Fightin' Irish

[nasigoreng]

Does anyone have any historical information on the evolution of boxing in England/Ireland.

The boxing stance is quite distinct (think Notre Dame colors). The arms held in front of the chest area and are turned so the fighter's wrists are facing up (or facing fighter's face).
I've seen boxing done like this most recently in the movie Gangs of NY (also in Far and Away) and I'm wondering :

1) Why would they fight like this? Is what we see in those movies accurate? Are there any advantages to this stance?

2) Is it derived from a weapon art (knife fighting) like Filipino boxing?

3) When/ how did the transition from this style to modern boxing occur?

4) What were the influences leading to the development of contemporary boxing?


Cheers

[swan104]

I've wondered this myself, but never got round to asking that question on here. It seems like the FMA's had an influence on boxing.

Dan Inosanto in the JKD Seminar on the Game of Death DVD quickly talks about this style of boxing compared to Filipino boxing, where the hands are held guard up and similar to holding sticks.

I'm interested in what caused boxing to evolve?

[swan104]

One more thing to all Muay Thai ppl and MA historians out there...

What were the boxing/hand tools in Muay Thai like in the late 19th Century? I know boxing has had a influence on MT, but was their any signifcant change in the way they boxed compared to now?

[pseudoswitch]

Hi Nasigoreng,

Those are very good questions! I too, like Steven, have been wondering about the origins of modern boxing as opposed to the more traditional bare knuckle styles of the past. Strangley enough, i see so many parallels in the bare knuckle style and traditional Wing Chun, i.e. the weight on the rear, on guard hand positions, centre line strategy, deflective parrying etc.

I've been reading some articles on 'old style' boxing, there are some excellent transcriptions and scans of very old boxing manuals, mostly from the mid 19th century i think. They are fantastic and well worth a look:

http://stickgrappler.tripod.com/wma/onlineboxman.html

The illustrations in these books are excellent, some of the moves you see in Gangs of New York are shown, including some 'parrying' moves, which, if you've done any Wing Chun, will look very very familiar

My fav is John L. Sullivan's Boxing: A Manual devoted to the Art of Self Defense (1907?):

http://keith.martialartsman.net/american/gallery/sullivanManual.html

(Notice in the first few illustrations, the fists are vertical, not horizontal! Only body shots employ the horizontal fist)

This is a very interesting subject!

Cheers!

pseudo

[amadeus]

1) yes those stances are accurate.

2) yes modern boxing was derived largely from a weapon art, mostly european fencing.

3) the change in stance seems to have come about shortly after boxers started wearing gloves.

4) i'm unsure on this one but my theory is that wearing gloves in the old stance impeaded vision.

BTW.... as for the comment comparing WC and boxing, there is a theory that WC was at least partially influenced by western boxing.

[grimel]

Rules changes after gloves. The tripping/grappling went away and the more modern stance evolved as a better way to WHACK someone.

Sounds good at least.

[MasterChief]

It's accurate, though I don't know if it evolved from fencing. It also may have protected the fingers from getting broken when blocking shots with hands without gloves. It was not only England/Ireland, however, U.S. boxers like Sullivan also used that style, very effectively.

I think it propagated primarily because that's what people taught other people, until more effective stances came about.

[cokebottle]

http://ahfaa.org/boxingstance.htm

does this mean that you should be punching someone differently with gloves and without??

[redazncommieDXP]

Originally posted by cokebottle
http://ahfaa.org/boxingstance.htm

does this mean that you should be punching someone differently with gloves and without??

well, yeah, the gloves do make a big difference. a lot of gloves have wrist support, which lets you hit in some funny ways if you want to. also, gloves are padded, which lets you hit with more parts of your hand, all with the same effect. punching without gloves takes a couple more factors into consideration, which i don't want to bore you with.

