--- In classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com, Ken Pfrenger
<kenpfrenger@g...> wrote:

.....with a smattering of Russian
> style fisticuffs thrown in to boot:)

Hey Ken,

This is something that I am very interested in. What is your source
for this material? Mine is primarily Scott Sonnon's "Fisticuffs" and
"Shockability".

Also, I think it is cool that you switch your style around during
bouts and encourage your students to find their own way. I know of
quite a number of people who are very good at fighting in their own
schools but fall to bits against an unfamiliar style. I do much the
same as you, I switch from a modern posture, to Crazy Monkey, to LPR
and to my modified "crab guard".

Things that always stick no matter the posture I fight out of are the
Russian shock absorption, the casting method of throwing blows and the
  overwhelming pressure/domination of the emotional joint mass centre.

I find that the tension method of absorbing body shots from modern
boxing really hurts and isn't all that effective by comparison with
good absorption skills. Multi-joint shock absorption works wonders for
dealing with body blows. (It always puzzles me that boxers roll
beautifully with head blows yet apply the opposite tactic to body blows)

As for casting blows, the power level goes up and the hands are
protected by keeping the knuckles online all the time and allowing the
casting motion to align the wrist at contact. Keeping the forward
pressure allows one to flow straight into close range blows with all
four sides of the fist and elbow.
Cheers,
Stu.

--- In classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com, Ken Pfrenger
<kenpfrenger@g...> wrote:
> Cornish and Devonshire style as well as Breton gouren all seem to have
> come from some common source, most likely and earlier Celtic style
> that also branched off into Ireland as Collar& Elbow style

not to mention such diversions as Shin-Kicking

http://www.truebrits.tv/shin_kicking.html

c. vermeers

--- In classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com, Ken Pfrenger
<kenpfrenger@g...> wrote:
>
> On 11/12/05, James Marwood <james.marwood@g...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > > unable_to_find_unused_name
> > > Sent: 12 November 2005 19:19
> > > To: classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [classicpugilism] Re: A lot of questions--the
> > > "fencing style", LPR, later pugilism, schools, sourc
> > >
> > >
> > > Also, where does the upper body wrestling aspect fit into all
> > > of this? I have read that they favored Cornish and/or
> > > Devonshire style wrestling--are there any manuals extant on
> > > either of these?
> > The only manual on-line I'm aware of is the Norfolk Wresting
manual hosted
> > by The Exiles at
http://www.the-exiles.org/manual/norfwres/norfwres.htm
>
> in addition:
> The Inn- Play or Cornish -Hugg Wrestler
> By Sir Thomas Parkyns, of Bunny Baronet
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4933/westernartsparkyns.html
> Wrestling from Donald Walkers 1840 text "Defensive Exercises"
> http://www.geocities.com/cinaet/walker.html
> Zachary Wylde 1711
> Concise Rules of Wrestling, plainly demonstrated
> http://www.geocities.com/cinaet/wylde.html

Thanks for your help. I appreciate it.
>

On 11/12/05, James Marwood <james.marwood@...> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > unable_to_find_unused_name
> > Sent: 12 November 2005 19:19
> > To: classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [classicpugilism] Re: A lot of questions--the
> > "fencing style", LPR, later pugilism, schools, sourc
> >
> >
> > Also, where does the upper body wrestling aspect fit into all
> > of this? I have read that they favored Cornish and/or
> > Devonshire style wrestling--are there any manuals extant on
> > either of these?
> The only manual on-line I'm aware of is the Norfolk Wresting manual hosted
> by The Exiles at http://www.the-exiles.org/manual/norfwres/norfwres.htm

in addition:
The Inn- Play or Cornish -Hugg Wrestler
By Sir Thomas Parkyns, of Bunny Baronet
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4933/westernartsparkyns.html
Wrestling from Donald Walkers 1840 text "Defensive Exercises"
http://www.geocities.com/cinaet/walker.html
Zachary Wylde 1711
Concise Rules of Wrestling, plainly demonstrated
http://www.geocities.com/cinaet/wylde.html

On 11/12/05, unable_to_find_unused_name
<unable_to_find_unused_name@...> wrote:

> In the list of manuals available on word in Classic Pugilism, I notice
> several books dating from 1807-1837--before LPR. Would you say that
> the systems detailed there are hybrids of Mendoza's system and the
> later system as recorded in Edwards, Price, and Donovan, or are they
> distinct?

Styles and methods definitely did blend during transitional periods
but without seeing these manuals I cannot comment on them
specifically. Some published in the early part of the 19th century all
seem to plagarize off of each other and do harken back to the
broughton era with a heavy focus on Mendoza....I do not think I have
any of the manuals from the 1830's around here so I cannot comment on
them.

