Article: A Discussion of Boxing Stances Through History

**Torakaka** · Posted On: 1/13/2009 12:06pm

" Let's do a little experiment on the difference in reach between a vertical and horizontal fist. I think you will find this interesting. Go to a wall and place your fist horizontally against it with your arm completely extended, as if at the end of a punch. Keep firm pressure on the wall. Now, take your horizontal fist and rotate it clockwise to a vertical position. You should be able to feel your body pushing away from the wall. Now, just for kicks, keep rotating your fist to the palm up position and note the extra little bit of reach that is gained."

Well I did this little experiment and all I can say is that what was supposed to be the case was not at all the case for me or Kat. Your reach is exactly the same no matter how your hand is twisted.

Reading the guys article reminds me a lot of reading articles or forum posts by wing chun guys who are trying to justify what they do. He's telling you about a lot of theories without any real life application to back them up.

I have to wonder what these old boxing matches really looked like and how they actually fought, since there's not a lot of sources being cited to back up what the guy is saying. I would think that if it were merely the open rule sets making the boxers stand in their funky, awkward looking stance, you'd see it being utilized in rule sets like sanda or kyokushin or somewhere. I just have a hard time buying anything this guys has to say without something substantial to back it up.

**1point2** · Posted On: 1/13/2009 12:23pm

The experiment was bogus IMO. I liked the article tho...which is why I am saddened to see that the link stopped working for me (!?).

**Fat Goth** · Posted On: 1/13/2009 1:23pm

Originally Posted by KidSpatula

Well I did this little experiment and all I can say is that what was supposed to be the case was not at all the case for me or Kat. Your reach is exactly the same no matter how your hand is twisted.

Reading the guys article reminds me a lot of reading articles or forum posts by wing chun guys who are trying to justify what they do. He's telling you about a lot of theories without any real life application to back them up.

I have to wonder what these old boxing matches really looked like and how they actually fought, since there's not a lot of sources being cited to back up what the guy is saying. I would think that if it were merely the open rule sets making the boxers stand in their funky, awkward looking stance, you'd see it being utilized in rule sets like sanda or kyokushin or somewhere. I just have a hard time buying anything this guys has to say without something substantial to back it up.

So the Wing Tsun punching stuff I know has a lot of similarity to Jack Dempsey's stuff. That stuff about fist/arm alignment, punching with a vertical fist and hitting with the bottom three knuckles is pure Dempsey (which I think was linked to from these forums previously - not sure)
Championship Fighting - Explosive Punching and Aggressive Defense (1950) - Jack Dempsey@@AMEPARAM@@/docinfo/3301214?access_key=key-2f294rgtfc8spavem99@@AMEPARAM@@3301214@@AMEPARAM@@ key-2f294rgtfc8spavem99
I also don't agree with the statement on reach.

The comments about fist position/guard being dependent on rules and gloves worn seems pretty sensible.

I also don't get the idea of wide power stances if holds and throws are allowed - surely you want to be quick and able to move so you want a nimble stance on your toes. Given that hitting people with your hands has been around for a long long time I'm sure there is a very good reason for this stance but I've not heard a good reason yet.

I do wonder how much of it was done until "the head was broken" as in singlestick - ie until there was a head cut which bled. That would explain the weird leaning back stances to keep the head out of the way. But I'm guessing.

**theotherserge** · Posted On: 1/13/2009 2:03pm

Originally Posted by Snake Plissken

this thread needs more Dldr

dammit!! 1...2...3...4....5......

**DdlR** · Posted On: 1/13/2009 5:06pm

Originally Posted by Snake Plissken

this thread needs more Dldr

This thread needs to be in the Bullshido WMA forum, is what this thread needs ... oh, wait ...

**selfcritical** · Posted On: 1/13/2009 5:14pm

Seems kinda strikestanish to me

**SBG-ape** · Posted On: 1/13/2009 5:46pm

Originally Posted by KidSpatula

I have to wonder what these old boxing matches really looked like and how they actually fought, since there's not a lot of sources being cited to back up what the guy is saying. I would think that if it were merely the open rule sets making the boxers stand in their funky, awkward looking stance, you'd see it being utilized in rule sets like sanda or kyokushin or somewhere. I just have a hard time buying anything this guys has to say without something substantial to back it up.

