Blocking useless?

[jobo]

No specifics? I put links in there and even pics.

The rules have changed several times even after the MoQ. There have also been alternate rules such as the American Fair Play rules. Further, as I wrote, there was a certain amount of "inertia" and tradition which persisted. Several of the photos I posed of blocking in boxing are from the WWI era, well into the 20th Century.

Sorry friend, but that's just not right. I've provided lots of links to rules, books, photos, here's even an article.

There's plenty of evidence of the evolution of boxing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

i know there's plenty of evidence that boxing has evolved, what there isn't is plenty of evidence that its down to rule changes, yes ok, boxing has changed from 1918, but not because of rule changes, as the rules are almost exactly the same in 2018 as they were then

 

[lklawson]

i know there's plenty of evidence that boxing has evolved, what there isn't is plenty of evidence that its down to rule changes, yes ok, boxing has changed from 1918, but not because of rule changes, as the rules are almost exactly the same in 2018 as they were then

I don't know what more you want. I've presented plenty of evidence. Have you downloaded and read the Driscoll manual yet? It's pretty convincing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[jobo]

I don't know what more you want. I've presented plenty of evidence. Have you downloaded and read the Driscoll manual yet? It's pretty convincing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

i want you to back up what your claim, rather than just random links

 

[drop bear]

Not even close. You are correct that boxing has changed, but you are incorrect about why. It's not that boxing has "progressed" per se. It is that the rules of boxing changed. The short version is that the rules used to favor extended range outfighting and boxing at a distance. There have pretty much always been "rules," but the rules were different. Old style boxing included much lighter and harder (or no) gloves, stand-up grappling, throwing, and other differences. Even in the early 20th Century, after the Marquess of Queensbery rules were becoming the norm, "Scientific Boxing" and Amateur Boxing still had a certain amount of inertia in its traditions and training methods which continued to teach and support blocking as shown above.

It is exactly the same reason that linear punches were preferred and "round" type blows such as the modern Hook were not only unpopular but were actually ridiculed and derisively called a "swing."
The Straight Left and How to cultivate it by Jim Driscoll (Paperback) - Lulu

Are shaped by the parameters of the contest.

Umm... what? I'm not a karate guy but that doesn't really sound like any karate I've seen.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

There are a lot of different rule sets that include hand striking.

Here is a friend of mine Ben Kelleher.
boxing

small glove muay thai.

MMA

kickboxing.

There are differences. But they generally don't extend to blocks because the gloves are smaller. It really is just a case of the science behind boxing is better now.

We go all the way to modern bare knuckle. And they don't use your suggested method either.

 

[drop bear]

The sucker punch is certainly the wild card here. Covering (or a variation) is the best shot there because it doesn't require much information. The better the puncher, the harder it is to read the punch to get a chance to block - that's part of what many of us train on (to disguise our intentions). Of course, defensive positions put the hands relatively close to blocking positions, to start with (near the punching alleys) to reduce the time it takes to block.

I got to the point from trial and error. Where if i was in punching range my hands were all the way up. I could not deal with the risk of missing that sucker punch. Which I have done a few times.

So out of range fine. In range and I was basically 100%

Mostly I stayed out of range which is the best method to avoid sucker shots.

If you come across a quick guy relying on the fence can get you in real trouble.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Flurries of punches are not worth blocking. Individual punches often are. I think where folks get hung up is on the idea of the isolated block, like is taught to beginners. That's just a beginning point to learn to interfere with a punch before it hits you. More tools are added to give more options, and in a lot of situations a skilled person doesn't use isolated blocks, but integrates them with other things, sometimes even resorting to covering to get inside and do what they need to, to end the fight.

I was thinking the same thing as well.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I want to be the one controlling when distance opens and closes.

Same here. The only time I allow my opponent to control the distance is with a bait. For example, I may move backwards with the goal of giving my opponent the idea that he's in control because he's pressing me. But my intentions is to look for an over commitment or laser focus in my opponent so I can counter an attack. By moving backwards it forces my opponent to be able to throw only one kind of strike. Moving backwards also cause my opponent to focus too much on trying to punch me, and not defending. If he over commits then I can step off center and at the same time I've closed the distance.