[huey]

http://ahfaa.org/boxingstance.htm

Now what about the hands? Why did they hold them vertical or with the knuckles pointing at the other guy? Until the use of gloves became common in the ring, pugilists struck with a vertical fist nearly all the time. Why did they use the vertical fist? First reason is that it is just plain safer to hit with a vertical fist than a horizontal one. There is less chance of injury, especially on any swinging type of punches. They did use a horizontal fist when the target warranted one. The side of the neck is a good example of such a target. Another benefit of the vertical fist is the slight reach advantage you get when using it. It is not a huge difference, maybe just an inch, but every little bit helps. That punch that might have only been a glancing blow with a horizontal fist now catches with a vertical fist

[grubbogoppoly]

I fail to see how the vertical fist gives you more reach. It seems to me it would be the other way around. A vertical fist is just a punch that was not turned over. Correct? If you turn it over doesn't it give you some extra distance.

[cokebottle]

I fail to see how the vertical fist gives you more reach. It seems to me it would be the other way around. A vertical fist is just a punch that was not turned over. Correct? If you turn it over doesn't it give you some extra distance.

maybe the author means hooks with a vertical fist have a longer reach. not straight punches ???

[huey]

if you go to the site the author demonstrates the point with a little excersize. whether i believe it or not he does.

[briggfoot]

could the old style of boxing where throws and elbows and other stuff was allowed.
i know there used to be less restrictions on strikes and target areas so maybe that would effect the hand position.

just a possibility

[Yango]

1) Why would they fight like this? Is what we see in those movies accurate? Are there any advantages to this stance?

1. Quite simply, it's the style that was taught to them . More in depth, though the most forward hand gave jabs, crosses, and (A FEW) blocks and VERY (emphasis on VERY) few and (again VERY) simple 1-step locking techniques. The inner hand was for haymakers, face and (A FEW) body blocks, I put emphasis on few because that's there the funny stance comes in; they would hop back and fourth like little monkeys to evade shots and to get in close quick to deliver blows (see now why the forward hand was out? a quick hop with a jab-like motion can give you quick closing distance and some power behind your snap since the hand is already out (kinda evens out the fact your hand is out so far, and the hand is almost primed to connect), but if the person delivers a blow whilst the boxer is hopping forward, the boxer's hand is already out to give a block, just enough, to hold the arm and pop the opponent in the face and from there, most irish boxers would simply hop back). English fighters usually kept their inner (right, mostly) hand lower, sometimes level. (look up old boxing in the United states, the techniques of Early boxing in America is almost identical to Irish boxing. A lot of boxers in America were not Irish, but English and trained using English techniques that that time). Irish boxing is cleaner, and simpler, but effective for precision strikes. British boxing is brutal and they would often grapple and eye gogue, bite and kick depending on their opponent.

2) Is it derived from a weapon art (knife fighting) like Filipino boxing?

I don't think so. Like the bagpipe, the Origin of Irish and English fighting seems to have a Middle Eastern or North African origin. I am almost certain it's Mediterranean in origin. It looks most familiar with Egyptian hand to hand fighting used by citizens. The stance and hand placement istelf is too awkward to have held any effective shield short of a buckler; but even so the hand placement is also not effective for holding any type of weapon that would use a buckler short of a mace (which makes no sence because most knights used maces, and not common folk, who would have used bucklers). But anything's possible. I'll have to refer to greek shields for this one. This area is too outside of what I looked up to say anything definitive.


3) When/ how did the transition from this style to modern boxing occur?

Short Answer: Jack Johnson. Long Answer: Jack Johnson's fighting style. Look him up. I fear if I get started on him, I'll never stop! Although not much to look at then, his style-type is the prototype of all modern Boxing. I say style-type because there were others known to fight similar to him much earlier than him, but were for the most part, sideshow boxers or street fighters, or even older like Civil War jailhouse fighters and fighters who fought for slave owners during their fights on plantations.

4) What were the influences leading to the development of contemporary boxing?

From there it goes from boxer becoming trainer, or different boxing styles from different boxing areas (Philly boxers, for example, are known for their left hook). Sometimes a person brings in mixed styles and raises the bar for everyone. Jack Johnson, for example. Another is Mike Tyson; who, unknown to most, brought a VERY little of the infamous 52 block style fighting into the ring in small spurts (do you doubt me? look up an old interview where his old trainer was quoted to say "He has moves that you have yet to see)...

Cheers Back at ya!