The sweet science

[Pauli Vennervirta]

I have started the process of collecting knowledge of boxing. Not of the modern way, but of the bare-knuckle old time "gentlemans art of self defence". Manuals can be found, even some video clips are available and there are people that still teach and study this aspect of western martial arts.

Boxing, the way it was done during 19th and 18th centuries, was very different from the modern combat sport of today. Without the protection of gloves the body mechanics used are not the same as today. For example, strikes were done with the fist vertical, not horizontal as today, because it was more important that strikes landed correctly with knuckles to avoid broken hands. It is not a coinsidence that old time boxing and the chinese art of wing chun resemble each other, the problems and solutions were similar.

The man that had a very large influence to boxing was Daniel Mendoza, "the fighting jew". Before his time boxing in Britain was a game of standing toe to toe and dishing out punishment. Mendoza's style consisted of more than simply battering opponents into submission, his "scientific style" included much defensive movement. He developed an entirely new style of boxing, incorporating defensive strategies, such as what he called “side-stepping”, moving around, and ducking, blocking, and, all in all, avoiding punches. Sounds simplistic now , but it was revolutionary back then. His ability to overcome much heavier adversaries was a consequence of this. Though he stood only 5'7" and weighed only 160 pounds, Mendoza was England’s sixteenth Heavyweight Champion from 1792 to 1795. Thus he holds probably The Greatest Record in Boxing History, as he is the only middleweight to ever win the Heavyweight Championship of the World. In 1789 he opened his own boxing academy and published The Art of Boxing the book on modern "scientific" style boxing which every subsequent boxer learned from.

Mendoza was so popular that the London press reported news of one of his bouts ahead of the storming of the Bastille which marked the start of the French Revolution. He transformed the English stereotype of a Jew from a weak, defenseless person into someone deserving of respect. He is said to have been the first Jew to talk to the King, George III.

His early boxing career was defined by three bouts with his former mentor Richard Humphries between 1788 and 1790. The first of these was lost due to Humphries’s second (the former Champion, Tom Johnson) blocking a blow. The second two bouts were won by Mendoza. The third bout set history in another way . It was the first time spectators were charged an entry payment to a sporting event. The fights were hyped by a series of combative letters in the press between Humphries and Mendoza.

Mendoza's "memoirs" report that he got involved in three fights whilst on his way to watch a boxing match. The reasons were: (a) someone's cart cut in; (b) he felt a shopkeeper was trying to cheat him; © he didn't like how a man was looking at him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Mendoza

Extracts from Daniel Mendoza's Boxing Manual are hosted at the Linacre School of Defence website. http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/Mendoza/

I found some modern interpretations of bare knuckle boxing from youtube by the late great martial artist Carl Cestari. Cestari had studied many unarmed arts. If you compare the pictures of old time boxers Cestaris movements look more modern, but the way he punches and body mechanics look to me that he has understood the logic right (allthough what do I know ). Anyway, looks good to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZJfP_O9u...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khvuYfGh_...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFpEoMsW8...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5nRl-snd...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWo9Y3CP1...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSOC9s4qa...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYvBuoBiE...re=related
Cestari says many times that "Bare knuckle boxing is fencing with fists". Modern boxing stance does not work in this game, because it leaves hands and arms vulnerable to attack, therefore the more extended position. See the point? You parry the attack, like in fencing, not absorb it, because you dont have the luxury of gloves. Also this style had also throws and kicks, at least as it was a self defence art as much as a sport. An example: stepping on the instep of the opponent (stomping his foot really) and pushing him at the same time to fall him. Rudimentary, but it works. Also hip throws and trips were used.

I found also some books of the subject and I have contacted the head of Linnacre school of defence, Milo Thurston, who seemed eager to give knowledge of the subject. I have asked his opinion of material available and he said that he might be willing to come to Finland! He also gave me this link of Yahoogroup dedicated to the study of classical boxing. http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/cla...=163786303

So, is there an interest in this? And so that this wont get too serious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdd3_qx6Eqw

[Pauli Vennervirta]

Some more. I really dont know what to think of these. Looks like some Irish guys decided to put the camera on a forest clearing and start demonstrating "dirty boxing". Well, the bareknuckle boxing IS a favorite irish passtime (watch the movie "Snatch").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G8MIhxpy...annel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqQNrhDMA...annel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6tr53mjD...annel_page

All of these and more can be found on these pages:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=bill...&start=140
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=bill...&start=160

[Joeli T.]

I'll certainly look your findings more in depth later on, thanks for posting.


If you are interested, Linacre School od Defense also has a very short passage of text by Nicholaes Petter (published 1674). He calls it wrestling, but deals with striking and self defence, too.
http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/Petter/

[Pauli Vennervirta]

Thanks. Still some more of my findings.

The Science of self defence By Edmund Price 1867.

