''Old School'' Boxing Stances

[Cross_Trainer]

Tony Wolf can answer a lot of these questions better, since he has experience sparring with the style and has been reconstructing it for Bartitsu.

It's hard to explain it without more specific criticism, since older boxing -- like modern boxing -- was pretty intricate. With that being said a few points:

First, it's built around very different principles than modern boxing. A lot of it looks weird as a result, and it doesn't match modern ideas about what punching fundamentals should look like.

Second, it's built for a longer range than modern boxing. Our approach has a jab and straight right for long range, but it's built as a mid-range system for combination punching. Under London Prize Ring Rules, though, you wouldn't separate the fighters when they clinched. You could clinch and throw (or headlock and hit) the other guy as long as you didn't grab his legs. So boxers in the 19th century focused on mobility -- which partly explains the narrow stance -- and staying away from the opponent. This longer-range approach meant that you needed to cover more distance for entry, so they had a sort of fencing lunge left lead-off rather than a jab.

The same thing explains Corbett's longer-range looping punches. They're a bit like front and rear casting punches -- long range hooks that strike with a different part of the fist than modern hooks. They don't have much of a left hook because the fight under LPR rules didn't stay there long enough to make it matter. Instead, you would get, at most, second or two of shoeshining up close (see the exaggerated version in the Corbett-McCoy clip) until somebody grabbed the other guy. Most of the time, you didn't even get that. The lunge punches would bridge the gap, and put a boxer's hands into position to grab the other guy's head and either: (1) initiate a headlock and start punching, or (2) use a throw like a back-heel (o soto gari), cross-buttock (hip throw), or side-fall (similar to the side trip Machida uses).

You can see some vestiges of the bareknuckle approach to clinch fighting in the way Corbett manipulates Tunney and Courtney so that he can hold and hit them.

Courtney, the completely incompetent guy facing Corbett in the Edison clip, was, well, incompetent. They found him so that Corbett could KO him basically on cue. Which he did.

Some of the other stuff comes from the need to fight opponents without gloves. The gloves couldn't block, so they did it with the ridge of their forearms, a bit like a karate block. The fists are vertical rather than horizontal (and avoid hooks) to reduce the risk of hand breakage. The hands are lower partly because they could rely more on slipping, which becomes harder when you're dodging larger gloves in headgear.

I was thinking the same thing. If you saw two guys doing that stuff nowadays, you'd call it slap happy McDojo stuff.

Fair enough, but the difference between this and McDojo slap fighting is that these guys sparred often, and pressure-tested their art frequently against resisting (and professional) opponents.

 

[Jukai]

Fair enough, but the difference between this and McDojo slap fighting is that these guys sparred often, and pressure-tested their art frequently against resisting (and professional) opponents.

Absolutely. My point was less "these guys would get killed in a fight" and more "I wonder what other stuff that looks ridiculous could be very effective in a fight if trained in a full-contact environment"

 

[Cross_Trainer]

Absolutely. My point was less "these guys would get killed in a fight" and more "I wonder what other stuff that looks ridiculous could be very effective in a fight if trained in a full-contact environment"

It does make you wonder, doesn't it?

I ran across a clip of (full contact) Nigerian Danbe boxing the other day that looked remarkably similar to the style Richard Humphries supposedly fought with in the late 1700's. Ultra-deep impractical-looking stance, etc.

The rules were the key. Humphries fought before the jab really came to prominence, so he used his lead arm for blocking. In Danbe, the rules artificially restrict the use of the left arm, so the result is similar.

Something like 19th century boxing might never have evolved without thousands of professional athletes experimenting across a century to optimize their games for a very peculiar set of rules.


EDIT: And then there's Tommy Burns, the heavyweight boxing champion right before Johnson. Tell me what this style vaguely reminds you of (Burns is the shorter one with the deep stance):

[YT]muieDRuXIlY[/YT]

 

[Spirit Breaker]

I know your not supposed to say this because everything old school is amazing and everything modern sucks, but Corbett looked awful! (Can you get dubs for fighter bashing a fighter that's been dead 100years?)

Tunney looked great, but if I had and fight and Corbett rocked up as my opponent I think I'd be rubbing my hands.

I could very well be missing something if anybody wishes to enlighten me?

