232387 Bullies, 3976 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 181 to 190 of 285
Page 19 of 29 FirstFirst ... 91516171819 20212223 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Snake Plissken is offline
    Snake Plissken's Avatar

    When I Get Back

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,559

    Posted On:
    1/18/2009 11:21am

    supporting member
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DdlR
    Bearing in mind that this is a posed studio photograph, yes, more-or-less; this type of extended guard was maintained out of distance, the lead (left) forearm typically extending to deflect the opponent's straight right punches to the face or dropping to deflect a straight right to the body, the right (rear) forearm "barring the mark" (i.e., covering the solar plexus) and extending to deflect the opponent's lunging left lead punches to the face or body as required. They tended to bring both hands up into a wedge formation when they threw left leads (a lunging, power version of the modern jab) and the guard was inclined to raise as much as necessary as they got close enough to hit or be hit.

    Once again, though, their main defense was simply to stay out of range, a la the Shotokan fighters. The typical LPR fight was fought out of distance of the most part, like a fencing match, punctuated by lunging power punches or a quick flurry of punches, after which they would either break to long range again or clinch and go for standing throws.

    The guard stance in this picture doesn't have much bearing on defense against throws, though,because throws were not typically first-option attacks as they were less likely to fight-ending damage than bare-knuckle punches. In other words, it would be unusual for an LPR pugilist to just jump in and grapple; the clinching and grappling generally happened after at least one punch had been thrown. At the clinch range they would basically stand like wrestlers, as I mentioned earlier, dropping the center of gravity and taking wider, more stable stances while they grappled for the throw.

    Ok, to understand what you stated:
    so with this ruleset, which allowed for upper-body throws, it wouldn't behoove a "puncher" or "slugger" style fighter to wade in, close the distance and hook the ribs, because the imminent threat of a throw was ever present. Which is why they worked the ring, kept distance and had the extended guard.
  2. sempaiman is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    West coast
    Posts
    1,454

    Posted On:
    1/18/2009 11:51am


     Style: Mixed-Up Martial Arts

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I don't get what all the fuss is about. It's progress like anything else. When priize fighting came about, someone came up with the stance. It was accepted by fighters and over years it evolved. The first guys where probably very rigid and not mobil so this worked. As fighters became more mobile and footwork played a larger part, the hand and head position became a liability to movement, so they changed.
  3. DdlR is offline
    DdlR's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,777

    Posted On:
    1/18/2009 11:54am

    supporting member
     Style: Bartitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Snake Plissken
    Ok, to understand what you stated:
    so with this ruleset, which allowed for upper-body throws, it wouldn't behoove a "puncher" or "slugger" style fighter to wade in, close the distance and hook the ribs, because the imminent threat of a throw was ever present. Which is why they worked the ring, kept distance and had the extended guard.
    It wasn't so much that the threat of a throw kept them apart, it was the fact that they didn't wear gloves. A punch that might just buffet you a bit as part of a gloved infighting exchange could fracture your eyesocket or tear up you cheek if struck with bare knuckles.

    Now, like I said earlier, they did hook, uppercut etc at close rage, but they didn't spend as much time punching at the infighting range as modern boxers do, re. the rule that allowed them to clinch and throw. Note also that the round only ended when one of them hit the ground, generally either by a throw or a knockdown.
  4. DdlR is offline
    DdlR's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,777

    Posted On:
    1/18/2009 12:03pm

    supporting member
     Style: Bartitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by sempaiman
    I don't get what all the fuss is about. It's progress like anything else. When priize fighting came about, someone came up with the stance. It was accepted by fighters and over years it evolved. The first guys where probably very rigid and not mobil so this worked. As fighters became more mobile and footwork played a larger part, the hand and head position became a liability to movement, so they changed.
    Pretty much, except for impact of certain key rules changes and the part about the 1800s fighters being rigid. Their style wasn't based as much on mobility as the modern style is, but most of them advocated staying loose when possible (that's basic biomechanical sense, no matter where or when).

    It's easy to be deceived by the very stiff-looking, formal poses you see in old photographs, etc. Part of that was just the fashion of the times (it was a more formal age generally, and having a picture taken was a much bigger deal back then) and part of it was that early cameras took several seconds to actually take a picture, which didn't exactly encourage casual snapshots.
  5. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,093

    Posted On:
    1/18/2009 12:12pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Pfrenger
    Ok i will clear that up hopefully by saying that I think the rules in modern boxing went the wrong way for the evolution of the sport but I don't think I am alone in thinking that boxing would be much better if something other than manlove went on in most of the clinching done now. I used fencing as an example of modern does not = the ultimate.
    Ignore.
    Perhaps I should rewrite the article or at least update to address some of the concerns raised in this thread? I am sure Kirk would have no problem posting an updated version.
    No. I thought this is what an article was supposed to do create discussion?

    How about, when you get some time, you write a new article addressing the new points raised? I find it a very interesting discussion.

    Minus the snide remarks and using rep points as a defense.
  6. Snake Plissken is offline
    Snake Plissken's Avatar

    When I Get Back

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,559

    Posted On:
    1/18/2009 12:36pm

    supporting member
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DdlR
    It wasn't so much that the threat of a throw kept them apart, it was the fact that they didn't wear gloves. A punch that might just buffet you a bit as part of a gloved infighting exchange could fracture your eyesocket or tear up you cheek if struck with bare knuckles.
    Understand. However I would see the threat of a throw to be equal to or greater then the gloveless punching as a throw ended a round.

