Kick Boxing 1930's

[Xue Sheng]

Sorry but I still stick to my opinion.

That's fine, I'm not really trying to change it.

But I still find it hard to make any meaningful judgment based solelyon old videos. And the statement "Very difficult to find anyone withdirect experience" means it is hard to find out the truth of it, does notmean it is impossible, if someone wants to know the reality of it then they look if not... they don't. Could be they are films of bad fights or fighters too.

There is or was a film floating around that was a fightbetween the Head of the Southern Wu Taijiquan family and I believe a whitecrane guy. It has been shown as everything from proof how bad CMA is to proofhow good CMA is. The reality is that at the time no one could quite figure outwhy the head of the Wu family was in this fight at all, there was a youngermember people thought should fight. But regardless it was much like an AliFrazer fight when it came to ticket sales and audience numbers. However thetruth of the fight was that the people there and all the martial artists therein the audience felt it was a rather pathetic fight. People were booing and thefight was pretty much stopped to prevent a riot and to prevent a major embarrassmentto the Head of the Wu family. It was a bad example of the CMA fighting ofeither style at the time, even the CMA guys that were there through it was badand I know this because my Taiji sifu was there with his sifu.

You can't judge any style of fighting on a video or claim itbetter or worse than another or better now than it used to be. At best you canonly judge the fighters and they may or may not be a good representation ofthat style. So without a direct attestation from someone there you really can’ttell much.

But if you want to believe that, that’s cool, you may or maynot be correct… that is all I am getting at.

 

[punisher73]

All of what you stated has already be stated so nothing new. Yes hand position is based on the rules of the target. If the body is the target then the hands will natrually come down. No disagreeing there either. However even with the rules once you protect the handd with gloves it is only logical to then use what is best for fear of not breaking the hand. You will never see any MMA fighter stand up right with hands inverted, never.

Just by saying they used this stance and this way to protect the hands you are defacto saying that the way is flawed and not the best way to do it. You only do it this way becasue if I did it the better way I would break my hand. Put some protection on and I would use this way. Well then you are proving the argument that take away all conserns then it is better to do it this way. So if you pitted a guy with no gloves vs. the guy with gloves then the guy with gloves would have a better stance and style vs. the guy with no gloves. Put gloves on that bare knuckle guy and still have him fight the same way would be pointless as he nolonger would fear injury to his hands.

So your statements just reinforced to me my opinion.

So again, you are basing your "inverted hands" theory on old staged photos and not actual techniques that were taught at the time (look through some of the free old boxing manuals that Mr. Lawson has posted for free). I also never said that the gaurd position or where they held their hands was to protect them. I said that they delivered more body punches so they didn't risk breaking their hands in the fights because they were so long.

You are creating and twisting arguments that don't have a basis in logic.

Put gloves on that bare knuckle guy and still have him fight the same way would be pointless as he nolonger would fear injury to his hands.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the fighters being better, only that they would adapt to take advantage of the new rules. So to apply your logic of "better", take away the boxing gloves and wraps of today's pro boxers and add in foot stomps and hip tosses and then give it a few decades and when they go back to what bareknuckle fighting looked like they would be better fighters? Huh?

 

[punisher73]

Very difficult to find anyone with direct experience that could be useful in determining that. Just like people try to compare old school football (american) with the game today. Just can't be done. Like it has already been stated the rules were different back then for that sport also. But all of the old time guys all say that the athletes today are bigger faster and stronger because of better knowledge of everything. All of that is a part of the evolution. The basics are the same but the advancement is in the details and the approach. Understanding better concepts that make you faster, stronger, bigger.
.

No drugs make them bigger, faster and stronger. Better equipment just makes them last longer for the damage they inflict on their own bodies.

 

[ATC]

No drugs make them bigger, faster and stronger. Better equipment just makes them last longer for the damage they inflict on their own bodies.