I was thinking the same thing. If you saw two guys doing that stuff nowadays, you'd call it slap happy McDojo stuff.

Keep in mind real early boxing matches and bareknuckle fights were usually illegal so you're not going to see any footage or photos. As was already mentioned a lot of the film we have are reenactments or demonstrations.

Still the old school stuff looks sloppy compared to today, but everything is relative. The game was still being refined and invented at that time. It's like comparing old school Jim Brown to Adrian Peterson. Jim Brown looks archaic compared to running backs today, but would the game be the same if he hadn't played?

 

[Goat Meal]

It does make you wonder, doesn't it?

I ran across a clip of (full contact) Nigerian Danbe boxing the other day that looked remarkably similar to the style Richard Humphries supposedly fought with in the late 1700's. Ultra-deep impractical-looking stance, etc.

The rules were the key. Humphries fought before the jab really came to prominence, so he used his lead arm for blocking. In Danbe, the rules artificially restrict the use of the left arm, so the result is similar.

Something like 19th century boxing might never have evolved without thousands of professional athletes experimenting across a century to optimize their games for a very peculiar set of rules.


EDIT: And then there's Tommy Burns, the heavyweight boxing champion right before Johnson. Tell me what this style vaguely reminds you of (Burns is the shorter one with the deep stance):

[YT]muieDRuXIlY[/YT]

Machida?

Edit: Burns' opponent looks to be using the "old school" fighting stance. But, but, but, but built in defense...!

 

[Cross_Trainer]

Machida?

Yep. Or at least, point-style karate. Same wide stance, hopping gait, step-through right hand, straight-up torso, preference for movement and keeping distance as the go-to defensive strategy, emphasis on rear-hand punching, etc.

 

[Discipulus]

Machida?

Edit: Burns' opponent looks to be using the "old school" fighting stance. But, but, but, but built in defense...!

You might want to delete your edit before this gets started, because that's the dumbest argument possible. I guess Anderson has shit defense now too, right? Come on, man.

 

[Goat Meal]

You might want to delete your edit before this gets started, because that's the dumbest argument possible. I guess Anderson has shit defense now too, right? Come on, man.

No, thanks. I'll leave it.

P.S. I never presented an argument. It was a comment designed to poke fun at the lot of you.

 

[Discipulus]

Tony Wolf can answer a lot of these questions better, since he has experience sparring with the style and has been reconstructing it for Bartitsu.

It's hard to explain it without more specific criticism, since older boxing -- like modern boxing -- was pretty intricate. With that being said a few points:

First, it's built around very different principles than modern boxing. A lot of it looks weird as a result, and it doesn't match modern ideas about what punching fundamentals should look like.

Second, it's built for a longer range than modern boxing. Our approach has a jab and straight right for long range, but it's built as a mid-range system for combination punching. Under London Prize Ring Rules, though, you wouldn't separate the fighters when they clinched. You could clinch and throw (or headlock and hit) the other guy as long as you didn't grab his legs. So boxers in the 19th century focused on mobility -- which partly explains the narrow stance -- and staying away from the opponent. This longer-range approach meant that you needed to cover more distance for entry, so they had a sort of fencing lunge left lead-off rather than a jab.

The same thing explains Corbett's longer-range looping punches. They're a bit like front and rear casting punches -- long range hooks that strike with a different part of the fist than modern hooks. They don't have much of a left hook because the fight under LPR rules didn't stay there long enough to make it matter. Instead, you would get, at most, second or two of shoeshining up close (see the exaggerated version in the Corbett-McCoy clip) until somebody grabbed the other guy. Most of the time, you didn't even get that. The lunge punches would bridge the gap, and put a boxer's hands into position to grab the other guy's head and either: (1) initiate a headlock and start punching, or (2) use a throw like a back-heel (o soto gari), cross-buttock (hip throw), or side-fall (similar to the side trip Machida uses).

You can see some vestiges of the bareknuckle approach to clinch fighting in the way Corbett manipulates Tunney and Courtney so that he can hold and hit them.

Courtney, the completely incompetent guy facing Corbett in the Edison clip, was, well, incompetent. They found him so that Corbett could KO him basically on cue. Which he did.