>
> Also, where does the upper body wrestling aspect fit into all of this?
> I have read that they favored Cornish and/or Devonshire style
> wrestling--are there any manuals extant on either of these? Do both of
> these systems rely upon similar techniques? (despite Cornish wrestling
> relying more on hugging and throwing as opposed to Devonshire's
> kicking and tripping, I notice from the modern Corning wrestling
> organization's website that trips are also legal in Cornish wrestling)

Cornish and Devonshire style as well as Breton gouren all seem to have
come from some common source, most likely and earlier Celtic style
that also branched off into Ireland as Collar& Elbow style.....each of
these styles as well as Greco-Roman wrestling were used to some
extant. The Cornish styles in the earlier methods then as GR and C&E
became more popular in the later half of the 19th century it seems
that they came more into the forefront but all these styles share many
things in common like the cross-buttock or it's variants.

>
> Finally, does your organization teach LPR style pugilism in addition
> to Mendoza and Dempsey? And are there going to be any seminars in the
> next year or so in the Northeast (I believe you were at Lansing last
> year?)

We do boxing from Medoza to Dempsey and just about everything in
between:) We do not all do one style, for the most part each of us
here has chosen one method to focus on and the rest do our best to
help that person along. So if we get a new guy who wants to learn LPR
style then that is what we focus on for a while until they get the
basics down. In any particular bout i have been known to switch from
the semi-crouch of dempsey to the extended lead of the LPR fighters
and then slip into Mendozas attitude...witha smattering of Russian
style fisticuffs thrown in to boot:)

Lansing is at the beginning of August and in the last few years both
Tim Ruzicki and I have taught classic pugilism with Tim having his
focus more on the LPR era. In June of next summer we will be having a
two day event here in Northern Ohio...I will keep everyone posted as
to the date and location. We probably won't even start worrying about
that until  a few months have passed.

ken

On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 15:41 +0000, unable_to_find_unused_name wrote:

> Finally, I wondered whether there are schools in the Northeast that
> teach any of these styles, seminars that teach them, or tapes/DVD's
> available that demonstrate the techniques. Also, which style do they
> teach? LPR? "Fencing"? Later period?

There is a VHS vid. of Ken's Pugilism Class from the recent Cumann Bhata
Western Martial Arts Seminar.  The first half of the class is Mendoza
style and the second is Dempsey style.  There is also an instructional
VHS of Ken focusing exclusively on the Dempsey style.  Both are $15 in
the con. U.S.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

My father always says that boxing was descended from fencing - he was
taught by his fdather and a priest in the back yard.

His first fight was with an an ABA championm whom he beat - his cousin
was the Coventry Bulldog Jimmy Lynes who fought Terry Downes twice and
both he and his brother Jimmy was in the same gym in Coventry as Randy
turpin.  I think my uncle Jimmy was sparring partner for Randy Turpin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> unable_to_find_unused_name
> Sent: 12 November 2005 19:19
> To: classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [classicpugilism] Re: A lot of questions--the
> "fencing style", LPR, later pugilism, schools, sourc
>
>
> Also, where does the upper body wrestling aspect fit into all
> of this? I have read that they favored Cornish and/or
> Devonshire style wrestling--are there any manuals extant on
> either of these? Do both of these systems rely upon similar
> techniques? (despite Cornish wrestling relying more on
> hugging and throwing as opposed to Devonshire's kicking and
> tripping, I notice from the modern Corning wrestling
> organization's website that trips are also legal in Cornish wrestling)

The only manual on-line I'm aware of is the Norfolk Wresting manual hosted
by The Exiles at http://www.the-exiles.org/manual/norfwres/norfwres.htm

HTH

James

--- In classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com, Ken Pfrenger
<kenpfrenger@g...> wrote:
>
> <unable_to_find_unused_name@y...> wrote:
>
> > Thanks to both of you for all of the information. It was quite
> > illuminating.
>
> You are very welcome, glad I could help.
>
> >
> > With the timelines that you give for LPR "style" (stretching into the
> > mid-1880's), would you say that the techniques and methods stay
> > relatively consistent from the Burke/Bendigo/Caunt era up to about
> > 1885? Are Edwards' and Donovan's books a good overview of the
> > bareknuckle style of that era?
>
> I think Edwards and Donovan give a good look at the style during the
> LPR as does Price http://www.geocities.com/cinaet/price.html but you
> will notice they are not all exactly the same....but there does seem
> to be a common thread running through all their works.
>
> >
> > Incidentally, were Mendoza's methods still used during the "golden
> > age" of regency boxing, (with Pearce, Gulley, Cribb, Belcher, etc.),
> > or were methods further divorced from weapons fighting beginning to
> > take over? According to "Pugilistica", Mendoza's style still seems to
> > be a somewhat separate entity from mainstream pugilism (or at least it
> > appears this way, since it makes special note of the fact that Dutch
> > Sam used the Mendozan system).
>
> it is very hard to say with what style these guys fought with. We do
> have some good descriptions on some of these fighters and their styles
> but not much is really known about them. We are lucky that Mendoza not
> only wrote his stuff down but that others were so inspired by him that
> they wrote about him in such detail. I would venture a guess and say
> that there were probably some elements that were shared by those who
> fought in the broughton Era just as there were in the times of the LPR
> fighters.
>
> ken
>


In the list of manuals available on word in Classic Pugilism, I notice
several books dating from 1807-1837--before LPR. Would you say that
the systems detailed there are hybrids of Mendoza's system and the
later system as recorded in Edwards, Price, and Donovan, or are they
distinct?