From bare-knuckles to modern boxing How Gloves have changed the Art of Pugilism, by By Tim Ruzicki © 2003. Savate Australia website.

Terry Browns bare-fist techniques, discussion on Arma forum.

[Ilkka Hartikainen]

Hi!

This is a subject worth studying. This is not my field by any means, but a few suggestions. After piling up all sorts of sources, as you have now done, attempt to categorize the material, separating out what is modern boxing, what is English bareknuckle boxing, what are some other folk styles, what comes from the little we have from older sources and so on. Try to focus on one aspect, and separate out a study of a certain documented style, or documented tradition and what you would like to incorporate in your own style.

Cestari's videos are interesting, he sure can put his body weight into use and is very skilled, however I think I'm seeing the oriental roots in his style. Very interesting videos in any case. The videos from the Irish chaps are less impressive in my opinion, not least because I am impatient with videos and hate it when the demonstration never seems to get to the first complete action. Also, I'd suggest separating the clinch and grappling from fist fighting - pugilism is no longer pugilism if you add kicks and grappling and the like.

But anyway, good stuff and keep at it!

- Ilkka

[Pauli Vennervirta]

(05-27-2009 12:10 AM)Ilkka Hartikainen Wrote:  Hi!

This is a subject worth studying. This is not my field by any means, but a few suggestions. After piling up all sorts of sources, as you have now done, attempt to categorize the material, separating out what is modern boxing, what is English bareknuckle boxing, what are some other folk styles, what comes from the little we have from older sources and so on. Try to focus on one aspect, and separate out a study of a certain documented style, or documented tradition and what you would like to incorporate in your own style.

I understand that. So, I can focus on Mendoza and Price, compare them and start the training from that.

(05-27-2009 12:10 AM)Ilkka Hartikainen Wrote:  Cestari's videos are interesting, he sure can put his body weight into use and is very skilled, however I think I'm seeing the oriental roots in his style. Very interesting videos in any case. The videos from the Irish chaps are less impressive in my opinion, not least because I am impatient with videos and hate it when the demonstration never seems to get to the first complete action.

That was what I was thinking too. Cestaris style certainly has some karate in it, you can see it in the body movement. The Irish are rather funny, allthough they show what kind of possibilities there are if you think of self defence. In Cestaris case the "RBSD" (reality based self defence) can be seen very well, but that was his focus.

(05-27-2009 12:10 AM)Ilkka Hartikainen Wrote:  Also, I'd suggest separating the clinch and grappling from fist fighting - pugilism is no longer pugilism if you add kicks and grappling and the like.

About that I am not quite so sure. Grappling was an integral part of boxing matches during those days, so I feel that if I take that away completely I am taking away something valuable? But sure, striking, moving and parrying are the skills I am going to focus on first.

[Ilkka Hartikainen]

In that case, go ahead and incorporate grappling as much as you can - honestly I am not very well versed on the prize fighting rules. If you find actual sources on grappling/clinch and the like, I'd be very interested in hearing what is available!

Yours,
Ilkka

[Pauli Vennervirta]

(05-27-2009 12:54 AM)Ilkka Hartikainen Wrote:  In that case, go ahead and incorporate grappling as much as you can - honestly I am not very well versed on the prize fighting rules.

The rules were as follows:

Quote:Fights under these rules were typically fought with bare knuckles. The rules also allowed for a broad range of fighting including holds and throws of the opponent. Spiked shoes, within limits, were also allowed. Also included were provisions dealing with how wagers would be resolved if various events such as interference by the law, darkness, or cancellations occurred. In contrast with modern boxing rules based upon the Marquess of Queensberry rules, a round ended with a man downed by punch or throw, whereupon he was given 30 seconds to rest and eight additional seconds to "come to scratch" or return to the centre of the ring where a "scratch line" was drawn and square off with his opponent once more. Consequently, there were no round limits to fights. When a man could not come to scratch, he would be declared loser and the fight would be brought to a halt. Fights could also end if broken up beforehand by crowd riot, police interference or chicanery, or if both men were willing to accept that the contest was a draw. While fights could have enormous numbers of rounds, the rounds in practice could be quite short with fighters pretending to go down from minor blows to take advantage of the 30-second rest period.

These are the original Broughton Rules, on which the London Prize Ring Rules were based.

