Bare Knuckle Boxing Talk

I thought I would ask you what your take on the stance/guard position for MMA?

---Right now I think that MMA is dominated by grapplers that have learned how to strike rather than strikers that have learned how to grapple. So the guard position that you see most is based on their grappling background. Its designed as much to allow them to shoot in quickly for a takedown as it is to punch well. Even the BJJ guys that have cross-trained in Muay Thai seldom look much like "classic" Muay Thai. Even though its called "mixed" martial arts, what we see today is a distinct style that has evolved. Everyone generally does the same thing. But that doesn't necessarily mean that what they are doing is the optimal blend of striking and grappling. All it would take is for a few fighters to come along that do things differently and yet keep winning, and you'd likely see the MMA "style" shift again across the board.

---So, yes...I agree with you that the "classic" Muay Thai stance would seem to be closer to the LPR boxing, and better suited to defend against grappling. But it, and the LPR stance wouldn't be as good for setting up the takedown. And the takedown is a major component of MMA today.

Keith

 

They'd have to re-figure out their sprawl because classic LPR stance leaves the legs exposed to singles and doubles far more than, for instance, the Mendoza guard or Johnson's guard.

Not saying that it's not possible, of course. I've seen some MMA fighters take a very LPR-like stance, though it tended to be more flexible and often in the later stages of the fight when both fighters were less fresh.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

Hey Kirk!

They'd have to re-figure out their sprawl because classic LPR stance leaves the legs exposed to singles and doubles far more than, for instance, the Mendoza guard or Johnson's guard.

---Yes, I agree. The double leg takedown existed in the wrestling of the day, but wasn't something they had to deal with in the ring. I think the optimal position for being ready to defend against the double leg as well as still work everything in the LPR "style" would be something between the LPR stance and the Mendoza stance. Not quite as upright as LPR, but then not as "crouched" as Mendoza. But consider too that when you see pictures of guys actually "in action" in the LPR era, none of them are standing as upright as the "posed" images you typically see of the ready position stance.

---Now, just looking at things from a biomechanical perspective......the sprawl essentially involves throwing the legs back out of reach of the guy attempting the double leg takedown. If you in a "crouched" or "squatted" position, then your lead leg is typically further forward than a more upright stance. So biomechanically speaking, throwing that lead leg back out of reach is going to be faster from a more upright stance because it has less distance to travel. On the other hand, being too upright with a high center of gravity means you have more distance to travel with your body when you go to drop down into a sprawl. So again, something in between is probably more optimal. And having the lead arm extended with the elbow down ala the LRP stance allows you to immediately drop the forearm down on the guy as he shoots in and you throw your legs back to sprawl.

Keith

 

That seems to be true (and I believe it so). However, what film footage we have is comparatively sight, has to work around the somewhat severe limitations of the early technology, and often "staged." While I believe that what we do have is pretty accurate, there is some doubt that might be cast upon it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

i'd been wondering on this subject for a while now. and reading this topic really got me curious and perhaps a lot excited =P. I'm looking forward to Kirk's 2nd book =) untill then, can anyone tell me the name of Mike donovan's book that's been mentioned here so much?

Also, could hand conditioning be a reason why broken wrists,knuckles etc, were not so big of a problem in ye olde days? like the sort done in kyokushin and CMAs. pehaps back in those days they did a lot of conditioning work? or am i wrong and modern boxers follow same condtioning and still end up with broken bones outside of their gloves?

 

can anyone tell me the name of Mike donovan's book that's been mentioned here so much?

---Its titled "The Science of Boxing." You can find it on google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=A-...page&q=mike donovan science of boxing&f=false

Also, could hand conditioning be a reason why broken wrists,knuckles etc, were not so big of a problem in ye olde days? like the sort done in kyokushin and CMAs. pehaps back in those days they did a lot of conditioning work?

---Partially, but not totally. Punching objects over a period of time causes the bones to become denser and therefore more resistant to damage on impact. I think it was combination of conditioning and using good punching mechanics.

Keith

 

Good point! I agree!

Keith

 

I can't believe I've going to say this, but if you already have the 1st Edition, consider carefully whether or not you need the 2nd.

The 2nd Edition has around 20 new photos, a bunch of new material, a good half dozen or more new Sources, expanded historic instruction on 1st Ed. material, and an expanded "Pull the Hair, Poke they Eye" section which includes (believe it or not) "Western Pressure Point Strikes."

But outside of that stuff, the 2nd Edition is more evolutionary where as, in contrast, I believe the 1st Edition was more revolutionary.

If you already have the 1st and can live without new photos and some more historic accounts (and the Pressure Point Strikes), then save your money. It's a Second, updated, Edition, not a Volume II.

Please don't tell anyone I said that.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

Thanks guys. =)

D don't have the first edition yet, i thought if the second ed is coming out soon so i'll wait for it =)
In the mean time i'll check our Mike donovans book =)

 

It is. I'm targeting this week or next.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

So can anyone tell me why the horizontal fist was adopted when fighting with gloves?

 

My theory....when the threat of grappling and Chancery was eliminated, the range got a little closer and in-fighting was more prominent. At close range you hit with shorter punches that seem to just naturally tend to be more horizontal. With the advent of wrapping the hands and using bigger gloves all the time, fighters sort of "lost the knack" for punching with good mechanics that help protect the hands from injury. In the 1930's Jim Driscoll wrote a book called "The Straight Left and How to Cultivate It." He spent half of the book talking about how punching straight had become a lost art in boxing and how the "bearcats" that were brawlers and in-fighters were dominating the sport. Modern boxers don't really use the straight left much anymore. It has become a flicking jab where they don't really intend to put much force behind it.