Also, where does the upper body wrestling aspect fit into all of this?
I have read that they favored Cornish and/or Devonshire style
wrestling--are there any manuals extant on either of these? Do both of
these systems rely upon similar techniques? (despite Cornish wrestling
relying more on hugging and throwing as opposed to Devonshire's
kicking and tripping, I notice from the modern Corning wrestling
organization's website that trips are also legal in Cornish wrestling)

Finally, does your organization teach LPR style pugilism in addition
to Mendoza and Dempsey? And are there going to be any seminars in the
next year or so in the Northeast (I believe you were at Lansing last
year?)

Thanks for all of your help.

<unable_to_find_unused_name@...> wrote:

> Thanks to both of you for all of the information. It was quite
> illuminating.

You are very welcome, glad I could help.

>
> With the timelines that you give for LPR "style" (stretching into the
> mid-1880's), would you say that the techniques and methods stay
> relatively consistent from the Burke/Bendigo/Caunt era up to about
> 1885? Are Edwards' and Donovan's books a good overview of the
> bareknuckle style of that era?

I think Edwards and Donovan give a good look at the style during the
LPR as does Price http://www.geocities.com/cinaet/price.html but you
will notice they are not all exactly the same....but there does seem
to be a common thread running through all their works.

>
> Incidentally, were Mendoza's methods still used during the "golden
> age" of regency boxing, (with Pearce, Gulley, Cribb, Belcher, etc.),
> or were methods further divorced from weapons fighting beginning to
> take over? According to "Pugilistica", Mendoza's style still seems to
> be a somewhat separate entity from mainstream pugilism (or at least it
> appears this way, since it makes special note of the fact that Dutch
> Sam used the Mendozan system).

it is very hard to say with what style these guys fought with. We do
have some good descriptions on some of these fighters and their styles
but not much is really known about them. We are lucky that Mendoza not
only wrote his stuff down but that others were so inspired by him that
they wrote about him in such detail. I would venture a guess and say
that there were probably some elements that were shared by those who
fought in the broughton Era just as there were in the times of the LPR
fighters.

ken

--- In classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com, Terry Brown <terrybrown@m...>
wrote:
>
> In message <242e12d40511120835t64d6970el5a4a3e0fd2af1e9b@m...>
> , Ken Pfrenger <kenpfrenger@g...> writes
> >    On 11/12/05, unable_to_find_unused_name
> >    <unable_to_find_unused_name@y...> wrote:
> >    > Hello. I have a rather lengthy series of questions:
> >
> >    Hello unable to find username:)
> Hi Ken and no-name:)
> >
> >    Fencing style is not a term used by everybody......I think it is
> >    Terrys personal style that he refers to when using the term, but I
> >    could be wrong. I'll let him chime in.
> Ken, You are right in one sense, I do use the term, 'Fencing Style' to
> differentiate between what I teach and later boxing styles. I also use
> the term as reminder or link so that my students will be constantly
> aware that the system uses exactly the same principles employed in
> traditional English weapon fighting. Having said that I use methods and
> techniques from the earliest written source (Mendoza) right up to the
> 19th century. The criteria being that those techniques don't contravene
> the principles. As for the term fencing style I am not aware of it
> having any historical validity; Nor do I claim to have 'invented it:)
> >
> >    The actual terms I use are as follows:
> >
> >    1 Broughton Era 1743 to 1838......not just one style but a set of
> >    rules that was fought under which dictated some of the stylistic
> >    methods including Mendoza
> >
> >    2 London Prize Ring era 1838 to the 1885 (or therabouts) Once again
> >    not a style but a set of rules that dictated the style
> >
> >    3 Marquess or Marquis of Queensbury era which is basically what we
> >    are
> >    still in but boxing has still changed a great deal since these
> >    rules
> >    were instituted, so I opt for modern boxing being divided into
> >    Early
> >    Modern and Late Modern.
> >
> I think the above is as accurate a way of categorising the 'systems' as
> any other way.
> >
> >
> >    And there is plenty of grey area here in the transitional periods
> >    between the rule changes and even the Pre Broughton Era....not very
> >    much is known about boxing contests before this period.
> >Quite right, the most we have are a few  descriptions which, although
> helpful are hardly defining. Though I do think Godfrey's descriptions
> are worth reading.
> >
> SNIP
> >
> >    > Fourth, I wondered about the difference in actual effectiveness
> >    > between these eras. Did the art of bareknuckle boxing "evolve" to
> >    > become better suited to bareknuckle rules as time went on? In
> >    other
> >    > words, is the LPR "style" or the "late period" "style" better for
> >    > bareknuckle boxing contests than the "fencing style" is?
> >
> As Ken said, pretty difficult to answer this sort of question, all I can
> say about 'my' system is that it is taught as self-defence/unarmed
> combat and the methods chosen are intended to reflect that.
> >
> Anyway, welcome to the wonderful world of WMA and I hope you manage to
> find a teacher. I would certainly recommend that you try to hook up with
> Ken.
> >
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> --
> Terry Brown
>


Thanks to both of you for all of the information. It was quite
illuminating.

