Kung Fu practitioner's critique on the boxing guard

[Matt Phillips]

so why do thai fighters and MMA fighters use a high or orthodox guard when throws are allowed in those rules?

Not a fair comparison when serious head-kicking is in play.

[willaume]

So you're point is that since after getting fatigued you'll start throwing sloppy punches... therefor it's proven that a corkscrewed punch is more likely to break your hand? There is some total logical failure going on here.

Failing to corkscrew your punch and hitting with the wrong part of the hand does not some how make a corkscrewed punch more dangerous.

Well yes and no.

I am saying the corkscrew_more_dangerous_than_flat debate in today world is bit of a byzantine argument

Corkscrew is perfectly fine and is not more dangerous than flat. That does not prevent the argument against the corkscrew to be actually valid, it is just irrelevant.

We can not say to the guys that support the flat fist that breaking the 5th/4th MT does not happen, JC links proves exactly the opposite that is even their main argument.
They will tell you that if you hit with the flat fist, you will either miss completely or connect with that the thumb side of the first.
But if you crook screw, statistically the outside of the fist can hit something hard and hence have higher probability to break the MT.

Try on a free bag and bare handed and you will see that this statistically true.
Try again after the end of your training session and you will see that the proportion of hit that involve the outside of the fist has increased.
Hence your hand is statistically more vulnerable
And yes statistically speaking that is 100% correct.
As it is 100% correct that the better you are at striking the lower those % will be.

What really mater is that you will notice as well that you did not break anything. And that is my point. It may be 100% correct it is utterly irrelevant in our day and age.
We can definitely say that given the number of people that punch like that and the number of accident, if we include brawlers in our statistics, the probability of breaking something is so low that it is a moot point.

Phil

[Jack Rusher]

so why do thai fighters and MMA fighters use a high or orthodox guard when throws are allowed in those rules?

Thai rules are much more restrictive where throws are concerned (no hip or shoulder throws, just trips and sweeps), so I wouldn't expect them to play a "close and throw" game in the way some sanshou guys do.

As for MMA, I think it's still changing so fast that it's hard to say where it's going. For example, we're seeing a trend away from the shoot to more clinch takedowns at the moment, so we might see more long guard coming up (Lyoto Machida uses it occasionally today, as do a few other fighters). Who knows?

[DdlR]

London Prize Ring rules boxing allowed trips and sweeps from the clinch, hip throws (such as the "cross-buttock", mentioned earlier) and shoulder throws but banned below-the-belt grips or leg pickup throws.

[Torakaka]

Having an extended guard where standing grappling is concerned does make sense to me. A lot of Thai fighters who's primary tactic is going for the clinch use an extended guard. There's also an extended guard used by boxers I've heard called "Olga" where a lead hand is floating outside (the boxing team I trained with some times sparred each other using this guard to keep each other used to range of different styles). The whole gloves vs no gloves reasoning I still think is a load.

[SBG-ape]

I find it fascinating that this thread has presented an argument for the extended guard of historical BKB that seems more plausible then those arguments typically put forth by historical pugilism students/enthusiasts.

I just want to say, I love this new forum.

[DdlR]

I'm glad that progress is being made as well, but to be fair, the great majority of historical pugilism students (and their instructors) know why extended guards were used; that's basic to understanding what BKB was historically, and to being able to practice modified-for-safety versions of the historical style(s) today. The confusion happens when people who only have a casual understanding of the sport start jumping to conclusions.

The author of the "kung fu critiques boxing" article is a good example; he was right about the lack of a "tight guard" in BKB but he missed the major reasons for that lack.

I just want to say, I love this new forum.

Yeah, we're off to a good start. Next step will be to attract some more serious, longtime WMAists to rep. their specialties on the board.

[FLMKane]

The following is an article written presumably by the head of a Kung Fu school in Australia, entitled "Taking the Gloves Off".

http://web.mac.com/anukungfu/iWeb/Yu...893713273.html

The basic argument they make is that pre-1900 boxers could teach us a thing or two about proper boxing, as the introduction of compulsory gloves allows a boxer to:
* Take punches to his hands and forearm; something that would deaden the muscles and break the carpal bones if done without gloves
* Keep his fists in close to his chin and cheeks, to use the gloves as an invincible shield; something that would cause the user of this tight guard to effectively punch themselves in the face if done without gloves

Who agrees?

In my opinion the first point is being exaggerated beyond proportion. It dopes'nt have to happen, and it's unlikely to happen, or we would see it a lot more in kyokushin at least.

As for the second one, may be its just me, but the gloves never seeemed like an invincible shield to me. I still get hurt when I do that, but I dont get cut.
However I agree that such a defense will not work without gloves.

[KolyaDimitrij]

The reason behind this style of guard is that it enables you to keep another fighter at bay with your lead hand, while pounding on him with the other. (keeping him away by grabbing his throat and shoving him backwards)
The other reason is that by punching with your fists in that position it makes it a lot harder to break your own fists.
The way people hitted back then was different: they didn't use rotation as much for generating power. Instead most punches where powered by forward momentum of the body (shifting the weight on the front leg and "rolling" the shoulder to give it a whip) (wich is why you wanted to shove somebody backwards, no forward momentum, no power).

As a side note, boxers didn't have a static guard. They where constantly moving their hands to avoid being grabbed, dragued into a punch, and pummeled. It looks a little bit like a piston motion, the hands circling a varying paces.

The shoulder rolling motion: YouTube - John L. Sullivan

[willaume]

The reason behind this style of guard is that it enables you to keep another fighter at bay with your lead hand, while pounding on him with the other. (keeping him away by grabbing his throat and shoving him backwards)
The other reason is that by punching with your fists in that position it makes it a lot harder to break your own fists.
The way people hitted back then was different: they didn't use rotation as much for generating power. Instead most punches where powered by forward momentum of the body (shifting the weight on the front leg and "rolling" the shoulder to give it a whip) (wich is why you wanted to shove somebody backwards, no forward momentum, no power).

As a side note, boxers didn't have a static guard. They where constantly moving their hands to avoid being grabbed, dragued into a punch, and pummeled. It looks a little bit like a piston motion, the hands circling a varying paces.

The shoulder rolling motion: YouTube - John L. Sullivan

Hello
I do agree that they did it that way because it was best practice for what they did and how they did it. And really the argument that proposes that we are much better now is as specious as they were better in the past. The changes are just an evolution to fit the purpose.

Well the whole breaking the fist thing is really the same type of argument than the weakness of the boxing guard.

With proper form it is quite hard to actually break the bone, and with conditioning you can go a fair amount of time before bruising and pressure related trauma makes your twist punch less efficient.
As well the twist punch is used in a fair amount of Indian and Asian style.
In some early 20th century SD manuals we do even have BK strike where the first is completely rotated as in with the thumb side facing the earth.

That being said modern boxers do break their hands occasionally, and they do tape their hands so stability and support of the wrist and metacarpal must be important otherwise they would not do it.

In my opinion, in BKB they used the straight first because of the potential length of the boot but as well because the way boots were designed (i.e. Your arguments, the wrestling permissible and so on).
If we taked your arguments and the knocking the guy on the ground effect, it makes more sense to use a straight punch with back hand.

phil