Some of the other stuff comes from the need to fight opponents without gloves. The gloves couldn't block, so they did it with the ridge of their forearms, a bit like a karate block. The fists are vertical rather than horizontal (and avoid hooks) to reduce the risk of hand breakage. The hands are lower partly because they could rely more on slipping, which becomes harder when you're dodging larger gloves in headgear.

Fair enough, but the difference between this and McDojo slap fighting is that these guys sparred often, and pressure-tested their art frequently against resisting (and professional) opponents.

This is a great post.

Boxing in those days looked different because, while we have lost many principles of that time, we have also gained some. Corbett's punches derived their power from momentum, and given the distance that they were thrown at, feints and the "milling" guard were very practical. Punch mechanics today are in some ways superior, but they are superior for a different range and style then was needed in the days of Corbett.

Boxing looked very different before Corbett, too. If he doesn't look stellar, remember that you are watching a pioneer of that style of boxing. Nobody fought the way Corbett did before Corbett, and he is rightly regarded as one of the most important figures in boxing history as a result. He changed the game.

Keep in mind that you are also looking at an older Jim Corbett in that clip with Gene Tunney. Note that he and Tunney reenact the first round of Dempsey vs. Firpo, which took place 20 years after his retirement. Corbett died just ten years after that clip was recorded. You're not watching a young man.

And, from Wikipedia: "In 1924, he had a friendly sparring match with the future champion Gene Tunney, an admirer of Corbett's scientific style. Tunney was amazed at the ability of Corbett to spar, even at the age of about 60, even claiming Corbett had better defense than Benny Leonard."

 

[SaiWa]

Those were gladiators back then...

On May 21, 1891, Corbett fought Peter "Black Prince" Jackson, a much-heralded bout between crosstown rivals, since Corbett and Jackson were boxing instructors at San Francisco's two most prestigious athletic clubs. They fought to a no-contest after 61 rounds.

61 ROUNDS!!!!!!!!!

that's crazy talk right there!!!!

 

[Sinister]

I know your not supposed to say this because everything old school is amazing and everything modern sucks, but Corbett looked awful! (Can you get dubs for fighter bashing a fighter that's been dead 100years?)

Tunney looked great, but if I had and fight and Corbett rocked up as my opponent I think I'd be rubbing my hands.

I could very well be missing something if anybody wishes to enlighten me?

There's quite a bit you're missing, but most of it is Historical context. Corbett is often referred to as "The Father of Modern Boxing." This is largely because he was attempting to change things. His changes were also experimental. Think of it like the way Musashi forged his sword style through duels. That was essentially Corbett's career, as his Boxing wasn't even his main source of income. For one thing, he's one of the first fighters I can recall on film throwing hooks of any kind that made sense in terms of positioning, and impact area of the fist, as opposed to a more flailing or clubbing blow. His foundations were still more rooted in earlier techniques, which more resembled the techniques of fencing, as shown by the slowed-down footage posted earlier of he and Tunney. One thing should be obvious, regardless of how he reacted to punches, he was difficult to land clean blows on, had a good sense of timing and distance, and also when he did hit you, it hurt. His positioning for punches is very good. This much is there even in footage of him pretending to fight.

This is a guy who knocked out John L. Sullivan, and fought the legendary Peter Jackson (which was double-rare for a white fighter to even consider fighting a renowned black fighter) to a no-contest. Those didn't happen by accident. Corbett also became a pretty renowned trainer after retiring and was influential in New Orleans. The same city that churned out a trainer like Whitey Ensault, who created Hall of Famers Ralph Dupas and Willie Pastrano. Also another Louisiana fighter was Tony Canzoneri. I've had a bitch of a time trying to track down who trained Canzoneri as an amateur, who built his style (because he was cornered by the famous Florio Brothers), but A LOT of what he did looks hauntingly similar to stuff Corbett started doing.

I was thinking the same thing. If you saw two guys doing that stuff nowadays, you'd call it slap happy McDojo stuff.

People think this way all the time when I have my guys shadowbox in front of each other. They think it's kiddie games. Playfulness in fighting is often a very good thing.

Machida?

Edit: Burns' opponent looks to be using the "old school" fighting stance. But, but, but, but built in defense...!