With the timelines that you give for LPR "style" (stretching into the
mid-1880's), would you say that the techniques and methods stay
relatively consistent from the Burke/Bendigo/Caunt era up to about
1885? Are Edwards' and Donovan's books a good overview of the
bareknuckle style of that era?

Incidentally, were Mendoza's methods still used during the "golden
age" of regency boxing, (with Pearce, Gulley, Cribb, Belcher, etc.),
or were methods further divorced from weapons fighting beginning to
take over? According to "Pugilistica", Mendoza's style still seems to
be a somewhat separate entity from mainstream pugilism (or at least it
appears this way, since it makes special note of the fact that Dutch
Sam used the Mendozan system).

In message <242e12d40511120835t64d6970el5a4a3e0fd2af1e9b@...>
, Ken Pfrenger <kenpfrenger@...> writes
>    On 11/12/05, unable_to_find_unused_name
>    <unable_to_find_unused_name@...> wrote:
>    > Hello. I have a rather lengthy series of questions:
>
>    Hello unable to find username:)
Hi Ken and no-name:)
>
>    Fencing style is not a term used by everybody......I think it is
>    Terrys personal style that he refers to when using the term, but I
>    could be wrong. I'll let him chime in.
Ken, You are right in one sense, I do use the term, 'Fencing Style' to
differentiate between what I teach and later boxing styles. I also use
the term as reminder or link so that my students will be constantly
aware that the system uses exactly the same principles employed in
traditional English weapon fighting. Having said that I use methods and
techniques from the earliest written source (Mendoza) right up to the
19th century. The criteria being that those techniques don't contravene
the principles. As for the term fencing style I am not aware of it
having any historical validity; Nor do I claim to have 'invented it:)
>
>    The actual terms I use are as follows:
>
>    1 Broughton Era 1743 to 1838......not just one style but a set of
>    rules that was fought under which dictated some of the stylistic
>    methods including Mendoza
>
>    2 London Prize Ring era 1838 to the 1885 (or therabouts) Once again
>    not a style but a set of rules that dictated the style
>
>    3 Marquess or Marquis of Queensbury era which is basically what we
>    are
>    still in but boxing has still changed a great deal since these
>    rules
>    were instituted, so I opt for modern boxing being divided into
>    Early
>    Modern and Late Modern.
>
I think the above is as accurate a way of categorising the 'systems' as
any other way.
>
>
>    And there is plenty of grey area here in the transitional periods
>    between the rule changes and even the Pre Broughton Era....not very
>    much is known about boxing contests before this period.
>Quite right, the most we have are a few  descriptions which, although
helpful are hardly defining. Though I do think Godfrey's descriptions
are worth reading.
>
SNIP
>
>    > Fourth, I wondered about the difference in actual effectiveness
>    > between these eras. Did the art of bareknuckle boxing "evolve" to
>    > become better suited to bareknuckle rules as time went on? In
>    other
>    > words, is the LPR "style" or the "late period" "style" better for
>    > bareknuckle boxing contests than the "fencing style" is?
>
As Ken said, pretty difficult to answer this sort of question, all I can
say about 'my' system is that it is taught as self-defence/unarmed
combat and the methods chosen are intended to reflect that.
>
Anyway, welcome to the wonderful world of WMA and I hope you manage to
find a teacher. I would certainly recommend that you try to hook up with
Ken.
>
Best wishes,
Terry
--
Terry Brown

On 11/12/05, unable_to_find_unused_name
<unable_to_find_unused_name@...> wrote:
> Hello. I have a rather lengthy series of questions:

Hello unable to find username:)

>
> First, I notice that there seems to be a division between three eras
> made on this forum:
>
> 1. "Fencing Style" (Humphries, Mendoza, other early pugilists)
> 2. LPR "Style" (I'm guessing that this starts at the introduction of
> the Rules, and goes up until about the Sayers period?)
> 3. Later era (bareknuckles to gloves transitional era--Donovan,
> Edwards, etc.)
>
> Is this essentially correct, or am I missing something?

Fencing style is not a term used by everybody......I think it is
Terrys personal style that he refers to when using the term, but I
could be wrong. I'll let him chime in.

The actual terms I use are as follows:

1 Broughton Era 1743 to 1838......not just one style but a set of
rules that was fought under which dictated some of the stylistic
methods including Mendoza

2 London Prize Ring era 1838 to the 1885 (or therabouts) Once again
not a style but a set of rules that dictated the style

3 Marquess or Marquis of Queensbury era which is basically what we are
still in but boxing has still changed a great deal since these rules
were instituted, so I opt for modern boxing being divided into Early
Modern and Late Modern.

And there is plenty of grey area here in the transitional periods
between the rule changes and even the Pre Broughton Era....not very
much is known about boxing contests before this period.


>
> Second, I wondered about the sources that you are using for each era.
> Which are the most reliable and/or useful for each era?