For some sure, but not all. It is a fact that we on a whole are bigger that our ancestors. The average height and weight of man and woman is larger. New and better training methods also make them all that is better also.

 

[frank raud]

. I still think the fighters of today have better movement and use science to help advance techniques. We know so much more about how to generate reach and power. pretty .

Which of course explains why Bruce Lee took the straight lead directly from Jim Driscoll to use as the basis of JKD.

 

[frank raud]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eha9nEcrMqQ&feature=related Notice how Jack Dempsey holds his hands? Although he was definitely from the gloved era, some of his trainers were old school BKB boxers. Think a modern boxer would fair well against Dempsey in his prime?

 

[ATC]

So again, you are basing your "inverted hands" theory on old staged photos and not actual techniques that were taught at the time (look through some of the free old boxing manuals that Mr. Lawson has posted for free). I also never said that the gaurd position or where they held their hands was to protect them. I said that they delivered more body punches so they didn't risk breaking their hands in the fights because they were so long.

Not just the hands, but the stances, techniques, and training methods, the entire shabang. Todays stances and body techniques are just as effective, better in fact. If not then why are the old techniques not use, regardless of rules? Many techniques carried over while some just went to the way side for the sake of fighting in general just advancing.

You are creating and twisting arguments that don't have a basis in logic.

That is your perception, and that is fine with me but I do see it that way.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the fighters being better, only that they would adapt to take advantage of the new rules. So to apply your logic of "better", take away the boxing gloves and wraps of today's pro boxers and add in foot stomps and hip tosses and then give it a few decades and when they go back to what bareknuckle fighting looked like they would be better fighters? Huh?

Not that I can see. Todays techniques would nullify a great deal of those techniques. They did not even have a jab back then. Like you said mostly power punches. Run into a few stiff jabs while trying to get close enough to foot stomp and that foot stomp goes away. Hip toss would require me to enguage in a grapple, well that is ok as that is one technique that is still use. I did not say all techniques went away just the ones that were no good and evolved away. That is that stance and the hand position. Now days we have also added more techniques as well. More footwork, more punches on diferent angles and so on.

Being better does not mean that today they don't use some of what use to be used, it means that they have taken away some and added some, regardless of the rules. The rules just exposed a need to change faster than no rules changes. The change may have come anyway but because of the rules it just happened much faster. Again in my opinion.

 

[ATC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eha9nEcrMqQ&feature=related Notice how Jack Dempsey holds his hands? Although he was definitely from the gloved era, some of his trainers were old school BKB boxers. Think a modern boxer would fair well against Dempsey in his prime?

Sure do. Dempsey for his time was one of the best. A great brawler. As this fight clearly shows his opponent is right there in front of him, not moving and attempting to brawl with him. Dempsey on the other hand was clearly a step ahead as he had way more movement. Dempsey was not fast by any means but he was one tough SOB. But even in his prime for todays fighter I am not sure he could land enough punches without getting hit multiple times and then break down in the end and be KO'd even. However we will never know because like I stated with my football analogy, we will never know because we cannot have anyone from that time fight anyone from this time. The best we can do is have someone try to emulate the style of old.

The rules have not chaned that much from Dempsey's time till now so why do we see not a single boxer fight this way anymore? Because someone found a better way. Then others follwed suite.

Just take swimming as a simple example. With todays training methods and better knowledge of the body and how to do things, the fastest times in the early and mid 1900's by men, are matched and surpassed by todays women.

 

[frank raud]

They did not even have a jab back then.

I'm curious, as you keep making statements about what they had or didn't have "Back then", yet seemed unaware of some fairly basic knowledge on BKB as listed in this http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...ances-Through-History&highlight=boxing+stance . Have you studied at all, any BKB styles prior to making this thread?

PS. Yes, it is true, they did not have a jab. However, a jab is less effective in a sideways stance than it is when your hips are squared. There were several techniques used in a similar fashion to a jab, do you know what they are?