One of the problems with comments like this to make fun of "the lot of" whomever, is they attempt to single out something wrong with a detail that has little to do with what's actually happening in the bigger picture. Fighters fought in classic stances, but it's not like this prevented ALL knockouts from happening. If you are baited out of position, you are baited out of position.

I'm not sure if you really watched the bout, but Burns' opponent wasn't doing too bad at range, but seemed convinced that going inside was the right thing to do. Burns took advantage of that because once he got inside, he didn't accomplish a lot aside from tiring himself out. What I'm seeing is a guy who isn't really interested in defense, stance or no stance.

Now let's take two other facts into consideration. One is that Bill Squires was no scrub. This would be like seeing ONLY footage of Floyd Patterson fighting Sonny Liston, and assuming that either Patterson was a bum, or that the peek-a-boo style was inept. Squires never won the Heavyweight Title, but at the time he was wildly popular and at one point was slated to fight Jack Johnson himself. He got that way by knocking out more than a couple of renowned fighters. The second thing is he was fighting Tommy fuckin' Burns. THE Heavyweight Champion at the time, who himself was also using classic positioning, albeit in different manners. What he was doing looked a bit different, but not like a complete other Art altogether. It should also be noted that Squires didn't take Burns seriously, as he didn't consider him the "real" Champion. His aim was to fight Jim Jeffries, he took the bout against Burns as a consolation. But it turned out to be one of those things where 3 times out of 3 against Burns, Squires was beaten (like Patterson/Liston). But Burns hired Squires as a sparring partner after. Burns wouldn't do that if Squires weren't worth paying for the work in his opinion.

Those were gladiators back then...

On May 21, 1891, Corbett fought Peter "Black Prince" Jackson, a much-heralded bout between crosstown rivals, since Corbett and Jackson were boxing instructors at San Francisco's two most prestigious athletic clubs. They fought to a no-contest after 61 rounds.

61 ROUNDS!!!!!!!!!

that's crazy talk right there!!!!

I'm pretty sure that bout happened under Longon Prize Ring rules (if any rules at all). But it wasn't until the Queensbury rules that rounds began to be timed. Prior to that a round ended when either a knockdown was scored, or basically...whenever a fighter wanted a break.

In other words, 61 rounds wasn't as likely as glorious as it sounds, or as long as it sounds.

Now...for all this talk about older boxing looking sloppy. Really? Anyone actually see the first bout between Holyfield and Tyson? It was them colliding over and over again with a few punches here and there. Then there's stuff like this, one of the worst fights I took the trouble to sit through:

[YT]ChjDY6-dXPY[/YT]

And one of those guys at the time was heralded as the next great dominant Champion (Kirkland) and the other managed to defeat a guy trained by Emmanuel Steward, and arguably defeat Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. (Vera).

 

[Goat Meal]

There's quite a bit you're missing, but most of it is Historical context. Corbett is often referred to as "The Father of Modern Boxing." This is largely because he was attempting to change things. His changes were also experimental. Think of it like the way Musashi forged his sword style through duels. That was essentially Corbett's career, as his Boxing wasn't even his main source of income. For one thing, he's one of the first fighters I can recall on film throwing hooks of any kind that made sense in terms of positioning, and impact area of the fist, as opposed to a more flailing or clubbing blow. His foundations were still more rooted in earlier techniques, which more resembled the techniques of fencing, as shown by the slowed-down footage posted earlier of he and Tunney. One thing should be obvious, regardless of how he reacted to punches, he was difficult to land clean blows on, had a good sense of timing and distance, and also when he did hit you, it hurt. His positioning for punches is very good. This much is there even in footage of him pretending to fight.

This is a guy who knocked out John L. Sullivan, and fought the legendary Peter Jackson (which was double-rare for a white fighter to even consider fighting a renowned black fighter) to a no-contest. Those didn't happen by accident. Corbett also became a pretty renowned trainer after retiring and was influential in New Orleans. The same city that churned out a trainer like Whitey Ensault, who created Hall of Famers Ralph Dupas and Willie Pastrano. Also another Louisiana fighter was Tony Canzoneri. I've had a bitch of a time trying to track down who trained Canzoneri as an amateur, who built his style (because he was cornered by the famous Florio Brothers), but A LOT of what he did looks hauntingly similar to stuff Corbett started doing.



