vs. those of a hundred years ago? Why woudn't boxers be any different? The old bare knuckle guys didn't even use footwork. It's not even comparable. We know more today. We have greater science. We simply understand more about scientific training. It's no contest.
Fighters of the old days usually fought a lot more and boxing had been around for a couple hundred years.
Yes, and now it's been around even longer. We know more today as a result. There is no question that the skill is better. Don't get caught up in the romance of the "olden days". They weren't necessarily that much better. We can however see that vast improvements have been made. Like, keeping your hands in close and protecting your head for example.
Quote: I would think they would've gotten pretty skilled after all that time. Maybe thir style went along with the rules just like today rather than simply being worse.
What are you basing that on, having BEEN there or something? Come on man.
Quote: Also, the use of boxing in mma is very different from boxing under boxing organizations. If it's all basically the same wouldnt they use textbook boxing in mma rather than modifying it so much?
Its actually not that much different. The stance is a bit wider, but otherwise, the better strikers in MMA have boxing experience. They AREN'T walking in there with their arms stuck straight out in front of them, that's for sure. It's really not modified as much as you're making it out to be. They have to square up more to defend shots. Otherwise that's about it. Plus, there is no accounting for skill. It's not my fault if many of today's mma fighters can't box extremely well.
Also, while boxing is great it's a bit narrow, Karate is nice as you learn to incorporate a lot of grabs with yoru strikes which is hard to do with big gloves.
Who said boxing had to have gloves? I know *I* never mentioned gloves anywhere here on this thread. Gloves have nothing to do with the delivery system of boxing - of which I am speaking.
Quote: Bareknuckle boxers incortporated a lot more techniques, I would think, because they didnt have gloves getting in the way or as many rules.
What kinds of techniques? And why Stormy, are you and I going around (again) on this topic? You only come out of the woodwork whenever I show up on a thread it seems. You should already know everything I'm going to say already.
Gloves, gloves, [censored] gloves again. Dude...perhaps you've been absent from here a lot or have just forgotten everything we've ever said to each other. Delivery system bro, does not automatically mean "ring" sport.
Quote: You could say that bareknuckle boxers didnt spar as more or something due to know glvoes but from reading a lot on it I'm pretty sure they sparred just as much. Fought very differently yet the fighters were usually more experienced than todays fighters and did use 'aliveness' in their training. Seems crazy to think they were worse fighters.
Stormdragon, you don't know, because you weren't there. All we have is now brother. Today, not yesterday. What you, I and everyone else can do, execute and perform TODAY is all that matters. I don't care about John L. Sullivan. I really don't. It's as dead an issue as the man himself.
And why is everyone criticising Dan so much, Jkogas is way more aggressive against Karate yet no one really cares. Here Dan is at least as experienced as Jkogas (not trying to insult you or jump on you Jkogas and you guys BOTH know wayy more than I ever will lol).
Who is criticizing Dan? I haven't. I've been critical of kata, but don't even try and make something out of nothing and start that crap. Re-read the posts. As far as my being "aggressive 'against' karate"... well, I speak my mind. Don't know what else to do.
Quote: Jkogas-just curious about yoru idea that dirty tactics are so instinctual-what makes you think that?
Let me ask you a question. How easy is it to bite? How difficult is it to stick your finger into someone's eyeball? Not very hard is it?
Quote: I've seen many fights where guys in even the most disadvantagous of positions failed to use such tactics. I havent seen any evidence or research saying that dirty fighting is an inborn human instinct.
Boy, I don't know where you've been looking. Ask Mike Tyson about that. And he's a moron.
they're movements like any other, such as a jab, and they have to be trained like any others (such as jabs). If you train to never use those you probably wont in a fight. Granted it's hard to train them with 'aliveness' it's possible-Tony Blauer does some of that I thought same with Paul Vunak.
Lets just say that I have a difference of opinion.