I never want to be in a situation where I can't control how much ground is covered. In a fight I try to control every aspect of what I'm dealing with.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I got to the point from trial and error. Where if i was in punching range my hands were all the way up. I could not deal with the risk of missing that sucker punch. Which I have done a few times.

So out of range fine. In range and I was basically 100%

Mostly I stayed out of range which is the best method to avoid sucker shots.

If you come across a quick guy relying on the fence can get you in real trouble.

I don't like videos like that with the multiple attacks. The only one that you'll have a chance of landing is the first one, the second one will vary depending on how they react to the first strike. If I land an elbow straight into someone's chest then they aren't going to stay in one place for me to turn my body and wrap around their arm. The most likely scenario is that the the impact of the elbow is either going to drive them backwards or downwards. I'm pretty confident with this reaction because I have trained this particular type of elbow with students. If the force is downward then it will collapse the body. If the force is horizontal it will move the opponent backwards.

All of this extra stuff of multiple hits are not likely to be there. I'm not saying that it won't be there, because if you have a weak elbow strike then you may have an opportunity to do the extra stuff. However if you know how to drive the power of that elbow then that person isn't going lean over for the next technique.

Elbow to the body @1:31 validates what I'm saying. You'll have to play it slow because it's really fast. You can see the same elbow strike with the force send downward @ 1:54. You have to play it in slow motion to see it. If your assumptions and calculations on how the body may react to the strike, then your "next strike assumptions" will be off as well. Sometimes people are so focused on the application that they forget to correctly calculate the physics behind it. It's not the technique that's flawed but the calculation of which technique can be done afterwards that is inaccurate.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Here's a police officer trying to use a similar technique shown in the OPs video.

 

[Buka]

As for boxing, just my


I rely on my own boxing experiences. If I want to know, or train, something I don't know or I'm curious about, I'll ask friends who have boxed professionally at the highest levels [successfully] or one that is doing so right now.

But when I want to know something about the history of boxing, anything about the history of boxing, it's evolution, the people, the methods, whatever, I'm asking Kirk.

And I'm taking that to the bank.

 

[Flying Crane]

Anyone familiar with Nick Drossos? I watched many of his videos. He has a MA background but most important he was a bouncer for 7 years. He cuts through the fluff.

First, circular punches are not automatically wild or non- technical. They can be extremely precise.

Second, he needs to get a partner who knows how to throw circular punches. What his partner in the video did was garbage. Ya know how BJJ people always complain about traditional methods practice against takedowns, when nobody in the training group knows how to do a good takedown? It undermines the practice and leads to a false sense of security and confidence.

Same thing here, with circular punches.

Now that being said, I believe that a whole lot of people have come up with methods that work. Some might work better in some situations, or for some people. But they work, and sticking with consistency in a method is important.

So I personally find a lot of the debate to be not terribly fruitful. This method vs that method vs that other method, well take your pick. Do your research and then choose the one that makes the most sense to you and stick with it. Don’t get distracted by the shiny object across the street.

 

[Flying Crane]

I’m not sure I agree. He starts off at a certain distance, but later does block by moving in. In WC you step in and can do a number of things to stop a hook. However I think he is right in that it’s very hard to pull off blocks in a real situation.

Ok. As was pointed out by another member, he is talking about police use, which can be quite different from a civilian defending himself. As I said in my previous post, lots of people come up with methods that work. If this guy’s method works for him and his people, then I applaud him.

But he makes the mistake of thinking it will be the same for everyone. It was kind of weird how he is talking about police tactics, and uses what he sees in competition martial arts to support his claim, namely that blocking doesn’t work. Making such a comparison undermines his credibility. He mixes apples and oranges.

I noticed his comment about foot position, and how “nobody” punches with their feet parallel, they always switch position so one foot is forward.

He is wrong about that. I do it all the time. This is an example of making broad statements based on his own experience, which obviously does not include everything.

So if it works for him and his people, great. He should just present his method and his reasons for it, and resist the temptation to climb up on the soapbox. I just tune out when people start making global claims about what does and does not work.

