»

[tmd]

There's a lot said around the Web about the weakness of Kyokushin coz we don't punch to the face and thought I should bring this snippet of info to the attention of the forum...

It was on a UK based panel show/ humorous quiz called QI were you are penalized for uninteresting or obvious answers and a question came up about old fashioned bare fist boxing and they said their (well funded BBC) had found that the majority of knockouts were from kidney strikes etc as they didn't punch that often to the face as it was too easy to break your hand.

They also said their were no recorded deaths in Boxing until Gloves started to be worn as with the gloved hand you can fight for longer, build up more damage and eventually kill someone with out damaging your hand.

Not my info just thought it was interesting.

[sandman]

Osu, tmd. The bit about boxing with the gloves being more deadly in the long term - I've heard something like that before as well. While not immediately obvious, it does make sense when you think about it.

[shidokanatlanta]

there were more deaths prior to the introduction of gloves. bare knuckle boxing became illegal in many places. the gloves made the sport safer. over time the rules changed even after gloves came to be used (i.e. addition of the standing 8 count, sending the other boxer to a neutral corner, where before this a fighter could stand over an opponent and hit him when he got to one knee). i'm sure that the bare knuckle era was much more dangerous.

[Dent]

Osu!

I think it's important to remember that the boxing glove has been around since 1734 (Pictorial History of Boxing - Andre and Fleischer), and that deaths have occurred in both gloved and bare knuckle bouts.

If we're discussing safety, I think that the number of rounds fought in the days of Figg, Broughton and the like were pretty punishing, with some fights going for over an hour. That must have had a significant effect on the cumulative damage sustained. By the time we add in a certain lack of medical facilities and expertise, I'd be very surprised if many deaths didn't occur.

Osu!

[sandman]

Originally Posted by SHIDOKANATLANTA

there were more deaths prior to the introduction of gloves. bare knuckle boxing became illegal in many places. the gloves made the sport safer. over time the rules changed even after gloves came to be used (i.e. addition of the standing 8 count, sending the other boxer to a neutral corner, where before this a fighter could stand over an opponent and hit him when he got to one knee). i'm sure that the bare knuckle era was much more dangerous.

Originally Posted by Dent

Osu!

I think it's important to remember that the boxing glove has been around since 1734 (Pictorial History of Boxing - Andre and Fleischer), and that deaths have occurred in both gloved and bare knuckle bouts.

If we're discussing safety, I think that the number of rounds fought in the days of Figg, Broughton and the like were pretty punishing, with some fights going for over an hour. That must have had a significant effect on the cumulative damage sustained. By the time we add in a certain lack of medical facilities and expertise, I'd be very surprised if many deaths didn't occur.

Osu!

I stand corrected...

Osu!

I watched the same show as Tmd and must admit I was suprised. Gloves were introduced first as a training aid, as the gentry that sponsored and liked to rub shoulders with the fighters didn't like the damage. Most of the old fighters at the time called them mufflers and thought it would be the death of the sport, and it was.

After the first rules were introduced (following fatalities - not neccessarily IN the ring but often shortly afterwards) rounds came to an end if a fighter dropped to one knee, so many used that to avoid punishment - hence the extreme number of rounds. After a round ended they had thirty seconds to 'come up to scratch'

Hand injuries were common, so many fights were decided by throws and body blows.

I've been asked lots of times what was harder, knockdown or prize fighting and they weren't even in the same league. That's not to say todays champions couldn't have adapted and done well, but life was just tougher in general then and eye witness reports of terrible injuries received and IGNORED as they kept fighting for hours lead me to believe these were very very tough men.

Might be worth re-visiting here: http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/article_6.asp

Gary

[harukaze]

Originally Posted by GJEChamberlain

Osu!

I watched the same show as Tmd and must admit I was suprised. Gloves were introduced first as a training aid, as the gentry that sponsored and liked to rub shoulders with the fighters didn't like the damage. Most of the old fighters at the time called them mufflers and thought it would be the death of the sport, and it was.

After the first rules were introduced (following fatalities - not neccessarily IN the ring but often shortly afterwards) rounds came to an end if a fighter dropped to one knee, so many used that to avoid punishment - hence the extreme number of rounds. After a round ended they had thirty seconds to 'come up to scratch'

Hand injuries were common, so many fights were decided by throws and body blows.

I've been asked lots of times what was harder, knockdown or prize fighting and they weren't even in the same league. That's not to say todays champions couldn't have adapted and done well, but life was just tougher in general then and eye witness reports of terrible injuries received and IGNORED as they kept fighting for hours lead me to believe these were very very tough men.

Might be worth re-visiting here: Iain Abernethy.com - Articles

Gary

Hey, that article's a nice find! Good rep for that!