Keith

 

This is speculation, but we use the vertical fist when striking to the head with the lead hand bare knuckle. The reason why is that the elbow is kept down to protect from body shots.

When using a horizontal fist strike to the opponent's body, because the hands are lower, the body can still be protected... however, when using a horizontal fist strike to the head, the body is less protected.

The horizontal fist (actually 3/4 fist) is one of the most powerful punches, particularly against the soft targets on the body.

So theory is that body shots became less of a threat for some reason and the head became a better target. This might be due to the introduction of gloves. With the gloves protecting the hand, harder hits could be made to the head, and the gloves might have made body shots not as effective a hit.

 

The reason why is that the elbow is kept down to protect from body shots.

---This is true. But that's only one of the reasons.

When using a horizontal fist strike to the opponent's body, because the hands are lower, the body can still be protected... however, when using a horizontal fist strike to the head, the body is less protected.

---Also true!

So theory is that body shots became less of a threat for some reason and the head became a better target. This might be due to the introduction of gloves. With the gloves protecting the hand, harder hits could be made to the head, and the gloves might have made body shots not as effective a hit.

---Yes. There may be some truth in that. Also, the "modern" boxing style involves fighting from more of a crouch and at closer range. So the head is more accessible as a target...as long as you can get past the barrier of the gloves!

Keith

 

I was taught the vertical punch in Muay Thai as a way of getting a punch home through the "peek a boo" style guard when a horizontal fist couldnt get in through the nipped forearms

 

Except you said "horizontal fist" twice. Did you mean to say that the vertical fist has a better chance of slipping/forcing between the forearms?

What you say makes sense, and there's less incentive to protect the body when using gloves, but what do boxers gain from the horizontal fist? Why change without a good reason? What's the advantage?

Not sure I agree that closer punches tend to be more horizontal. Close range body shots are more easily done with a vertical fist, you often see this during "pummeling". A close-range hook would seem to benefit from the horizontal fist, as the elbow rises more naturally to clear the guard or shoulder.

My theory: That the horizontal fist became popular as a result of the twisting action used by some boxers to tear the skin. This is no longer a desirable result, owing to "blood rules" and risk of disease. Certainly in a real fight I wouldn't want to be swapping blood with a stranger. There's probably a little truth in all our theories, but can anyone point out a clear advantage of the horizontal, gloved, punch?

BTW Keith: I've also read "The straight left" and frankly I'm amazed when I see pro boxers with a sloppy jab. My boxing instructor taught me to "work off the jab" - and I still do in sparring. In fact I rarely use the right hand, and only after setting up with the left. My left hook is probably harder than my straight right.

 

Yeah StevieB8363,I meant vertical fist

 

I can understand why the jab isn't popular in MMA - puts you into kicking range as stated - but I see no good reason/excuse for it's decline in Queensberry rules. I defy anyone to "box scientifically" without a decent jab.

 

One (but not the only) reason a boxer throws a punch with his first horizontal is so that he impacts his opponent with the full span of his knuckle. Put your clenched fist against your mouth first vertically and then horizontally. Punching vertically i was always led to believe your trying to hit with the first two knuckles and while this creates a smaller surface area when you replace it with a horizontal first you'll feel it covers most of your mouth. Punching in this manner gave a lot more impact area.

Lenny McClean always said "thats dead handy for knocking out most of some blokes teeth in one blow".

And as for the jab...i spent 20 + years in conventional boxing before recently branching into Martial Arts, in my case, Muay Thai and also looking at MMA, and the jab was pretty much the first punch i was shown.
Arguably its one of the most important for a number of reasons. Its a very versatile punch after all, in boxing at least, though i should imagine in some MA's its viewed as positively as well. It can be used with great effect for keeping an opponent at distance, preventing him from moving in to utilise his own more powerful shots (hook, uppercut etc). It can be used to keep the pressure on your opponent, it has a demoralising effect on your opponent when you are continually sticking him in the face with a crisp well executed jab. Used in this manner it can be an energy sapping movement. Finally it is a great punch to use for ranging in on the other guy, using it to set up a combination/flurry. While its not the most powerful, the jab its very much a versatile one. In fact with regards to it not being the most powerful, there have been some great boxers who could seriously hurt their opponents with the jab and cause major doubt to set in, early in a fight. Here's a rundown of some or the more memorable ones:

Larry Holmes- this to me is easy, Holmes defended the heavyweight title 20 times, he beat several solid fighters with his jab, even past his prime and shot he still stayed competitive because of his great jab.

Sonny Liston- his jab was like most fighters right hand. He could literally break your nose with his jab , possibly the hardest jab in history without a doubt.

Lennox Lewis-he kept great fighters such as Evander Holyfield and Mike Tyson at bay with a crisp, powerful jab, using it to set him up for that devestatin haymaker of his.

Sugar Ray Robinson-While any of this mans punches should be in any top 10 list, his jabs set up his poetry in motion like techniques.

Pernell Whitaker- southpaw jab, he beat many hall of famers with his jab and excellent defense.

Benny Leonard- one of the top lightweights in history he had skills and power but it was the jab that set the tone to all his fights.

Joe Louis- his combination punching knocked out many fighters, but he had a record 25 defenses of the heavyweight title, take away his jab and he would have been lucky to defend the title more than 3 or 4 times.

Muhammad Ali- generally considered one of the top few best fighters in the history of the sport, he beat Liston for the title, and coasted through many rounds of boxing without getting hurt and the jab was a big part of his defence and offense.

Willie Pep- its often overlooked because of his legendary defense but peps jab although not a HARD punch sure piled up a lot of points during his career.

George Foreman- one of the best k.o. artists in history, its simple take away Foremans jab then you take away his k.o.s


Just my two pence worth.

Morti