View previous topic | View next topic

Boxing Gloves...

Page 1 of 1

ttaskmaster
767107.  Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:08 am Reply with quote

I hope the Elves still read this old section...

On the reason for wearing boxing gloves to protect the fists from breaking against jaws:

Boxing Gloves were introduced by "Gentleman" Jack Broughton in his school as a way for his more respectable students to "effectually secure them from the inconveniency of black eyes, broken jaws and bloody noses”. Breaking jaws was a very common thing, particularly among English barefist fighters...

In the 1700s, James Figg was a notable prize fighter, skilled with cudgel, quarterstaff and barefist. He was also a fight promoter...

He organised one barefist match against an Italian, called "The Gondolier", who was famous for breaking his opponents' jaws.
He said, "Bring me this Italian and I will show him a man whose jaw he could not break with a sledgehammer!".

The Italian lost the fight, partly because the English were so used to broken jaws being a hazard and trained to avoid them.

 
jhoquite
787113.  Sat Feb 12, 2011 4:23 am Reply with quote

Hi,

Boxing gloves have been around in one form or another almost since the beginning of boxing 3000 years ago. The ancient Greeks used to wrap their hands in leather strips in an attempt to protect their hands. But there was no padding in these early boxing gloves, Just leather to protect the boxer's hands.Because the bones in our hand are very small and fragile.The padding provided by boxing gloves is as much to protect the person swinging as to protect the person on the other end of the swing.

 
ttaskmaster
787130.  Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:53 am Reply with quote

They are not that fragile and do toughen with training.

I accept that gloves have been around for donkey's years, but with the English barefist from which the modern sport form of boxing derives, the fighters' hands were, as the name suggests, bare.
Broughton was the first Englishman to start using gloves during training and he specifically mentions guarding against broken jaws, not broken hands, because it is far more common to break the jaw. This is futher supported by the frequency of broken jaws during fight accounts, when the fists would be bare.

As a both a practitioner of the historical English fighting system and student of it's history myself, I have found little reference to broken hands, even during training with staff or sword.

 
brendGol
854714.  Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:07 am Reply with quote

Hello - is there anyway you know where i can get cheaper gloves for my sparring session?
I would love to get one..( a lot cheaper if you can recommend one please..) Thanks

“Take things as they are. Punch with sap gloves when you have to punch. Kick when you have to kick.”

 
ttaskmaster
854717.  Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:20 am Reply with quote

brendGol wrote:
Hello - is there anyway you know where i can get cheaper gloves for my sparring session?
I would love to get one..( a lot cheaper if you can recommend one please..) Thanks


Not the reply I was expecting, but OK...

'Cheaper' is quite a relative term and it would be easier if you could advise how much you're currently paying in the first place. No point me suggesting £20 gloves if you're only paying £15 to start with.

However, it's all moot since I generally find you get what you pay for and since you're punching someone in the face, I STRONGLY suggest you get only the best you can - That way they won't fall apart, fail or be of insufficient standard in the first place and result in a serious injury.

Have you spoken to your boxing instructor and asked what they recommend/require?

 
Ameena
854773.  Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:19 pm Reply with quote

Now, this might be a bit erm...suspicious of me, but I can't help but notice that BrendGol's first post is not only in a random thread that hasn't been posted in for eight months, but also makes an inquiry as to where some cheap things might possibly be bought. Perhaps some other random new person will appear shortly with an answer and an applicable link?

 
suze
854783.  Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:21 pm Reply with quote

You cynical person you, Ameena! Mind you, there's every chance that you may be right... Meanwhile, ttaskmaster has gone above and beyond in giving a helpful reply - so if the enquiry was genuine, I trust brendGol finds it useful.

Meanwhile, a question to ttaskmaster if I may. He notes that boxing gloves were introduced to reduce the risk of injury to the fighters - and yet bare knuckle boxing still exists. It's illegal in the UK but it would be foolish to pretend that it doesn't go on, while I learn with some concern that it seems once again to be legal in the USA. (The first officially sanctioned bare knuckle fight for more than a century took place in Arizona this summer.)

Why would anyone choose to fight in this more dangerous way? And is it a different sport? Suppose a champion glove-wearing boxer - one or other Klitschko, say - were foolish enough to accept a challenge to a bare knuckle fight from a champion bare knuckle fighter. Would the Klitschko expect to win (because he's a professional sportsman and is very good at boxing), or would he expect to lose (because he has no experience of this different form of fighting)?

 
Jenny
854921.  Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:42 am Reply with quote

As a person with more reason than most to be cynical, I was wary of this newly registered poster before the first post, and have taken the precaution of pre-emptively banning him/her. So far, all my experience of people asking this kind of question on this forum has involved the posting of spammy links subsequently.

On the rare occasions I have banned posters who do not consider themselves to be here for the purpose of spamming (and I think so far this amounts to two people in eight years or so) they have contacted us subsequently and been reinstated.

 
ttaskmaster
998218.  Tue May 21, 2013 11:56 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Meanwhile, a question to ttaskmaster if I may. He notes that boxing gloves were introduced to reduce the risk of injury to the fighters - and yet bare knuckle boxing still exists. It's illegal in the UK but it would be foolish to pretend that it doesn't go on, while I learn with some concern that it seems once again to be legal in the USA. (The first officially sanctioned bare knuckle fight for more than a century took place in Arizona this summer.)