[shinobijesus]

people were tough as nails way back in the day. one of these bjj fighters today claims to have the longest fight in history at about 3 hours long but wiki disputes it here -

It is often claimed that that fight is the longest fight in history; however, that distinction belongs to a wrestling match at 1912 Olympics that lasted 11 hours and 40 minutes.

[sandman]

Originally Posted by shinobijesus

people were tough as nails way back in the day. one of these bjj fighters today claims to have the longest fight in history at about 3 hours long but wiki disputes it here -

It is often claimed that that fight is the longest fight in history; however, that distinction belongs to a wrestling match at 1912 Olympics that lasted 11 hours and 40 minutes.

I can't even sleep for 11 hours / 40 minutes, nevermind fight that long...

[Dent]

Osu!

And it should be mentioned that that match was essentially the final match of the division. Both men had wrestled extensively prior to that bout. Tough as nails doesn't even begin to cover it...

I also find the artists renderings from the early days of boxing to be very interesting. The best body type for the bareknuckle days seemed to be a very thick trunk. I'm sure this was to offset the body blows.

Osu!

[tmd]

I'd rather train to knock them out in 11.4 Seconds

The fact that some disagree I can understand but these were reported as FACT'S by very well funded researchers, I'm not saying anyones is right or wrong and I'm forever getting the hump with the BBC for the way they deliver their version of events (I.E> the left wing version) as always right.

My point is this firstly these guys were great all round fighters, it was not just a case of punching each other in the head repeatedly until one of them fell down as fort one thing the guys had would be mush.

That Knockdown or even BBJ is possibly more comparable with the old style fighting tournaments than modern day boxing.

That you should learn some open hand techs for your jodan strikes

And that the path a sport takes can be diverse or even perverted. If you described MMA as closer to the old way boxing used to be you'd be called mad by most but look at it, study it and you'll find it has more in common than modern boxing does.

There have been numerous studies regarding repeated head trauma relating to Boxing and several concluded that the Gloves and worst Head Guards interfered with the bodies natural brain protective functions (shut down and recover) these studies were conducted to prove boxing dangerous - fools, of cause it's dangerous, we wouldn't do these things if they weren't dangerous! But in all seriousness this does back up the findings of the BBC re: The fact that more REPORTED deaths have happened since the gloved days.

I think it was John Contiee who said it best "Sure there have been serious injuries in Boxing, even Deaths but none of them serious." hAh?

I have seen, even nearly goaded into a few bare fist matches and from what I saw a lot of these guys would get mullered by a top quality knockdown fighter because of two things; firstly there are still some rules and they have nothing like the level of conditioning a top level athlete does they are just hard B's (most of them). Secondly if you take Gary's info from another post, be fit, be skilled and fight like they just shot your dog and I can name a fair few knockdown fighters that off the tourney matt could fulfill this criteria nicely.

Were they harder in the good old days? Was life tougher then? It sure was if you compare me with my Granddad, and it has so far been a lot easier for my kids than it was me but there are still slums, there is still poverty and there are still people who kick there kids or put fags out on them for fun so I think in our society which is probably 5 times the size it was back then we probably still have as many hard B's as they did, but now there are more constructive ways to fight your way out of the Ghetto so maybe we think there is less fight in the those who make it out because they seem more controlled - reason, money and management. Joe Calzagie breaks his hand in a bar brawl at 19 and all of a sudden he has just waved goodbye to a potentially lucrative carrier - so he's protected, shadowed and looked after - is he any less of a fighter than those guys from 300-400-1000 years ago, no he just lives in different times.

[Dent]

Osu!

Originally Posted by tmd

The fact that some disagree I can understand but these were reported as FACT'S by very well funded researchers, I'm not saying anyones is right or wrong and I'm forever getting the hump with the BBC for the way they deliver their version of events (I.E> the left wing version) as always right.

I think that having a nice, publicly-funded , show means that I can reach whichever conclusion I choose to.

Osu!

[shinobijesus]

Originally Posted by tmd

I think in our society which is probably 5 times the size it was back then we probably still have as many hard B's as they did, but now there are more constructive ways to fight your way out of the Ghetto so maybe we think there is less fight in the those who make it out because they seem more controlled - reason, money and management. Joe Calzagie breaks his hand in a bar brawl at 19 and all of a sudden he has just waved goodbye to a potentially lucrative carrier - so he's protected, shadowed and looked after - is he any less of a fighter than those guys from 300-400-1000 years ago, no he just lives in different times.

before i address the quote, i want to point out im not arguing the point of when there was more or less deaths in boxing. im pretty much 50/50 on the info presented about the dangers of boxing.

as for the quote and how hard people are, yes Calzage and anyone alive today is less of a fighter than people from centuries ago. im thinking of really broad trends when i make this conclusion but that is my opinion.

you dont even have to look at the broader trends to see people arent as strong as they used to be. you can look specifically at the topics at hand - martial arts. boxing doesnt go for 20-25 rounds anymore and wrestling isnt one of the most prominent Olympic events anymore. the Olympics started around men competing in grueling ways. you know what the most prominent events were when i turned on the Olympics this last time around? swimming and curling......

