The Bare knuckles period

[billeau2]

I misunderstood. I thought the question was when did it all mix into modern boxing not when did it start.

When it started is easy; late 18th century sees the beginning, 1820s sees the formalization, the sparring masters are the boxers you are looking for. When Sparring was a sport.

It is a question of refinements. In the science of combatives, in which the late great Marine Donn Draeger was instrumental in founding as a science, we can see Arts that have existed for hundreds of years, when we are lucky. We can see how they were used during peeriods like the Warring States in Japan, when they were refined into Ju Jutsu systems during the Edo period, etc. Boxing is an opportunity for some to see the same sort of developments in a shorter time frame.

Historically Black fighters contributed a great deal to the technical aspects, because they were forced to fight opponents regularly, and because they had movement skills as a culture allowing them to perfect aspects of boxing footwork. I think this matters... Does not mean that other cultures and people did not also make contributions as well.

[billeau2]

You couldn't teach a fish to swim.

[billeau2]

All of a sudden Bronny has interest in men and eras where he has already expressed the entire time he has been here he has no interest.


Wonder what hand wrought this deed.


Finding out Gypsy wasn't. Cute as ****.

[Marchegiano]

I was actually hoping someone would seize upon that statement. The color line created a laboratory of sorts. Black fighters had to fight the same pool of opponents over and over. This created a difference in strategy and and circumstances. The skills needed to fight opponents one meets on occasion might translate slightly different when trying to beat an opponent who knows you well.

Aside from that Irish and Black Urban dwellers both had dance styles that were part of combat movements. The so called "Jig" was a mix of both elements probably originally founded in the Five Points Hood.

The crucible that forges great fighters from extreme circumstances is alas a melting pot that incorporates the best innovations... eventually!

That's beautifully written

Neither side of the fore bearers, imo, are superior to the mix.

That is to say i don't see modernized boxers in the bare knuckle community. In fact, I might even be swayed into claiming Pygmachia and Pyx more closely resemble modern boxing and the period between the 18th-early 20th centuries is a period of rediscovery.


Even if we give credit to a man like Jack Randall, The Nonpareil before Dempsey, for super basic techniques like the cross or pairing the cross behind the jab. If we write by the card he is not the inventor but rather the popularizer. I may, off the cuff and in the context of conversation call him the inventor of the 1,2, but it's like understood by all, even people who love to take issue with my works, I don't mean to imply there is zero evidence anyone ever threw two straights back to back. You will see that found as old as Egyptian and Sumerian art can provide and all readers seem happy with the idea basic punches were known and thrown before society was formed let alone sport.

And so, take it a step farther, do you really believe I can't find you both a description and art depicting a corkscrew punch?

The real pioneers are too ancient to know and so the best we have is the men who rediscovered.

Heavy focus on this rediscovery has fans looking at the progression of sport like as if it represents a progression of man. This is a misleading temptress, the mixing that was allowed by the Greeks, was not reintroduced to boxing until world wars were happening.




Allow me my own form of grand speech:

For 1,938 year our lord Apollo slept unwilling to show mortals the Pykes or Arete until the most disgusting force in human history dared claim his ritual. The avatar, the textbook, the measure in which all others must find argument against; Joe Louis is the GOAT.

[billeau2]

That's beautifully written

Neither side of the fore bearers, imo, are superior to the mix.

That is to say i don't see modernized boxers in the bare knuckle community. In fact, I might even be swayed into claiming Pygmachia and Pyx more closely resemble modern boxing and the period between the 18th-early 20th centuries is a period of rediscovery.


Even if we give credit to a man like Jack Randall, The Nonpareil before Dempsey, for super basic techniques like the cross or pairing the cross behind the jab. If we write by the card he is not the inventor but rather the popularizer. I may, off the cuff and in the context of conversation call him the inventor of the 1,2, but it's like understood by all, even people who love to take issue with my works, I don't mean to imply there is zero evidence anyone ever threw two straights back to back. You will see that found as old as Egyptian and Sumerian art can provide and all readers seem happy with the idea basic punches were known and thrown before society was formed let alone sport.

And so, take it a step farther, do you really believe I can't find you both a description and art depicting a corkscrew punch?

The real pioneers are too ancient to know and so the best we have is the men who rediscovered.