There are alot of sources floating around for each period...obviously
the Broughton Era has the least amount available to us and the Modern
has the most.....this topic really deserves it's own thread.

>
> Third, I wondered if anyone can give me an outline of the major
> stylistic differences between the major periods of pugilism (I'm
> guessing that the "fencing style" was not yet fully divorced from the
> weapon arts that it developed from--but what about the other two? Is
> the "late period" style oriented more toward gloves, or is it still
> primarily a bareknuckle style? Etc.)

Basically the newer you get the more of a sport and less of a
defensive art it becomes. As more rules were added the art changed
shape but I think it is important to consider that just because a rule
was made does not mean that gamemanship immediately set in and the
game was instantly tailored to the rules......we see this in comparing
modern boxing with boxing of just 50 years or so ago...basically the
same rules about clinching yet it is not uncommon to watch an old
fight and see the ref only having to break the fighters a few times
over the course of the action whereas today it seems that some fights
are little more than hug fests.
   Once again to give an outline of each style desrves it's own thread really.

>
> Fourth, I wondered about the difference in actual effectiveness
> between these eras. Did the art of bareknuckle boxing "evolve" to
> become better suited to bareknuckle rules as time went on? In other
> words, is the LPR "style" or the "late period" "style" better for
> bareknuckle boxing contests than the "fencing style" is?

Things are relative and it is really hard to make statements about
what is best or even better about something that happened before any
of us were alive to see it....I think fashion and what the crowd
wanted to see had a big impact on the differences between fights and
styles as well as the rules....could Mendoza have been just as good in
1860 as he was in 1790? Undoubtedly, if Dempsey could have jumped into
H G Wells time machine and went back and fought Humphries, would he
have been as good as he was in 1917? Positively9infact I would put my
$$ on Dempsey in just about any time travel battle but that is getting
a mite goofy of me:)) My point is that style is important but it is
only part of the equation...the fighter is another huge part to
consider.


>
> Finally, I wondered whether there are schools in the Northeast that
> teach any of these styles, seminars that teach them, or tapes/DVD's
> available that demonstrate the techniques. Also, which style do they
> teach? LPR? "Fencing"? Later period?

I teach pugilism from Mendoza to Dempsey in Kinsman Ohio...not very
Northeast but close. In June we will be having a seminar in Ohio
teaching classic pugilism as well as some other western martial
traditions. On the 19th of this month I am hosting a free seminar here
covering boxing wrestling and irish cudgel, if you are interested.

>
>
> I would really appreciate any help that I can get on this. Thank you
> for taking the time for listening.

No problem, it is always good to hear of another person with the interest!

Ken

Hello. I have a rather lengthy series of questions:

First, I notice that there seems to be a division between three eras
made on this forum:

1. "Fencing Style" (Humphries, Mendoza, other early pugilists)
2. LPR "Style" (I'm guessing that this starts at the introduction of
the Rules, and goes up until about the Sayers period?)
3. Later era (bareknuckles to gloves transitional era--Donovan,
Edwards, etc.)

Is this essentially correct, or am I missing something?

Second, I wondered about the sources that you are using for each era.
Which are the most reliable and/or useful for each era?

Third, I wondered if anyone can give me an outline of the major
stylistic differences between the major periods of pugilism (I'm
guessing that the "fencing style" was not yet fully divorced from the
weapon arts that it developed from--but what about the other two? Is
the "late period" style oriented more toward gloves, or is it still
primarily a bareknuckle style? Etc.)

Fourth, I wondered about the difference in actual effectiveness
between these eras. Did the art of bareknuckle boxing "evolve" to
become better suited to bareknuckle rules as time went on? In other
words, is the LPR "style" or the "late period" "style" better for
bareknuckle boxing contests than the "fencing style" is?

Finally, I wondered whether there are schools in the Northeast that
teach any of these styles, seminars that teach them, or tapes/DVD's
available that demonstrate the techniques. Also, which style do they
teach? LPR? "Fencing"? Later period?


I would really appreciate any help that I can get on this. Thank you
for taking the time for listening.

Hey Jason!

Good post and good points.  You obviously know more about Donovan
than I do!  Thanks for the info!  BTW, where did you come across
Donovan's background info?