    The distance maintained ensured a longer fight and the hopes that superior conditioning prevailed.

    Now, like I said earlier, they did hook, uppercut etc at close rage, but they didn't spend as much time punching at the infighting range as modern boxers do, re. the rule that allowed them to clinch and throw. Note also that the round only ended when one of them hit the ground, generally either by a throw or a knockdown.
    Again, it is the concentric circle of rules and athletes. Do the rules create the athletes or vice-versa.

    However, let me ask this:

    To what extent is it believed that other fighters copied a successful fighters stance and this is why it appears to be that adopted accepted stancing?
  7. DdlR is offline
    DdlR's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,777

    Posted On:
    1/18/2009 12:51pm

    supporting member
     Style: Bartitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Snake Plissken
    Understand. However I would see the threat of a throw to be equal to or greater then the gloveless punching as a throw ended a round.

    The distance maintained ensured a longer fight and the hopes that superior conditioning prevailed.
    Kirk knows all the old stats; I believe that there are records of bareknuckle fights lasting for several hours.

    The round ended when a fighter hit the ground for whatever reason, but that didn't mean that the boxer who was still standing had "won the round" in the modern sense. The fight just re-commenced and kept going until one of them couldn't or wouldn't stand up any more.

    Again, it is the concentric circle of rules and athletes. Do the rules create the athletes or vice-versa.

    However, let me ask this:

    To what extent is it believed that other fighters copied a successful fighters stance and this is why it appears to be that adopted accepted stancing?
    Good question. The stances shown in Ken's article are a sort of generic representation of typical LPR stances; there was individual variation between fighters, understanding that truly eccentric stances (and techniques) had to prove themselves in actual competition, which was not forgiving. I'd say that the stances were basically decided by the simple imperative of "hit him and try not to get hit", with the major evolutions of stance occurring as the rules changed.
  8. Snake Plissken is offline
    Snake Plissken's Avatar

    When I Get Back

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,559

    Posted On:
    1/18/2009 1:08pm

    supporting member
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DdlR
    Kirk knows all the old stats; I believe that there are records of bareknuckle fights lasting for several hours.

    The round ended when a fighter hit the ground for whatever reason, but that didn't mean that the boxer who was still standing had "won the round" in the modern sense. The fight just re-commenced and kept going until one of them couldn't or wouldn't stand up any more.
    Agreed. I recall reading about matches lasting for hours (or 74 rounds....) and needed to remind myself these weren't "today's rounds".
    Conditioning prevailed. Similar to today's fights, just for different reasoning. So the question would be, which in all actuality cannot be answered:
    which would be more damaging an ungloved shot to the face or a throw to the ground?

    Equal but separate. I took the stancing to be an equal guard for both.



    Good question. The stances shown in Ken's article are a sort of generic representation of typical LPR stances; there was individual variation between fighters, understanding that truly eccentric stances (and techniques) had to prove themselves in actual competition, which was not forgiving. I'd say that the stances were basically decided by the simple imperative of "hit him and try not to get hit", with the major evolutions of stance occurring as the rules changed.
    So it can be assumed that:

    the most successful fighters are the ones representated which may or may not be an "endorsement" of that particular stance being the best only the best for that fighter?

    There may have been many more fighters, of varying degrees of success who held different stances, they just didn't have film or photos......-or-......they may not have had full body photos.......-or-...........they may have had promotional photos only?

    Example:

    in 150 yrs. from now, a historian might stumble across fight tapes from Milton McCrory, Jimmy Paul and Tommy Hearns and think,
    "DAMN, those late 1900's fighters sure fought with their left hand low. Our guys would kill them."

    A fighter with good jabbing but poor throwing ability might enact a different stance then a more well-rounded fighter. No different then today?
  9. Torakaka is offline
    Torakaka's Avatar

    Do you eat breakfast?

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kaka village
    Posts
    10,658

    Posted On:
    1/18/2009 1:18pm

    supporting member
     Style: Kitty Pow Pow!!!

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DdlR
    ... as a claim that the LPR stance was superior to the modern boxing stance. It's largely downhill from that misunderstanding, which colors their reading of the whole essay.

    .
    Actually you did state that you believe the LPR stance would have an advantage in the LPR rule set over the modern stance. Since the LPR rule set is not as restrictive than the modern boxing rule set, that would make the LPR stance more martially viable. I see no reason to believe that the LPR stance is even AS GOOD as the modern boxing stance under LPR rules.

    Again, would someone answer my question regarding the Broughton rules vs LPR rules stance and why they differed so drastically?
  10. Ken Pfrenger is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Kinsman Ohio
    Posts
    74

    Posted On:
    1/18/2009 1:28pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: western MA, Sambo, boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by KidSpatula

    Again, would someone answer my question regarding the Broughton rules vs LPR rules stance and why they differed so drastically?
    It's not entirely clear why the drastic change but what is clear is that it did not happen overnight. My best guess is that over time fighters began to play to the rules and rather than true combative theory, gamesmanship took over. One boxing author writing at the begining of the gloved era stated that in the waining days of the LPR the fighters were so wary of being hit bareknuckle that they leaned back to far and did their best not to engage. He praised the gloves for encouraging fighters to be able to fight again without the fear.
Page 19 of 29 FirstFirst ... 91516171819 20212223 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.