Heavy focus on this rediscovery has fans looking at the progression of sport like as if it represents a progression of man. This is a misleading temptress, the mixing that was allowed by the Greeks, was not reintroduced to boxing until world wars were happening.




Allow me my own form of grand speech:

For 1,938 year our lord Apollo slept unwilling to show mortals the Pykes or Arete until the most disgusting force in human history dared claim his ritual. The avatar, the textbook, the measure in which all others must find argument against; Joe Louis is the GOAT.

It is not that punches were invented, rather it is how things are combined and refined for a purpose. Until Dempsey squared up, (I use Dempsey as an obvious goal post, but Gans, and others, etc...) combinations as we see them technically in a puncher like Louis, could not exist. I do not assert this chauvanistically, rather I simply take the combination of conditions and development of the sport... Moving the body one piece at a time is not a fencing skill. hard rotational movement, and weight drops with full contact would break a hand with no reinforcements like a glove and tape.

We know that other punching did have the hand reinforced... With things like the Cestus (sp?), and we know that boxing styles from other cultures understood punching dynamics... But Western boxing needed men like JJ and Dempsey to evolve into a coda of techniques, punches, and strategies we know of as classical boxing. I say this as someone who does not think classical is even "better." Just different. The skill happened in the space between oneself and the opponent, to set up the attack, like a fencer does...

JJ parried and eventually Dempsey slipped the shot. This can only happen at a distance of less than three feet from the opponent.

[Bronson66]

It is not that punches were invented, rather it is how things are combined and refined for a purpose. Until Dempsey squared up, (I use Dempsey as an obvious goal post, but Gans, and others, etc...) combinations as we see them technically in a puncher like Louis, could not exist. I do not assert this chauvanistically, rather I simply take the combination of conditions and development of the sport... Moving the body one piece at a time is not a fencing skill. hard rotational movement, and weight drops with full contact would break a hand with no reinforcements like a glove and tape.

We know that other punching did have the hand reinforced... With things like the Cestus (sp?), and we know that boxing styles from other cultures understood punching dynamics... But Western boxing needed men like JJ and Dempsey to evolve into a coda of techniques, punches, and strategies we know of as classical boxing. I say this as someone who does not think classical is even "better." Just different. The skill happened in the space between oneself and the opponent, to set up the attack, like a fencer does...

JJ parried and eventually Dempsey slipped the shot. This can only happen at a distance of less than three feet from the opponent.

Corkscrew? Is there any mention of it before Kid McCoy.

Dutch Sam is credited with the uppercut, or undercut as it was first known . Who can say if he originated it?

[QueensburyRules]

Germany was the last nation state to leave Feudalism behind. With the advent of the new world and eventual World Wars came changes in conflict resolution. Europe was bound by different fencing traditions, The Iberians with their natural walking gait while weilding swords, German and Austro-Hungarian Saber Fencing, the vestiges of Italian Fencing... Like Brazil, the county fair became a way to advertise the newest combative ideas. Men like Figg would give lessons, and even entertain exhibition matches.

Boxing would be forged out of sword methodology combined with how people fought in the new urban expanses. It would be a while before technical skills really held sway. Grappling and folk wrestling styles were known by people. African and Irish dance and movement skills would develop, boxing clubs would contribute by creating a means to train hitting, and all the while the primacy of sword theory would create a distinct distance, timing and method for launching a boxing attack.

This meant that technique was still quite crude. Boxing was purely viewed as an attack and defend affair, it would take many moons for fighters to understand how to move different parts of the body to slip, to protect, and to counter the opponent. There was the occasional fighter who was lauded as using footwork and a more technical approach, but this has to be put in perspective.

Fights were long because fighters moved slowly and deliberately between launching at attack into the space between oneself and the opponent and coming to grips. We will never know exactly when the technical brilliance of a fighter like Johnson first came into focus. We know that JJ was a marvel, and that he created a very distinct method for parrying blows and gaining distance on the lead usng pronation... what we call a jab today. But I doubt he himself created these ideas in a vacuum.

So when did we start to see fighters with technical chops? Men who developed and used technique to become great and make it look effortless in the ring? Thoughts?

- - James Figg was the first known progenitor of modern boxing, but he was also giving sword and cudgel exhibitions that never took off like boxing did...simples...

Well known in bare knucks history that the fist needed to be protected from breakage that led to typical predator targeting of soft areas of opportunity. No Lion would dare tackle a wildebeest head on...duh!!!