Why would anyone choose to fight in this more dangerous way? And is it a different sport? Suppose a champion glove-wearing boxer - one or other Klitschko, say - were foolish enough to accept a challenge to a bare knuckle fight from a champion bare knuckle fighter. Would the Klitschko expect to win (because he's a professional sportsman and is very good at boxing), or would he expect to lose (because he has no experience of this different form of fighting)?


Apologies for the very late reply. I was expecting an email notification of any reply but didn't receive anything. Anyway...

Bare knuckle matches are indeed illegal in the UK today, yet still continue in the background. But modern boxing, bare knuckle and Barefist are three very different forms...

Historically, fights of many kinds were main events, including Barefist. Some rather well-to-do people even trained just for the fun or enthusiasm for the art and never actually competed - well-to-do students being the main people Broughton was considering, since they regarded a busted-up face "inconvenient" in that oh-so-British fasion! :-)
Samuel Pepys was one of many famous people to enjoy the fights and he makes several mentions in his diary of attending fights at The Bear Garden, as well as prize fights with cudgels, swords and the like - Prize fights being publicly held provings of an English martial arts student's ability, kind of like belt grading tests in Karate or Judo.

As mentioned, modern bare knuckle fights take a form much less lethal than their historical English predecessors - Back during the times when a fighter was legally and professionally trained in Barefist (the aforementioned James Figg being a noted instructor), the techniques taught were designed to severely beat and sometimes kill the opponent. Indeed, there are accounts of people dying 'in the ring'. I say 'in the ring', but many fights took place atop a platfom about 6' off the ground, with no actual fencing around it.
Fight rules were minimal at best - Headbutting, kicks, groin strikes, throws, trips and wrestling moves were all permitted, as was kicking your man when he's downed. Indeed, a popular technique depicted in some books is a stamp to the knee!
Further to this, fighters were reported to toughen their knuckles by punching the bark off trees (though I've found no mention of any particular tree) and hardening their shins by hitting them with coal hammers, similar to how Eastern martial artists use bamboo.

Actual accounts of fights don't often say how long the rounds lasted, but there seemed to be a lot of ducking, diving and avoidance going on. It was considered an action packed round if more than six punches were thrown, with the general idea being that if one actually landed, it'd be quite lethal. One almost gets the impression of superhuman fighters, from reading these accounts!

So yeah, the historical Barefist Boxing is almost worlds apart from modern boxing forms. I have seen a small number of bare knuckle fights and they closely resemble what you'd see on television, albeit without gloves and without a few of the more civilised rules we're used to.

Historical Barefist is very much a different sport from both bare knuckle and licenced boxing. Why would anyone choose the more dangerous option? Well, why would anyone choose to be a modern boxer when that alone is dangerous enough? Skydiving? Bungee-jumping?


In the debate against gloved vs bareknuckle and Barefist fighters, gloves tend to be quite big and useful for covering up. Barefist is about avoiding incoming blows and striking when the opponent is 'disordered', i.e. wide open and vulnerable. Also, the bared fist has a smaller, more concentrated surface area for greater damage and can more easily target specific weak points. This, of course, assumes the Barefist fighter fights by the same boxing rules and does not make use of kicks, throws, elbows and the like!

Against a bare knuckle fighter, the gloved fighter would likely encounter the same difficulties but to a lesser degree. I would suspect that fight to be more down to whoever got accurately damaging punches in first and given that a bare knuckler is used to not having big gloves for covering up, their approach is the more sensible one. Going against the bare knuckler is the level of professional training and endurance conditioning the gloved fighter has. The bare knuckler may be used to taking a few seriously hard hits through past experience, but with that comes damage that may subtly hamper them later on. Bare knucklers are rarely professionals... that said, my money would still be on a bare knuckler!

In the real world, rules would not apply and the dirty tricks would come out - I'd expect bare knuckler to make short work of the gloved boxer, with the Barefist fighter utterly destroying them both.

 
suze
998340.  Tue May 21, 2013 4:24 pm Reply with quote

Thank you, ttaskmaster. Your reply was worth waiting for!

I know that early boxers such as John L Sullivan and "Gentleman Jim" Corbett fought both bare knuckle and gloved, but then the sport was much less organized then, and no one before Corbett had ever really given much thought to technique and strategy.

I once saw a TV docu about the early days of professional boxing. The sport has some murky corners even now; back then they were way murkier. (The docu's main points were that Sullivan was an obnoxious racist drunk, Corbett was just obnoxious, and Wyatt Earp was a crook. Tell us something we didn't know ...)

I expect the world of bare knuckle boxing is still rather like that, while gloved boxing is by now a major international business. So your conclusion that the bare knuckle fighter ought to win is perhaps not the one I was expecting, but I certainly don't dispute your reasoning.

 
CB27
998372.  Tue May 21, 2013 7:56 pm Reply with quote

Corbett v Barker, that would have been some bout!

 
Sadurian Mike
998401.  Wed May 22, 2013 5:17 am Reply with quote

"And it's a knockout from me, and a knock-out from him."

 

Page 1 of 1

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group