Wait, so at one time, boxing had no judges' decisions? Was there a rounds limit before the Marquess of Queensbury rules? So, how was it decided when a fight would end and which newspaper writers would pick a winner? Was a fight ever just declared a draw if there was no KO or TKO? That's what the UFC pretty much did until Ultimate Ultimate 1996 and UFC 8. They also started out bare knuckled too. You think they would've learned from boxing, before waiting so long to make changes.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Harry Greb on History Detectives
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by Anthony342 View PostWait, so at one time, boxing had no judges' decisions? Was there a rounds limit before the Marquess of Queensbury rules? So, how was it decided when a fight would end and which newspaper writers would pick a winner? Was a fight ever just declared a draw if there was no KO or TKO? That's what the UFC pretty much did until Ultimate Ultimate 1996 and UFC 8. They also started out bare knuckled too. You think they would've learned from boxing, before waiting so long to make changes.
Modern boxing starts somewhere in the XVIIIth century, which is the 1700s. We still know the names and the feats of the champions of those eras today. Of course, it was all bare knuckle fighting. There was generally no time limit for important fights. But there was several problems with the sport as it was. First, fans felt that the fighter were constantly falling to the ground and wrestling there, which really didn’t make for a good show. Secondly, the fighter often didn’t give the best of their abilities because they were injuring their hands. So with time, solutions were taken to improve that situation. First, the Broughton Ring Rules (if memory serves), adopted such a rule that whenever a fighter fell, if he could get up by the count of thirty, a round was over. Later on, the rounds were evenly timed at 3 minutes each, I think with the London Prize Ring Rules. At the end of the XIXth century, as you know, gloved boxing became the standard. So you see, as opposed to popular belief, gloves weren’t adopted to preserved the fighter’s faces nor to make it less violent, but on the contrary to preserve their hands, and to make the fight last as to create a better spectacle, a spectacle that would allow both men to show the whole of their talents.
After several bad decisions during the 1910 decade and consequent troubles and even riots, decisions in boxing fights were forbidden by authorities in many states in the 20s, or no-decision rule were adopted by promoters themselves. The need to determine a winner for fans was overtaken by journalists, who announced who they felt had won; we largely base ourselves on these reports to determine who were the winner of fights from this era today. The only official winners were those who won by a ko.
I’m explaining all of this to you very fast, Anthony, not to highjack the thread, but I’m sure you can get much more just by googling it.
So no: UFC isn’t an improvement; it’s a reversal of history; it starts exactly where boxing was 250 years ago…
As to the Human Windmill, Harry Greb, if only we could see him in action, it would be fabulous!Last edited by danthepoetman; 07-28-2012, 08:16 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by danthepoetman View PostI don’t want to be overly critical of the UFC type of fighting, but no, I don’t think they’ve learn a lot from boxing’s long, very glorious history. Boxing a long time ago looked a lot like these UFC types of fight. Fighters were throwing themselves on the ground and wrestling often for quite a while before being stopped. Old paper of the 1800s still often showed drawings of fighters grabbing each others at the throat, etc.
Modern boxing starts somewhere in the XVIIIth century, which is the 1700s. We still know the names and the feats of the champions of those eras today. Of course, it was all bare knuckle fighting. There was generally no time limit for important fights. But there was several problems with the sport as it was. First, fans felt that the fighter were constantly falling to the ground and wrestling there, which really didn’t make for a good show. Secondly, the fighter often didn’t give the best of their abilities because they were injuring their hands. So with time, solutions were taken to improve that situation. First, the Broughton Ring Rules (if memory serves), adopted such a rule that whenever a fighter fell, if he could get up by the count of thirty, a round was over. Later on, the rounds were evenly timed at 3 minutes each, I think with the London Prize Ring Rules. At the end of the XIXth century, as you know, gloved boxing became the standard. So you see, as opposed to popular belief, gloves weren’t adopted to preserved the fighter’s faces nor to make it less violent, but on the contrary to preserve their hands, and to make the fight last as to create a better spectacle, a spectacle that would allow both men to show the whole of their talents.
After several bad decisions during the 1910 decade and consequent troubles and even riots, decisions in boxing fights were forbidden by authorities in many states in the 20s, or no-decision rule were adopted by promoters themselves. The need to determine a winner for fans was overtaken by journalists, who announced who they felt had won; we largely base ourselves on these reports to determine who were the winner of fights from this era today. The only official winners were those who won by a ko.
I’m explaining all of this to you very fast, Anthony, not to highjack the thread, but I’m sure you can get much more just by googling it.
So no: UFC isn’t an improvement; it’s a reversal of history; it starts exactly where boxing was 250 years ago…
As to the Human Windmill, Harry Greb, if only we could see him in action, it would be fabulous!
And no holds barred fights even had gloves before the UFC came around, so don't know why it took the UFC so long to make them mandatory. If you watch Enter The Dragon, Lee is sparring with a student with MMA style gloves and that movie was originally released in 1973.
So when was the ban lifted on judges' decisions in these states? In the '30s perhaps?
Hey maybe journalists should determine some of these modern fights too, especially when the judges get it wrong. Everyone in press row had Erislandy Lara winning a unanimous decision over Paul Williams, even though the judges didn't see it that way for some reason and most of the journalists had Pacquiao winning a close decision over Bradley, which I and many others felt should've been the result of that fight. And how come referees used to be able to score fights in past decades, but not anymore?
That brings me to another question. What if DVD recording, HDTV and DVRs existed hundreds of years ago? What other fighters, besides Harry Greb, would you guys want to see some or more footage of, if the technology existed at the time? Like, maybe more Sugar Ray Robinson fights, Jack Johnson, Joe Louis maybe? I wouldn't mind seeing more of those guys and some more Marciano fights, of course.
And how come those old fight films haven't been time corrected, so they don't look all sped up? I know the technology exists, because I saw a TV show that mentioned such a technology in the '90s.
Comment
Comment