[Marchegiano]

It is not that punches were invented, rather it is how things are combined and refined for a purpose. Until Dempsey squared up, (I use Dempsey as an obvious goal post, but Gans, and others, etc...) combinations as we see them technically in a puncher like Louis, could not exist. I do not assert this chauvanistically, rather I simply take the combination of conditions and development of the sport... Moving the body one piece at a time is not a fencing skill. hard rotational movement, and weight drops with full contact would break a hand with no reinforcements like a glove and tape.

We know that other punching did have the hand reinforced... With things like the Cestus (sp?), and we know that boxing styles from other cultures understood punching dynamics... But Western boxing needed men like JJ and Dempsey to evolve into a coda of techniques, punches, and strategies we know of as classical boxing. I say this as someone who does not think classical is even "better." Just different. The skill happened in the space between oneself and the opponent, to set up the attack, like a fencer does...

JJ parried and eventually Dempsey slipped the shot. This can only happen at a distance of less than three feet from the opponent.

Interesting way of saying white men had to use black men's techniques before those techniques gained any respect and even after the technique is popularized it is the white student's name most often associated with it.

The point was in terms of innovation the creators are at a deficit. I think you're calling it classical boxing? Fair enough, what Figg taught and even what Mendoza innovated becomes staple and distant from them. To the point where when I first started to post about Mendoza here absolutely no one knew his name. And can you tell me a technique from Figg's academy? My point, their additions to the game become the staple of it and make it difficult to trace and by trace evaluate their contributions to modern boxing. If not for me who here would know it was Bill Fuller and Aaron Hewlitt that made sparring a staple for training? Get me? It is hard to discern who had what impact leading into a figure like Jack Dempsey. As in, I'm still workin' on it ovah here.

I do see Dempsey's mixing of techniques from those before him regardless of race or class as the single best thing he did for boxing actually. You know, needed the success and all that but what makes him special isn't the men he beat, imo. Actually, in my opinion his record is nothing but circlejerk.

It is often I am on the critical end of Dempsey but that's because i don't glorify him by the terms popular in boxing communities. He didn't fight the best men he could have. His lineal title means nothing to me, and I do not acknowledge he or boxing was a world level sport, but his skillset is something of a marvel isn't it?

That said, despite many here being more than willing to say equality, or that significant mixing happened to create Dempsey, there is no evidence the adoption of black boxing into white boxing didn't do away with most of white boxing.

Likewise, there is no one qualified, period, IBRO, IBHOF, myself or any other poster here, to state the influence of Irish boxing boxing in bare knuckle. It is just as possible the Irish techniques overtook the English and were adopted by the English as it is any mixing.

So it bold to say things like evolution when in all reality adoption is just as likely a culprit.


Also, Science? In boxing? They cry every single time I mention science. Takes months of debate to pound science into their heads. Seen me speak to kinematic chains for years. Read my posts about biology and rules for years. If there was science in boxing then why am I explaining science of boxing to boxing fans and why do they deny medical science while citing it? There is one answer; ignorance.



Hell, let's be real. There's not a goddamn person here who cares about the truth or has any academic integrity at all. When I said small means stamina I stood alone. When I said Nat Fleischer made up lineal I stood alone. When I said Mendoza is the godfather of defense I stood alone. When I said power is not something you are born with I stood alone. Known for slaughtering the cows yeah? And when a detractor confesses a personal agenda mixed with a lack of understand and can't get off my **** so starts mentioning men who have only ever been mentioned by me prior, I stand alone.


So, let's be real, none of you are after any interest in any pioneer. You are after confirmation bias and will use any avenue, ally, or logical fallacy needed to attain it. Circlejerk sluts.


When I am done, and I can list pioneers as best history has to offer us, you and I both know I will receive little in way of thanks for my work and plenty in the way of argument.

Who has the most comprehensive history on the bodies? Is that my post is it? Hmm. Lots of talk abouts this forum covering the acts of bodies from men who certainly know TF they are talking.

Who has the most comprehensive list traditions? Oh gee ya don't ****ing say. Lots of talk of traditions from a gaggle of men who just got informed John L never heard the term lineal in his lifetime.


Before I go, Kaf used to argue with me against the very same stances he now employs against you. No matter what side of that debate you are on it is a thankless, friendless, path to report on what actually ****ing happened rather than flowery speech based on assumptions and myths propagated by men with absolutely no academic integrity. Then or now.


