Results 1 to 3 of 3
-
Light Heavyweight
Achievements:- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 4,599
- Points
- 7,694

Posted On:
5/03/2009 5:25am--
Cool, thanks.
Arguments re. gloves and damage typically center around the introduction of the Marquis of Queensberry rules, which simultaneously mandated gloves and banned standing grappling and throwing. Under previous rule-sets (Broughton's, London Prize Ring, etc.) the actual rallies of blows had tended to be short; pugilists were inclined to spend most of their time out of distance, lunge in with bombs, sometimes exchange blows at close quarters and then either break out of range again or close in to clinch and throw.
Under Queensberry rules fighters were able to spend more time exchanging punches at medium/close quarters (in fact, they had little choice) and their hands were protected from the worst damage, hence the subsequent rise in knock-outs. This is partly why at least one modern doctor has, semi-seriously, suggested a return to bare-knuckle pugilism in order to make boxing safer; the suggestion was also that a lucky boxer's hands might give out before he suffered permanent brain damage.Check out the Bullshido.net Western Martial Arts Forum for all things Western, martial and arty.
Bartitsu: the Gentlemanly Art of Self Defence (est. 1899) -
Registered Member
Achievements:- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- windsor UK
- Posts
- 344
- Points
- 4,046

Posted On:
5/03/2009 8:23am
Style: aikido, medieval fencing--
I think the real problem with the gloves vs bare knuckles is that there is so much martial art general politics (sport vs street, Cork screwing vs flat, and so on) that any reasonable and well documented argument is blown out of context and used a general truth.
It is really obvious that boxing gloves protect the hands and the other fighter.
If you punch a heavy bag with you bare hands, wrapped hand and gloved hand.
There will not be any significant difference between the wrapped hand and gloved hand in terms of discomfort and the length of time you can go on. But there will be a significant one between bared handed and those two.
If we want to be pedantic glove do not really protect the hand, it is more the wrapping/skin tight gloves but well.
The bigger the surface the more spread is the force, the less likely superficial trauma is. So bare knuckles (or wrapped hands) are much more likely to cause bruising or cut than heavy boxing glove.
It may be debatable if on a single punch with conditioned hand and a punch with a boxing glove will show significant power difference. However I do not think this is where it really maters.
There are really no doubts that you can punch full blast much longer with gloves than with bare knuckles.
If we look at modern boxing injuries to the eyes and brain, they seem to be repetitive trauma injuries. We see much less cuts to zigomatics, black eyes and matches stoppages due to bleeding.
So in modern boxing fighter are in average subjected longer to heavy punches.
If you punch bare knuckled and you will have to do so for 40-70 minutes, you need to be much more conservative with you punches.
IE what Ddlr mentions.
Phil
PS you probably have seens that but
http://www.bma.org/ap.nsf/Attachment...xingDebate.pdf



Reply With Quote











It's all about the clinch. The clinch, I said.
Posted On:
5/02/2009 11:39am
Style: Grabbin' Doodz
From the Finger Tips of a New York Pugilist