1/15/2009 12:21am, #51Originally Posted by lklawson
You see that "1" beside the "10"? That's due to standing up right. When I get hit in sparring, it's due to standing up right. The range has nothing to do with it. You can still eat an overhand right from the outside.
Hooks weren't used as much (in fact, they're not even discussed in the pre-MoQ manuals) because once you got close enough to hook, you went to grappling.
Throwing him on the ground hard-packed dirt and falling on top of him is WAY better than a hook. :)
I recall the Sanchez/Koscheck fight (UFC 69) where the commentators were carping about him not tucking his chin and keeping a too long lead. Kept claiming that he was "begging to be knocked out." He won that match and never took a serious punch to the head.
And frankly even with my head up as it tends to be I almost never take solid hits to the head, I'm pretty much the queen of getting away with bad technique based on having excellent timing and distancing skills as well as an understanding of how to utilize circular footwork.
But no matter how many fights I win standing up-right with my head exposed it's still wrong.
1/15/2009 12:30am, #52Originally Posted by maofas
I promise that my experience dictates that I'm just as effective at not getting hit wearing MMA gloves as I am wearing boxing gloves. Chalk it up to not trying to play peekaboo.
1/15/2009 1:21am, #53Originally Posted by KidSpatula
Of course the techniques of boxing have evolved, commensurate with the evolution of rules, equipment (especially gloves) and training methods. Boxing techniques evolved between the era of the Broughton rules and then the London Prize Ring rules, again in the decades after Queensberry (which is the period shown in the videos I linked to) and they have continued to evolve since then.
You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but it would be much easier to take your criticism seriously if you demonstrated an understanding of old-school pugilism. At the moment you're coming across as if you're assuming there's some kind of rivalry between bare-knuckle prize fighting and modern boxing; that's really missing the point of the article, unless you're actually suggesting that you know better than modern experts (such as Ken Pfrenger) and the old-time champions.
1/15/2009 7:35am, #54
Originally Posted by AnnaTrocity
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Dayton, OH
1/15/2009 7:40am, #55
Those videos looked like they showed that fighters in the old days used simply no guard at all, especially Corbett. That would to me support the notion that boxing has become more technical in that you couldn't get away with the sloppiness they exhibited then and also that the stances were little more than poses.It seems to me that the Sanjuriu Martial Art is not in guestion, but, rather the character of Mr. Galt.
1/15/2009 10:11am, #56Originally Posted by AnnaTrocity
I've seen the puffy part of the glove mostly used for picking off or slipping jabs but never for a solid shot.
1/15/2009 11:39am, #57Originally Posted by DdlR
1/15/2009 11:57am, #58Originally Posted by KidSpatula
As I've already mentioned, Ken Pfrenger has been boxing for a long time. He knows the modern sport and the older styles as well. This article wasn't intended to provide evidence as to his own background or proficiency, it was an explanation as to why boxers of the old school used certain stances and punching mechanics.
If you're looking for something to back up his assertions, as I suggested earlier, you can download a number of old boxing manuals for free from Kirk's site, read others on GoogleBooks and/or order many more via library interloan.
1/15/2009 12:13pm, #59Originally Posted by DdlR
In support of the 'people used to suck at everything' camp, I present a picture of famed catch wrestler Martin 'Farmer' Burns demonstrating the proper way to do a double leg:
1/15/2009 12:22pm, #60
I know that old-style boxing had a more open rule-set (actually, a series of rule-sets, as defined by Jack Broughton, the London Prize Ring, the Queensberry rules etc.) My argument is that if people are reading Ken Pfrenger's article and assuming that he's advocating the old style over the modern style, they're missing his central point; the article offers historical explanation, not polemic.
If the technical differences are due to ruleset adaptation rather than, as Anna is basically asserting, lower skill level then those methods would have an advantage under such conditions.