No one stood with me for academic integrity. At best I got Willow's acknowledgment, your advice, and Nelly's encouragement to smack down Bronny a bit. So I have no reason to believe any of you are anything more then circlejerk whores. Regardless of if I like you on a personal level or not. Because why? This mother ****er does have some god damn academic integrity and if I made nothing else clear, my ****ing work matters to me. Without me Dutch Sam doesn't get any mention. ****, anyone ever posted about the first Nonpariel? How about this though, anyone ever post about how you don't really need to know BK to understand QB doe? HMMM.

[Bronson66]

Interesting way of saying white men had to use black men's techniques before those techniques gained any respect and even after the technique is popularized it is the white student's name most often associated with it.

The point was in terms of innovation the creators are at a deficit. I think you're calling it classical boxing? Fair enough, what Figg taught and even what Mendoza innovated becomes staple and distant from them. To the point where when I first started to post about Mendoza here absolutely no one knew his name. And can you tell me a technique from Figg's academy? My point, their additions to the game become the staple of it and make it difficult to trace and by trace evaluate their contributions to modern boxing. If not for me who here would know it was Bill Fuller and Aaron Hewlitt that made sparring a staple for training? Get me? It is hard to discern who had what impact leading into a figure like Jack Dempsey. As in, I'm still workin' on it ovah here.

I do see Dempsey's mixing of techniques from those before him regardless of race or class as the single best thing he did for boxing actually. You know, needed the success and all that but what makes him special isn't the men he beat, imo. Actually, in my opinion his record is nothing but circlejerk.

It is often I am on the critical end of Dempsey but that's because i don't glorify him by the terms popular in boxing communities. He didn't fight the best men he could have. His lineal title means nothing to me, and I do not acknowledge he or boxing was a world level sport, but his skillset is something of a marvel isn't it?

That said, despite many here being more than willing to say equality, or that significant mixing happened to create Dempsey, there is no evidence the adoption of black boxing into white boxing didn't do away with most of white boxing.

Likewise, there is no one qualified, period, IBRO, IBHOF, myself or any other poster here, to state the influence of Irish boxing boxing in bare knuckle. It is just as possible the Irish techniques overtook the English and were adopted by the English as it is any mixing.

So it bold to say things like evolution when in all reality adoption is just as likely a culprit.


Also, Science? In boxing? They cry every single time I mention science. Takes months of debate to pound science into their heads. Seen me speak to kinematic chains for years. Read my posts about biology and rules for years. If there was science in boxing then why am I explaining science of boxing to boxing fans and why do they deny medical science while citing it? There is one answer; ignorance.



Hell, let's be real. There's not a goddamn person here who cares about the truth or has any academic integrity at all. When I said small means stamina I stood alone. When I said Nat Fleischer made up lineal I stood alone. When I said Mendoza is the godfather of defense I stood alone. When I said power is not something you are born with I stood alone. Known for slaughtering the cows yeah? And when a detractor confesses a personal agenda mixed with a lack of understand and can't get off my **** so starts mentioning men who have only ever been mentioned by me prior, I stand alone.


So, let's be real, none of you are after any interest in any pioneer. You are after confirmation bias and will use any avenue, ally, or logical fallacy needed to attain it. Circlejerk sluts.


When I am done, and I can list pioneers as best history has to offer us, you and I both know I will receive little in way of thanks for my work and plenty in the way of argument.

Who has the most comprehensive history on the bodies? Is that my post is it? Hmm. Lots of talk abouts this forum covering the acts of bodies from men who certainly know TF they are talking.

Who has the most comprehensive list traditions? Oh gee ya don't ****ing say. Lots of talk of traditions from a gaggle of men who just got informed John L never heard the term lineal in his lifetime.


Before I go, Kaf used to argue with me against the very same stances he now employs against you. No matter what side of that debate you are on it is a thankless, friendless, path to report on what actually ****ing happened rather than flowery speech based on assumptions and myths propagated by men with absolutely no academic integrity. Then or now.


No one stood with me for academic integrity. At best I got Willow's acknowledgment, your advice, and Nelly's encouragement to smack down Bronny a bit. So I have no reason to believe any of you are anything more then circlejerk whores. Regardless of if I like you on a personal level or not. Because why? This mother ****er does have some god damn academic integrity and if I made nothing else clear, my ****ing work matters to me. Without me Dutch Sam doesn't get any mention. ****, anyone ever posted about the first Nonpariel? How about this though, anyone ever post about how you don't really need to know BK to understand QB doe? HMMM.

