224803 Bullies, 3597 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 51 to 60 of 285
Page 6 of 29 FirstFirst ... 23456 7891016 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Anna Kovacs is offline
    Anna Kovacs's Avatar

    Spear Sister

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    6,421

    Posted On:
    1/15/2009 12:21am

    supporting membersupporting member
     Style: Dancing the Spears

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by lklawson
    but trust me on this, it wasn't as dangerous as you might think. The range was different.
    Trust me on this as a competitive kickboxer with a 10-1 record, three national titles and a world ranking already under my belt, it's just as dangerous as I think it is because I have a bad habit of standing upright and when I do so is about the only time I ever get hit solidly.

    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.
    Grappling is allowed in muay thai, the hook is still included and effective. In fact, muay thai has a ruleset that to my eyes appears just as if not even more open ended then these old boxing matches and we still utilize a modern boxing style stance with the only tweak being the hips are slightly more open.

    Throwing him on the ground hard-packed dirt and falling on top of him is WAY better than a hook. :)
    There's no reason not to do both.

    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.
    MMA striking sucks. Most fighters in MMA have piss poor punching accuracy. It's not even worth seriously considering. I recall a guy getting knocked out with a cartwheel. Doesn't mean I'm going to start learning how to breakdance fight.

    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.
  2. Anna Kovacs is offline
    Anna Kovacs's Avatar

    Spear Sister

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    6,421

    Posted On:
    1/15/2009 12:30am

    supporting membersupporting member
     Style: Dancing the Spears

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by maofas
    I didn't say "boxing defense is dependent on big gloves". I said having a hunched over stance benefits from having those big gloves; there's a pretty significant degree of difference.

    Also, boxers don't catch and deflect every punch; they DO wind up covering up from a lot of them over the course of a bout.

    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.
  3. DdlR is offline
    DdlR's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,772

    Posted On:
    1/15/2009 1:21am

    supporting member
     Style: Bartitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by KidSpatula
    Get this DdlR, being a historian doesn't make you infallible.
    True. It does make you more likely to be right on historical issues than, say, a teenybopper punching well above her weight.

    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.
  4. lklawson is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    Posts
    964

    Posted On:
    1/15/2009 7:35am


     Style: Bowie

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by AnnaTrocity
    Trust me on this as a competitive kickboxer with a 10-1 record, three national titles and a world ranking already under my belt, it's just as dangerous as I think it is
    ...which is why the old style boxers were always getting knocked out... oh, wait... :P
  5. MrGalt is online now
    MrGalt's Avatar

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Back in Tennessee...sigh
    Posts
    952

    Posted On:
    1/15/2009 7:40am


     Style: Seidokaikan

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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.
  6. Snake Plissken is offline
    Snake Plissken's Avatar

    When I Get Back

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,559

    Posted On:
    1/15/2009 10:11am

    supporting member
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by AnnaTrocity
    Your hands will protect your head without gloves just fine. When I catch punches with my gloves it's not with the puffy part. It's caught or deflected with the palm of the hand. Whether you're wearing gloves or not doesn't really matter. Especially given the number of boxers that don't even keep their hands very high at all, paticularly the left hand which often hovers around the chest.

    The "boxing defense is dependent on big gloves" myth needs to die. It's total bullshit.
    I will agree with this, since some boxers use a cross-arm defense which doesn't rely on gloves at all and some boxing coaches won't have you depend on gloves for defense but instead your bent arms next to your head and your glove by your ear, like you are flexing a muscle or trying hear something.

    I've seen the puffy part of the glove mostly used for picking off or slipping jabs but never for a solid shot.
  7. Torakaka is offline
    Torakaka's Avatar

    Do you eat breakfast?

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kaka village
    Posts
    10,658

    Posted On:
    1/15/2009 11:39am

    supporting member
     Style: Kitty Pow Pow!!!

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DdlR
    True. It does make you more likely to be right on historical issues than, say, a teenybopper punching well above her weight.

    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.
    I'm not suggesting a rivalry between new and old, but the article is making the claim that the old style of boxing had advantages over modern boxing given a more open rule set. This is what I have a hard time swallowing. I don't claim to know more about boxing 150 years ago than this historian, though I AM given the impression that I know more about the technique of boxing than he does, given the evidence presented. I don't believe one thing or another about boxing of old, I just have a hard time believing what this guy says without something backing up his assertions.
  8. DdlR is offline
    DdlR's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,772

    Posted On:
    1/15/2009 11:57am

    supporting member
     Style: Bartitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by KidSpatula
    I'm not suggesting a rivalry between new and old, but the article is making the claim that the old style of boxing had advantages over modern boxing given a more open rule set. This is what I have a hard time swallowing. I don't claim to know more about boxing 150 years ago than this historian, though I AM given the impression that I know more about the technique of boxing than he does, given the evidence presented. I don't believe one thing or another about boxing of old, I just have a hard time believing what this guy says without something backing up his assertions.
    Pfrenger makes the point that different rules engender different techniques; where is the claim, or even inference, that the old style of boxing had advantages over modern boxing given a more open rule set?

    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.
  9. PointyShinyBurn is offline
    PointyShinyBurn's Avatar

    Gnarly King of Half-Guard

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    4,220

    Posted On:
    1/15/2009 12:13pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DdlR
    Pfrenger makes the point that different rules engender different techniques; where is the claim, or even inference, that the old style of boxing had advantages over modern boxing given a more open rule set?
    Old style boxing had a more open ruleset. 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.

    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:
  10. DdlR is offline
    DdlR's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,772

    Posted On:
    1/15/2009 12:22pm

    supporting member
     Style: Bartitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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.
    What conditions? Do you mean a hypothetical match between a boxer trained in the 1800s and a modern boxer? Under which rules?
Page 6 of 29 FirstFirst ... 23456 7891016 ... 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.