My impression of the video: meh.

 

[drop bear]

I don't like videos like that with the multiple attacks. The only one that you'll have a chance of landing is the first one, the second one will vary depending on how they react to the first strike. If I land an elbow straight into someone's chest then they aren't going to stay in one place for me to turn my body and wrap around their arm. The most likely scenario is that the the impact of the elbow is either going to drive them backwards or downwards. I'm pretty confident with this reaction because I have trained this particular type of elbow with students. If the force is downward then it will collapse the body. If the force is horizontal it will move the opponent backwards.

All of this extra stuff of multiple hits are not likely to be there. I'm not saying that it won't be there, because if you have a weak elbow strike then you may have an opportunity to do the extra stuff. However if you know how to drive the power of that elbow then that person isn't going lean over for the next technique.

Elbow to the body @1:31 validates what I'm saying. You'll have to play it slow because it's really fast. You can see the same elbow strike with the force send downward @ 1:54. You have to play it in slow motion to see it. If your assumptions and calculations on how the body may react to the strike, then your "next strike assumptions" will be off as well. Sometimes people are so focused on the application that they forget to correctly calculate the physics behind it. It's not the technique that's flawed but the calculation of which technique can be done afterwards that is inaccurate.

There are a lot of overly ambitious ideas with that video.

It was mostly to show how that eye strike can get in without the other guy even knowing the shot was coming.

 

[lklawson]

i want you to back up what your claim, rather than just random links

The links aren't "random" and they do back up my claim.

 

[lklawson]

It really is just a case of the science behind boxing is better now.

Not so much. The changes are an internal evolution to the rules.

We go all the way to modern bare knuckle. And they don't use your suggested method either.

"Modern bare knuckle" is not the same; apples and oranges. Further, I'm not "suggesting" a method. I honestly don't give a fat fiddler's foreskin if you choose to try to block or not. What I'm saying is that blocking used to be part of boxing and it was there because the rules allowed and encouraged it. Blocking left boxing, eventually, because of the same reasons.

It's not that hard to trace and, honestly, doesn't particularly mean anything bad, or good, per se. It certainly isn't an indictment of modern boxing. It's just a recognition of how boxing has changed and why.

 

[jks9199]

i want you to back up what your claim, rather than just random links

They were anything but "random links." They directly addressed the points and supported Kirk's statements. Meanwhile, all that you seem to be doing is saying "prove it." What sort of proof do you want? A litany of resurrected boxers from different eras telling you how they had to change what they did to fit the new rules?

 

[JowGaWolf]

There are a lot of overly ambitious ideas with that video.

It was mostly to show how that eye strike can get in without the other guy even knowing the shot was coming.

oh ok.

 

[jobo]

They were anything but "random links." They directly addressed the points and supported Kirk's statements. Meanwhile, all that you seem to be doing is saying "prove it." What sort of proof do you want? A litany of resurrected boxers from different eras telling you how they had to change what they did to fit the new rules?

his claim was... That rules and ONLY rules has driven the evolution of boxing, he has evidenced that rules have had an effect, what He hasn't done is show that ALL the changes in the last 150 years are only down to rule changes

 

[lklawson]

his claim was... That rules and ONLY rules has driven the evolution of boxing

I did huh? Well, I must be suffering from memory loss because I don't remember using those words. Would you mind quoting where I wrote that? Put in a link to my post. Here, use this line:
_________________________________________________________________

 

[drop bear]

Not so much. The changes are an internal evolution to the rules.

"Modern bare knuckle" is not the same; apples and oranges. Further, I'm not "suggesting" a method. I honestly don't give a fat fiddler's foreskin if you choose to try to block or not. What I'm saying is that blocking used to be part of boxing and it was there because the rules allowed and encouraged it. Blocking left boxing, eventually, because of the same reasons.

It's not that hard to trace and, honestly, doesn't particularly mean anything bad, or good, per se. It certainly isn't an indictment of modern boxing. It's just a recognition of how boxing has changed and why.

And so while even modern bare knuckle isn't using old timey boxing concepts that still doesn't give you a hint about its relevance to modern combat sports of any kind?