1. That a square of a yard be chalked in the middle of the stage, and on every fresh set-to after a fall, or being parted from the rails, each Second is to bring his Man to the side of the square, and place him opposite to the other, and till they are fairly set-to at the Lines, it shall not be lawful for one to strike at the other.
2. That, in order to prevent any Disputes, the time a Man lies after a fall, if the Second does not bring his Man to the side of the square, within the space of half a minute, he shall be deemed a beaten Man.
3. That in every main Battle, no person whatever shall be upon the Stage, except the Principals and their Seconds, the same rule to be observed in bye-battles, except that in the latter, Mr. Broughton is allowed to be upon the Stage to keep decorum, and to assist Gentlemen in getting to their places, provided always he does not interfere in the Battle; and whoever pretends to infringe these Rules to be turned immediately out of the house. Every body is to quit the Stage as soon as the Champions are stripped, before the set-to.
4. That no Champion be deemed beaten, unless he fails coming up to the line in the limited time, or that his own Second declares him beaten. No Second is to be allowed to ask his man’s Adversary any questions, or advise him to give out.
5. That in bye-battles, the winning man to have two-thirds of the Money given, which shall be publicly divided upon the Stage, notwithstanding any private agreements to the contrary.
6. That to prevent Disputes, in every main Battle the Principals shall, on coming on the Stage, choose from among the gentlemen present two Umpires, who shall absolutely decide all Disputes that may arise about the Battle; and if the two Umpires cannot agree, the said Umpires to choose a third, who is to determine it.
7. That no person is to hit his Adversary when he is down, or seize him by the ham, the breeches, or any part below the waist. A man on his knees is to be reckoned down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Prize_Ring_rules

These rules are from the year 1743. When gloved boxing was introduced, the first gloves were 5 ounce gloves. The MMA-fighters today are using gloves that weigh about the same or little more. In those days, the gloves of course were more primitive. What they did was effectively take out the wrestling option.

[Ilkka Hartikainen]

Thanks for posting these!

By the way, there's a book about this very subject out recently from Paladin Press. Here's a review by Ken Pfrenger (copypasted from Facebook ).

"Bare-Knuckle Boxer's Companion".by
Lindholm and Karlsson.
Well, the old saying "if you can't say something nice, they don't say anything"
comes to mind first off

Usually I read reviews about a swordy type book written by a historical fencer
who was none too pleased at the quality of the work...too be honest it just
seems like a lot of nitpicking to me but now I think I get it.

There are some decent things in the book and some god-awful. Mostly things fall
somewhere in between. There are a few things that really bother me though...they
show a period illustration of Mendoza in his stance then show one of the authors
in Mendoza's stance on the next page and while similar it is not the same, they
do the same with Price and Humphries...to me this is pretty big.

Chapter 4 deals with boxing exercises, specifically Mendoza's lessons. Let's
just say their interpretation of these lessons and mine are vastly different.
Infact their whole treatment of the lessons are very different from the text
they originate from. They go as far as to say not to try and follow Mendoza's
lessons exactly...of course I disagree with this.

The section on the 3 knuckle landing...Dempsey says hit with the last three
knuckles but aim with your ring finger knuckle. in this book they cant their
vertical fists upward so that the pinky knuckle is the first to make contact.

Ok before I write a book longer than the one I am reviewing, I am calling it
quits.

Yours,
Ilkka

[Pauli Vennervirta]

Thanks Ilkka. I agree that if we are going to get anywhere with this research, we should follow the instructions on these old books first and not start quessing.

Quote:...they
show a period illustration of Mendoza in his stance then show one of the authors
in Mendoza's stance on the next page and while similar it is not the same

What Price says of the correct position is this:

Quote:In the first place, the hand should be properly closed, or, as the phrase is, the fist should be properly made up. This is a matter of much importance and will require practice. The fingers should be clenched (not too tightly,) and the thumb so doubled down outside of them that when the arm is in proper position for action before your adversary, he can see no portion of it above the knuckles. If the hand be rightly held the knuckles form a sort of arch, and if at the moment the blow be given, the hand be clenched with all your might it cannot but be effective.

In the next place your left arm should be extended at about two thirds of its whole length and the extremity of the arm should range just below the level of your shoulder. The back of the hand should be turned downward, but at the same time the hand should be slightly turned upward from the wrist. By this postition the back of your knuckles will be thrown exactly upon a line with the face of your opponent.

The advantage of this position of the left arm, is self evident, and nothing could well be easier or less fatiguing, and while its powerful propelling muscle is scarcely in full tension, it is capable of complete and prompt exertion at any monent for offense or defense.

Secondly, your right arm should be extended across your body, your finger knuckles touching the nipple of the left breast. This must necessarily bring the knuckles of the back of your hand immediately towards your adversary's face.

The position of the right hand is guite important. It protects the solar plexus and from this position it is possible to throw a straight right in the correct vertical fist, landing the punch with knuckles. I tried, it works "The mark", or the pit of the belly, was of course an important target (Prices punch number three) and the position of the left elbow gives some protection also to belly and ribs.


What I found strange in Prices book is that there are no hooking punches to the head. His punches number 4 and 5 are clearly hooks to the ribs. All punches to the head are either straight or backfist (number 6). I believe hooks to the head are not in this manual because of the lack of gloves. It is more difficult to controll hooks to land on proper knuckles than straights. Again, believe me, I have experience (a broken knuckle after connecting a forehead, this time with a uppercut).