.

I first read about Jack Dempsey The Non Pareil in an article in Boxing Illustrated in the early 60's and I've still got it ,it includes the eulogy that is on his headstone.

Speaking solely for myself,I've learned nothing from you.
You didnt' introduce me to Dutch Sam,the Non Pareil,Jackson,Donnelly or any number of bare knuckle pugilists .

Denzil Batchelor,Dudley S Lister,Bohun Lynch,Pierce Egan,Willam Hazliitt,Fred Henning,Bernard Darwin,Frederick Locker-Lampson,John Byrom ,and a host of others did that.

I learned the New Rules Of Prize Fighting,which were slightly revised during1853 and 1860 and were then known as The London prize Ring Rules .from Fistiana 1840

As to earlier battles, I have accounts of bouts from ancient scribes,
Homer ,The Funeral Games of Patroklos from The Iliad,

Entellus and Dares,by Vergil from The Aenid

If I recount these here does, it make it ,"My Work"?

Does it say I am a historian?

Does that make me an expert on a particular period?

Of course not!

I'm merely parroting and repeating something I have read, something which may or may not be accurate anyway!

I have learned from many posters here and hope to do so again, we can all learn ,even an old dog like me can absorb new knowledge,and be grateful he has!


Your claim I admitted smaller means more stamina is totally false I admitted no such thing.

Your claim I denied Fleischer was a plagiarist is also totally false,what I said was Fleischer was a force for good in boxing.

He fought for Harry Wills to secure a title shot , maintained monthly ratings,and donated championship belts to boxers who won world titles.

I've never heard of a fighter who rejected a Ring Belt,or who wasn't pleased to be awarded one.

Neither Fleischer or anyone else ever claimed he was the first to do this.


Just because we don't have the LPR era as our prime interest doesn't mean we are entirely ignorant of the men that plied their pugilistic trade during it.



Billeau has made thread about the Bare Knuckle era,he is looking for contributions ,to it ,information that can be shared by all,in that way we all add to our knowledge and understanding of those times ,then we all profit.

You cannot make a post without patting yourself on the back in narcissistic, self congratulation.

You are constantly complaining about not getting the admiration and respect you think you are due,its one incessant self admiring whine .
"Your Work"


Tell us what you have posted that deserves this adoration ?

Explain what we have missed from you?


Look,you're posting on a boxing forum,whose members abilities vary from poor, indifferent,average, decent ,good ,very good,depending on each one's point of view of the others.

In the long scheme of things none of this matters one iota ,none of us here are "historians," or experts.
Right now you cannot make a post without mentioning me,I'm living in your head rent free.

Give it up!
Get a grip!

I'm just a boxing fan of average ability and so are you, so why don't you stop this perpetual self absorbed love of yourself , and just concentrate on the subject at hand.

You repeatedly say,you are the only one qualified to hold forth on the LPR era,well now's your chance to shine,to step up to the plate and share your knowledge.
I'm sure those reading this thread would be very grateful if you did so !

Who knows,you might actually receive some of that respect ,and acknowledgement you so desperately crave if you did so!

So do that ,share whatever you know,then you will gain respect for your knowledge,even from me!

[Willow The Wisp]

It is not that punches were invented, rather it is how things are combined and refined for a purpose. Until Dempsey squared up, (I use Dempsey as an obvious goal post, but Gans, and others, etc...) combinations as we see them technically in a puncher like Louis, could not exist. I do not assert this chauvanistically, rather I simply take the combination of conditions and development of the sport... Moving the body one piece at a time is not a fencing skill. hard rotational movement, and weight drops with full contact would break a hand with no reinforcements like a glove and tape.

We know that other punching did have the hand reinforced... With things like the Cestus (sp?), and we know that boxing styles from other cultures understood punching dynamics... But Western boxing needed men like JJ and Dempsey to evolve into a coda of techniques, punches, and strategies we know of as classical boxing. I say this as someone who does not think classical is even "better." Just different. The skill happened in the space between oneself and the opponent, to set up the attack, like a fencer does...

JJ parried and eventually Dempsey slipped the shot. This can only happen at a distance of less than three feet from the opponent.

Beautiful contribution