Osu!

People were tougher even 50 years ago! I'm not saying better fighters, as 'quality training + attitude = ability' and that formula is universal. I mean the general population is getting soft.

Proof? I grew up in a village where it was common for people in their 70's and 80's to work all day in the fields. The younger men in their prime were all tough guys who could go a bit when required. Arguments were settled on the spot, with a pint afterwards and no hard feelings. Even the wives walked for miles to bring them their food and drink and the kids came home from school and went straight out to help with hard physical graft. This is not some misty eyed fantasy of Olde England - I remember it well!

Today I am far more likely to be run over by someone on an electric scooter than die of overwork!

Gary

[shidokanatlanta]

a boxer of 100 years ago would lose against boxers of today. life in general was tougher for people of that time and the sport was different (i.e. rules). boxing of that time did not resemble mma of today either. most men of that time knew how fight to some degree (also shoot, track, hunt, etc.). but a boxer of that time would lose to hatton, klitchko, maywether, etc. sure the rule were different, but i assure that most boxers can fight (outside of the current rules of the sport, which are designed to emphasize the skill of punching).

Osu! Shidokanatlanta

Really? I doubt if many of todays top boxers, with their huge purses, support teams and millionaire lifestyles would even consider fighting bare-knuckle for as many rounds as it took, often until you couldn't see or stand - as per prize fighting. It was a very hard and cruel game, with it's own customs and skills.

The boxers, and indeed all combat athletes of today are doubtless sharper, better fed and better trained. Having been to some top pro boxing bouts, countless knockdown tournaments AND a traditional bare-knuckle bout - I know who I think were tougher!

Gary

[shidokanatlanta]

having lived the life of a pro boxer (as well as a trainer and promoter of the sport), i disagree. boxers don't start out with millions of dollars. many of the champions we see come from working class upbringing. the well to do kid rarely becomes a fighter. most people who box don't get to the high level big money.

there are many boxers that are like other martial artist. countless train for the sake of training and some guys compete (as amateur and professionals) to test themselves never making it to the millions of dollars. my fighters also box (by the phil sehenuk, who is in a video clip in a samurai shidokan thread, just had his professional boxing debut). they fight because they like to fight. if a guy becomes a world champion and makes millions, he worked really hard to do that and he is still a fighter (behind the money and fame).

professional athletes make a lot of money in today's sports and many don't remain humble, but they are still world class athletes. i think presemt boxers would beat those of the past, just like bolt (100 m gold medalist and world record holder) would outrun the sprinter's of the past.

Osu! Shidokanatlanta

You may well be right! We'll never know. My only experience of seeing a 'proper' bout of bare-knuckle was at a famous horse fair at Appleby-in-Westmorland in the early 70's

Two travellers fell out over a horse deal and within minutes they were stripped to the waist and going at it in a makeshift ring. (Just a tow-rope held by spectators to make a circle) Blood flowed and no-one even attempted to put a stop to it until one had had enough. As I remember it took about twenty minutes. As for rules, if one went down the other stepped back and let him get back to his feet, other to that it was all-in, throws as well. Kicking was useless as it was a muddy field. They both moved well and hit extremely hard. I can still picture and hear it now after all these years. For sheer toughness and gameness I've seen little in MA or combat sports that came close.

I still think if that was just 'normal' bare-knuckle fighters, what would the champions have been like?

Gary

[sandman]

Osu!

As for who wins a bout between the bare-knuckles fighter of old vs the boxer or MMA expert of today, I think it may come down yet again to whose rules are they fighting? All other things being equal, I think in a modern MMA rules fight, the winner is the modern MMA guy, and vice versa.

The old school guy is no doubt a tough breed, able to take one hell of a licking and keep on ticking, while the modern guy has to his advantage all the sports-science knowledge that has been accumulated over the years. Its an interesting comparison - the old Rocky 4 training in the snow and cold with nothing but basic implements and a whole lot of heart vs Ivan Drago with the top of the line equipment, not to mention the steroids... The only thing I'm certain of is that when the winner is announced he wouldn't make a big cheesy speech to a crowd full of Russians about how great it was that they all changed together

[Dent]

Osu!

Horses for courses...

I'd say that bringing a man forward in time, or sending back a champion of today to face a champion of yesteryear means that the home time advantage will be the determining factor.

The sharper skills and rule set of today would stymie the bare-knuckle champ, while the wider latitude and riskier punching of the 1700's would upset the modern lad.

I do know which one I'd prefer to have on my side though...

Osu!