Boxing and Wrestling by Ed James

**DdlR** · Posted On: 11/02/2008 2:29pm

The most significant reason is that the rules and conventions of 1870s boxing (or "sparring") were based on the bare-knuckle style, so assumed that the fighter wouldn't be wearing large, pillowy gloves. In general, old-school pugilistic matches were fought at a longer distance than is modern boxing; punches were often executed with a lunging step.

Guards tended to lower when you were out of range to save fatigue to the arms, raise and extend (with a slight backwards lean) as you entered fighting range and then turn into covers as a transition to standing grappling/throws at close range. Note that the legality of standing throws meant that clinching and throwing was more common than flurries of punches at close-quarters.

**Hesperus** · Posted On: 11/02/2008 5:55pm

Dare I ask which is better for the big SD?

**DdlR** · Posted On: 11/02/2008 7:13pm

I'd give the edge to the old-school style for self defense, but would add modern mobility and conditioning training.

**lklawson** · Posted On: 11/03/2008 6:32pm

Originally Posted by Hesperus

Dare I ask which is better for the big SD?

Well, some of the defining differences are that Classic Pugilism takes place bare fisted, incorporates longer range tactics, and allows grappling.

You decide. ;)

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

**mrblackmagic** · Posted On: 11/05/2008 10:13am

Originally Posted by CodosDePiedra

Many thanks.

I've noticed a number of these old manuals seem against hard training. This one says 20 minutes max of sparring, and the Fitzsimmons one talks about not using more than 3lb dumbbells. Any thoughts?

20 min is not long enough for sparring?-