Keith


> I think it's more than that, because Donovan liked gloves and
promoted their
> use for both training and fighting. He was really a transitional
period,
> rather than a pure bkb era fighter. His early matches were bare
knuckle, but
> most of his matches were in that awkward period where the rules
were still
> being felt out. Usually small gloves, grappling may or may not have
been
> allowed, infighting may or may not have been allowed, and the floor
may or
> may not have been hard surfaced, it all depended on the agreed-upon
rules of
> the particular bouts.
>
> He personally thought gloves were a big improvement, because he
thought bare
> knuckle was too tough on the fighters- broken knuckles, scarred
faces, and
> bodies that took a long time to heal after bouts. That was a big
issue for
> someone who fought and taught for such a long period. Donovan was
born in
> 1847, fought in the Civil War, then fought his first bout in 1866.
He fought
> mainly in the 1870s and 1880, but his last bout was not until 1891.
> Meanwhile, he gained the post of boxing instructor at the NYAC in
1885 and
> held on to it until around 1914. And then his retirement from that
position
> wasn't even final, because at the time of his death in early 1918
he was
> training recruits in boxing in preparation for heading overseas to
fight in
> WWI. So you have a guy who was either boxing or training (which
included
> daily sparring) for 50 years or so. When you consider his history,
it's no
> wonder he supported the use of gloves.
>
> Jason
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Keith P. Myers
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:36 AM
> To: classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [classicpugilism] Re: Link to Boxing Lessons
>
> Yeah, what Ken said!  :-)  Notice that Donovan has grey hair in the
> book.  He was in his prime 20 years earlier and his boxing method
> comes from the London Prize Ring era.  But he is writing at a time
> when the big fluffy gloves are in vogue, and so shows them in his
> book.   IMHO, this was an attempt to look more "modern".
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>   _____
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adam Sroka
> Sent: 11 November 2005 18:57
> To: classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: RE; Re: [classicpugilism] Digest Number 424
>
> >
> In Burmese Boxing (Bando) they say to hit the soft with the
> hard and the
> hard with the soft. So, when they hit the head they use an
> open palm to
> slap or hit with the heel of the hand (Hitting the hard with
> the soft)
> and when they hit the body they make a fist (Hitting the soft
> with the
> hard.) When you translate this to Western Boxing you have to
> be careful
> because most of the strikes you could do with an open hand
> are illegal,
> but the principle is still valid (And it illustrates why
> hitting to the
> body should be emphasized.) Bruce Lee's method was similar as
> well. He
> seemed to prefer to finger jab the eyes when attacking the
> high line and
> then use the fist to hit the body. Again, this may not be all that
> relevant to BKB as a method, but I would try to keep this in
> mind when
> training for defense.
>

I'd echo this point. I've trained I various punching arts for quite some
time and have done a fair amount of bag and pad work. However, in the few
times I have come to use my fists in a real situation I've come away with
injuries. These injuries always seem to last for a long time. Also I have no
desire to do long term conditioning work on my hands as I quite like to use
them for things other than punching as well :)

With this in mind I train open hand strikes (edge of hand, palm strike) and
hammerfist/choppers for self protection and save the closed fist for my
gloved MA training. I'd advise others to seriously consider doing the same.
Whilst BKB teaches excellent principles of distance, movement and timing as
well powerful hitting, for me it is not the ideal base for self-protection
striking. I find closed fist punching just too damaging to my hands.

YMMV of course, but for those who find themselves carrying long-term hand
injuries it is fairly easy to transition to an open fist whilst keeping the
excellent BKB principles.

James

Ken Pfrenger wrote:
> Hi Gabriel,
> I do not think I am making my point clear enough so here goes....I
> have no problem with people wearing protective gear while sparring,
> after all we all need to go to work the next day and some people have
> jobs where blackeyes and split lips just do not fit in. I also do not
> have a problem with people using wraps and gloves to protect their
> hands while hitting the bag but my concern is using the bag to build
> your power while using wraps and gloves. It is easy to give yourself a
> false sense of ability to take damage to your hands if you rely on
> added support that is not naturally there.
>
> Building power should not be an ultra-high priority while training for
> bareknuckle boxing...power is important but you just cannot punch like
> one does when wearing wraps and gloves....your hands can get quite
> tough but there is a limit to what they can take and training
> barefisted allows you to define and set this limit.
>
Dan Inosanto has a very pragmatic view on this (As on most things.) He
says that you should do all the drills that you do, but some days you
should do them with boxing gloves, some days with smaller bag gloves,
some days with just wraps, some days with bare knuckles. That way,
whether you are training for the street or for the ring, you get all of
the benefits of each method. When you are bare knuckled or just in wraps
you get more conditioning for the hands/wrists, but when you wear gloves
you can go harder and you get used to using the glove (For
competition/sparring).

Also, he extends this idea to the use of the focus mitts. So, sometimes
one person wears the focus mitts and the other wears gloves/wraps/bare
knuckles. Other times you both wear gloves or you both go bare knuckle.
Sometimes one person feeds and one does all the hitting, sometimes you
go back and forth, and sometimes you contest it. If you put all these
variables together one or two drills can turn into a hundred.
> So when i hit the bag barefisted....I do not hit it as hard as I can
> if the punch goes upstairs, body shots are a different matter though.
> I like to bang to the body hard where the hands are much safer from
> the risk of hitting a large mass of bone. So I do not agree with those
> folks who destroy their hands plowing them full force into makiwara
> all day nor do I believe in wraps and gloves to protect my hands....I
> prefer to use my own body feel and understanding to protect them since
> I always carry that with me:)
>
In Burmese Boxing (Bando) they say to hit the soft with the hard and the
hard with the soft. So, when they hit the head they use an open palm to
slap or hit with the heel of the hand (Hitting the hard with the soft)
and when they hit the body they make a fist (Hitting the soft with the
hard.) When you translate this to Western Boxing you have to be careful
because most of the strikes you could do with an open hand are illegal,
but the principle is still valid (And it illustrates why hitting to the
body should be emphasized.) Bruce Lee's method was similar as well. He
seemed to prefer to finger jab the eyes when attacking the high line and
then use the fist to hit the body. Again, this may not be all that
relevant to BKB as a method, but I would try to keep this in mind when
training for defense.