The closest thing to the old boxing stances that I can think of, in modern combat sports, would be a couple of Koscheck fights. I remember seeing him very upright, hands a little low & posting, rather then jabbing with his lead arm, to control the distance & set up a cross. I remember thinking that might be what the old boxers looked like. But, what the hell do I know, I'm a Jiu-jitsu guy who ocassionally hits people with swords.

P.S. Western Martial Arts forum!

**Snake Plissken** · Posted On: 1/13/2009 6:18pm

Originally Posted by Fat Goth

So the Wing Tsun punching stuff I know has a lot of similarity to Jack Dempsey's stuff. That stuff about fist/arm alignment, punching with a vertical fist and hitting with the bottom three knuckles is pure Dempsey (which I think was linked to from these forums previously - not sure)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3301214/Ch...0-Jack-Dempsey
I also don't agree with the statement on reach.

The comments about fist position/guard being dependent on rules and gloves worn seems pretty sensible.

I also don't get the idea of wide power stances if holds and throws are allowed - surely you want to be quick and able to move so you want a nimble stance on your toes. Given that hitting people with your hands has been around for a long long time I'm sure there is a very good reason for this stance but I've not heard a good reason yet.

I do wonder how much of it was done until "the head was broken" as in singlestick - ie until there was a head cut which bled. That would explain the weird leaning back stances to keep the head out of the way. But I'm guessing.

I would like to see a Chunner KO a fucking horse.

**Ian G.R.** · Posted On: 1/13/2009 6:25pm

Originally Posted by Snake Plissken

I would like to see a Chunner KO a fucking horse.

WHY ARE YOU SUCH A BUZZKILL TO HORSIES!?

Oh wait A chunner

nvm.

**DdlR** · Posted On: 1/13/2009 6:27pm

Originally Posted by KidSpatula

Well I did this little experiment and all I can say is that what was supposed to be the case was not at all the case for me or Kat. Your reach is exactly the same no matter how your hand is twisted.

Were you actually leaning into the wall through your fist? If so, you should find that the different positions do actually push you progressively further away; not, IMO, enough to make much of a practical range difference if you were actually fighting, though. A little more penetration, maybe. What it does illustrate is the mechanical advantage of different types of fist alignment.

Reading the guys article reminds me a lot of reading articles or forum posts by wing chun guys who are trying to justify what they do. He's telling you about a lot of theories without any real life application to back them up.

Ken Pfrenger has been boxing about as many years as you've been alive, and actively reconstructing the old-school pugilism of the 1800s for about the past ten years. There's also the little matter that this is not his "theory", he's simply presenting a condensed version of advice offered by many of the old-time champions - Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Dempsey et al.

I have to wonder what these old boxing matches really looked like and how they actually fought, since there's not a lot of sources being cited to back up what the guy is saying. I would think that if it were merely the open rule sets making the boxers stand in their funky, awkward looking stance, you'd see it being utilized in rule sets like sanda or kyokushin or somewhere. I just have a hard time buying anything this guys has to say without something substantial to back it up.

There's a bunch of old fights on YouTube; boxing was a popular subject for very early filmmakers. Although there's nothing representing bare-knuckle boxing per se, which had effectively been outlawed (Queensberry Rules) decades before the invention of film cameras, the style shown in these early movies was an evolution of BKB. Depending on the fighter, you can see the relatively upright stances, extended guards, etc.

The funky stance was a direct result of the rules of the London Prize Ring (mid-1800s) which encouraged a longer-range fight; you don't want to hit, or get hit in, the head too often if non-one's wearing gloves, at least not if you expect to last long enough to earn money as a prize-fighter. Distance and deflection were the main defenses. Also, because the rules allowed standing grappling and throwing, that cut down on the bob-and-weave, infighting flurries; boxers would typically throw bombs at long range and clinch to a throw when they got close.

Again, all of this is very clearly explained and illustrated in dozens of boxing manuals dating from the late 1700s right through to the early 20th century, and that's where Ken Pfrenger gets his info.