 

[jks9199]

All of what you stated has already be stated so nothing new. Yes hand position is based on the rules of the target. If the body is the target then the hands will natrually come down. No disagreeing there either. However even with the rules once you protect the handd with gloves it is only logical to then use what is best for fear of not breaking the hand. You will never see any MMA fighter stand up right with hands inverted, never.

Just by saying they used this stance and this way to protect the hands you are defacto saying that the way is flawed and not the best way to do it. You only do it this way becasue if I did it the better way I would break my hand. Put some protection on and I would use this way. Well then you are proving the argument that take away all conserns then it is better to do it this way. So if you pitted a guy with no gloves vs. the guy with gloves then the guy with gloves would have a better stance and style vs. the guy with no gloves. Put gloves on that bare knuckle guy and still have him fight the same way would be pointless as he nolonger would fear injury to his hands.

So your statements just reinforced to me my opinion.

It's not that one approach or another is "flawed." Each approach reflects the needs and goals of the situation. For sporting events, hand positions are dictated by the rules, and in the case of MMA, by the fighter's preference of fighting mode. A grappler or ground fighter's stance and hand position is selected to afford the best opportunity to trap and perform takedowns. A stand-up fighter will have more of a boxer's stance, with some alterations related to defending takedowns. As we look at historic fighting stances, we have to consider the difference in targets and rules. The head is a crappy target to strike with the fist, as a general rule. With proper fist formation and conditioning, sure, you can strike the head without breaking your own hand... but it's still easy to break the hand striking the head. Body shots become more important. (See the thread about where "the mark" is...) Stances and hand positions reflect that.

It's also important to recognize that the static poses we see for the older stuff are often reflections of other needs -- like very long camera exposures, limited framing... or even just a desire to present a certain image for a book illustration. Remember in the first Rocky movie; Rocky's big picture above the ring looks like he's cowering, while Apollo Creed's looks confident and like he's already won. A lot of the old savate videos and clips posted were clearly set up as exhibitions. I suspect that a true match wouldn't look quite the same... Does a sparring exercise in class look exactly like a real match? Or the rules demo before a tournament resemble the fights within the tournament?

There's a classic picture of John Sullivan that I'll use to illustrate this:

I suspect that this pose was more almost a portrait; I doubt he kept his legs so straight, and I suspect his arms were probably looser, among other things.

 

[ATC]

Well I have my opinions and you have yours. I made my points and counter points and you made yours. You believe what you will, and I will as well. I am not here to convince you of anything and you surely won't convinceme of what I don't believe. There is no way to truely compare the two eras but that is why we can only have two opposed points of view and the debate will be never ending. With that said I leave this thread for others to read and debate because we seem to be at the beginning of the circle.

 

[Cyriacus]

Personally, i think both have their Perks.
I prefer the Modern Style for the way it Moves;
BUT, im inclined to prefer the Old Style for being more Power Dedicated.

Just my Contribution.

 

[Buka]

Sorry to jump in so late, the storm wreaked havoc with the power. Coming up in a week, is the anniversary (Sept 7, 1892) of Gentleman Jim Corbett defeating John L. Sullivan. Corbett changed boxing forever. He was the first boxer to use quick and elusive footwork, a great jab, and he is credited with inventing the left hook that grew to what boxing knows today. Boxing went from a slower, steadier smashing of men of "who had the better punch" to who can box.

 

[ATC]

Sorry to jump in so late, the storm wreaked havoc with the power. Coming up in a week, is the anniversary (Sept 7, 1892) of Gentleman Jim Corbett defeating John L. Sullivan. Corbett changed boxing forever. He was the first boxer to use quick and elusive footwork, a great jab, and he is credited with inventing the left hook that grew to what boxing knows today. Boxing went from a slower, steadier smashing of men of "who had the better punch" to who can box.

Yep a point in time where we can see the evolution take place.