Yeah, what Ken said!  :-)  Notice that Donovan has grey hair in the
book.  He was in his prime 20 years earlier and his boxing method
comes from the London Prize Ring era.  But he is writing at a time
when the big fluffy gloves are in vogue, and so shows them in his
book.   IMHO, this was an attempt to look more "modern".

Keith


--- In classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com, "C. L. Vermeers"
<whateley23@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com, "nic_stil" <nic_stil@y...>
wrote:
> > The Cope Bros is especially interesting with some fouls punches
(pivot
> > blow, rabbit punch) and the famous Carpentier's right.
>
> in Mike Donovan's 1893 manual _The Science of Boxing_, he talks
about
> the pivot blow, and indicates that it was legal, but especially easy
> to accidentally foul and hit the opponent with the elbow using it.
> there are other interesting things about that book, as well - for
> instance, all of the photos show the boxers wearing large gloves,
but
> the techniques (vertical fist, no using the gloves as shields, etc)
> all look like classic pugilism, except that the guards are quite a
bit
> shorter.
>
> c. vermeers
>

On 11/9/05, C. L. Vermeers <whateley23@...> wrote:
> --- In classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com, "nic_stil" <nic_stil@y...> wrote:
> > The Cope Bros is especially interesting with some fouls punches (pivot
> > blow, rabbit punch) and the famous Carpentier's right.
>
> in Mike Donovan's 1893 manual _The Science of Boxing_, he talks about
> the pivot blow, and indicates that it was legal, but especially easy
> to accidentally foul and hit the opponent with the elbow using it.
> there are other interesting things about that book, as well - for
> instance, all of the photos show the boxers wearing large gloves, but
> the techniques (vertical fist, no using the gloves as shields, etc)
> all look like classic pugilism, except that the guards are quite a bit
> shorter.

Hi Chris,

Donovans books was my introduction to the world of the old
pugilists...and a very good book it is but rather strange when you are
not used to seeing that sort of boxing after years of going at it the
modern way.

Even though it is a relatively late title it should be said that
Donovan was a true bareknuckler and began his career as early as
1866...His book was written just on eyear after Corbett beat Sullivan
so the dawn of the gloved era had fully dawned. Even befroe the MoQ
rules took effect witht eh pros they had been in use by Amatuers for
some time...i think his book shows this.

His book is also shows one of the clearest examples of the rounding blow.

ken

On 11/9/05, nic_stil <nic_stil@...> wrote:
> Here is a link to 2 boxing lessons on cigarettes cards :
> http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/index.cfm
> (browse by subject : boxing)
> The Cope Bros is especially interesting with some fouls punches (pivot
> blow, rabbit punch) and the famous Carpentier's right.
>
> Nicolas

Excellent link! Thanks for sharing that with us. Some very good
illustrations that and alot of very interesting pictures in the whole
collection...try searching on a few other terms and see what presents
itself.

Ken

--- In classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com, "nic_stil" <nic_stil@y...> wrote:
> The Cope Bros is especially interesting with some fouls punches (pivot
> blow, rabbit punch) and the famous Carpentier's right.

in Mike Donovan's 1893 manual _The Science of Boxing_, he talks about
the pivot blow, and indicates that it was legal, but especially easy
to accidentally foul and hit the opponent with the elbow using it.
there are other interesting things about that book, as well - for
instance, all of the photos show the boxers wearing large gloves, but
the techniques (vertical fist, no using the gloves as shields, etc)
all look like classic pugilism, except that the guards are quite a bit
shorter.

c. vermeers

On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 08:47 +0000, nic_stil wrote:
> Here is a link to 2 boxing lessons on cigarettes cards :
> http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/index.cfm
> (browse by subject : boxing)
> The Cope Bros is especially interesting with some fouls punches (pivot
> blow, rabbit punch) and the famous Carpentier's right.

Thanks.

Interesting stuff.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Here is a link to 2 boxing lessons on cigarettes cards :
http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/index.cfm
(browse by subject : boxing)
The Cope Bros is especially interesting with some fouls punches (pivot
blow, rabbit punch) and the famous Carpentier's right.

Nicolas

I agree with Ken on this one.  Keep in mind that "back in the day"
they did not have the big heavy bags that we use now, and did not
pound on a heavy bag for "hundreds of blows."  Gloves or "mufflers"
as they called may have made an appearance pretty early on even
before they were required in the ring during bouts.  But I have yet
to come across a reference in the period manuals that mentions the
use of hand wraps.

Keith


--- In classicpugilism@yahoogroups.com, Ken Pfrenger
<kenpfrenger@g...> wrote:
>
> On 11/5/05, gabriel ross <rosredgabe@y...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ken,
> >
> >                                   I would respectfully
> > disagree. I use gloves and wraps for long sessions on the bags.
Of course at
> > times you need to punch powerfully with a bare fists at a target.
A real
> > fight will  involve a dozen punches at most. A training session
may involve
> > hundreds of blows. I want to be able to use my hands for more
than boxing .
> > Therefore, I protect them. I know I need to be able to fall on
unpadded
> > surfaces. So once a fortnight, I take some falls on bare wood
floor.  Most
> > of my falling is done  on a Judo or wrestling mat.  I have known
many
> > practitioners of Eastern martial arts who have done life time
damage to
> > their hands, feet, elbows or knees by repeatedly pounding
makiwara and the
> > like without protection or support.  My training partners and I
wear
> > protective gear when we spar. It s impossible to condition soft
tissue like
> > the face to be more resilient to strikes and the brain cannot be
conditioned
> > to accept traumatic insult. Maybe this cowardice, but there is a
great more
> > to  life than fighting.
> >            Yours in the Tradition,    Gabriel Kierran Ross
>
> Hi Gabriel,
>
> I do not think I am making my point clear enough so here goes....I
> have no problem with people wearing protective gear while sparring,
> after all we all need to go to work the next day and some people
have
> jobs where blackeyes and split lips just do not fit in. I also do
not
> have a problem with people using wraps and gloves to protect their
> hands while hitting the bag but my concern is using the bag to build
> your power while using wraps and gloves. It is easy to give
yourself a
> false sense of ability to take damage to your hands if you rely on
> added support that is not naturally there.
>
> Building power should not be an ultra-high priority while training
for
> bareknuckle boxing...power is important but you just cannot punch
like
> one does when wearing wraps and gloves....your hands can get quite
> tough but there is a limit to what they can take and training
> barefisted allows you to define and set this limit.
>
> So when i hit the bag barefisted....I do not hit it as hard as I can
> if the punch goes upstairs, body shots are a different matter
though.
> I like to bang to the body hard where the hands are much safer from
> the risk of hitting a large mass of bone. So I do not agree with
those
> folks who destroy their hands plowing them full force into makiwara
> all day nor do I believe in wraps and gloves to protect my
hands....I
> prefer to use my own body feel and understanding to protect them
since
> I always carry that with me:)
>
>
> ken
>

On 11/5/05, gabriel ross <rosredgabe@...> wrote:
>
>
> Ken,
>
>                                   I would respectfully
> disagree. I use gloves and wraps for long sessions on the bags. Of course at
> times you need to punch powerfully with a bare fists at a target. A real
> fight will  involve a dozen punches at most. A training session may involve
> hundreds of blows. I want to be able to use my hands for more than boxing .
> Therefore, I protect them. I know I need to be able to fall on unpadded
> surfaces. So once a fortnight, I take some falls on bare wood floor.  Most
> of my falling is done  on a Judo or wrestling mat.  I have known many
> practitioners of Eastern martial arts who have done life time damage to
> their hands, feet, elbows or knees by repeatedly pounding makiwara and the
> like without protection or support.  My training partners and I wear
> protective gear when we spar. It s impossible to condition soft tissue like
> the face to be more resilient to strikes and the brain cannot be conditioned
> to accept traumatic insult. Maybe this cowardice, but there is a great more
> to  life than fighting.
>            Yours in the Tradition,    Gabriel Kierran Ross

Hi Gabriel,

I do not think I am making my point clear enough so here goes....I
have no problem with people wearing protective gear while sparring,
after all we all need to go to work the next day and some people have
jobs where blackeyes and split lips just do not fit in. I also do not
have a problem with people using wraps and gloves to protect their
hands while hitting the bag but my concern is using the bag to build
your power while using wraps and gloves. It is easy to give yourself a
false sense of ability to take damage to your hands if you rely on
added support that is not naturally there.

Building power should not be an ultra-high priority while training for
bareknuckle boxing...power is important but you just cannot punch like
one does when wearing wraps and gloves....your hands can get quite
tough but there is a limit to what they can take and training
barefisted allows you to define and set this limit.

So when i hit the bag barefisted....I do not hit it as hard as I can
if the punch goes upstairs, body shots are a different matter though.
I like to bang to the body hard where the hands are much safer from
the risk of hitting a large mass of bone. So I do not agree with those
folks who destroy their hands plowing them full force into makiwara
all day nor do I believe in wraps and gloves to protect my hands....I
prefer to use my own body feel and understanding to protect them since
I always carry that with me:)


ken

Some thoughts on tough hands and handwraps.....

For the most part I think all of us on this list are in agreement that
if you plan of using boxing as a martial art then forgo the use of
wraps and bag gloves. When using your fists bareknuckle, it is
important to feel how much power you are using when both sparring and
training. Use of artificial support and padding will not let you know
your limits.

I know that this goes against most ideas folks have about boxing but
to me it is a huge difference. Bareknuckle boxing is not just boxing
without gloves.....there are many things in common with that idea but
not everything.

Ken