People think this way all the time when I have my guys shadowbox in front of each other. They think it's kiddie games. Playfulness in fighting is often a very good thing.



One of the problems with comments like this to make fun of "the lot of" whomever, is they attempt to single out something wrong with a detail that has little to do with what's actually happening in the bigger picture. Fighters fought in classic stances, but it's not like this prevented ALL knockouts from happening. If you are baited out of position, you are baited out of position.

I'm not sure if you really watched the bout, but Burns' opponent wasn't doing too bad at range, but seemed convinced that going inside was the right thing to do. Burns took advantage of that because once he got inside, he didn't accomplish a lot aside from tiring himself out. What I'm seeing is a guy who isn't really interested in defense, stance or no stance.

Now let's take two other facts into consideration. One is that Bill Squires was no scrub. This would be like seeing ONLY footage of Floyd Patterson fighting Sonny Liston, and assuming that either Patterson was a bum, or that the peek-a-boo style was inept. Squires never won the Heavyweight Title, but at the time he was wildly popular and at one point was slated to fight Jack Johnson himself. He got that way by knocking out more than a couple of renowned fighters. The second thing is he was fighting Tommy fuckin' Burns. THE Heavyweight Champion at the time, who himself was also using classic positioning, albeit in different manners. What he was doing looked a bit different, but not like a complete other Art altogether. It should also be noted that Squires didn't take Burns seriously, as he didn't consider him the "real" Champion. His aim was to fight Jim Jeffries, he took the bout against Burns as a consolation. But it turned out to be one of those things where 3 times out of 3 against Burns, Squires was beaten (like Patterson/Liston). But Burns hired Squires as a sparring partner after. Burns wouldn't do that if Squires weren't worth paying for the work in his opinion.



I'm pretty sure that bout happened under Longon Prize Ring rules (if any rules at all). But it wasn't until the Queensbury rules that rounds began to be timed. Prior to that a round ended when either a knockdown was scored, or basically...whenever a fighter wanted a break.

In other words, 61 rounds wasn't as likely as glorious as it sounds, or as long as it sounds.

Now...for all this talk about older boxing looking sloppy. Really? Anyone actually see the first bout between Holyfield and Tyson? It was them colliding over and over again with a few punches here and there. Then there's stuff like this, one of the worst fights I took the trouble to sit through:

[YT]ChjDY6-dXPY[/YT]

And one of those guys at the time was heralded as the next great dominant Champion (Kirkland) and the other managed to defeat a guy trained by Emmanuel Steward, and arguably defeat Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. (Vera).

I see my post caught you in the feels. I won't respond further except to say that the old school boxing/must hunch over rear hip crowd are the biggest offenders when it comes to cherry picking video to prove that this stance works. The humor in my post is that it points out at least one instance that it didn't.

For the record, I had a fold in my rear hip when I made this post.

 

[hell wall]

I see my post caught you in the feels. I won't respond further except to say that the old school boxing/must hunch over rear hip crowd are the biggest offenders when it comes to cherry picking video to prove that this stance works. The humor in my post is that it points out at least one instance that it didn't.

For the record, I had a fold in my rear hip when I made this post.

The old school crouch over right hip is tremendously effective....I use it as my main stance and it helps slipster to the outside of punches... Joe Louis rocky marciano James toney and many more have all enjoyed success with this stance

 

[Goat Meal]

The old school crouch over right hip is tremendously effective....I use it as my main stance and it helps slipster to the outside of punches... Joe Louis rocky marciano James toney and many more have all enjoyed success with this stance

I get it. Their success is 100% attributed to their stance.

 

[Sinister]

I see my post caught you in the feels. I won't respond further except to say that the old school boxing/must hunch over rear hip crowd are the biggest offenders when it comes to cherry picking video to prove that this stance works. The humor in my post is that it points out at least one instance that it didn't.

For the record, I had a fold in my rear hip when I made this post.

I don't think you see that, considering all I did was point out what happened in the video. There's no "feels"...and you didn't cherry pick any video, you simply misstated something. The classic stance doesn't need cherry picked video to prove anything, there's years of both Historic instances, and modern instances of effectiveness as far as stances go.

Sorry, but you seem to be the one "caught in the feels" here.

 

[Tony Wolf]

Tony Wolf can answer a lot of these questions better, since he has experience sparring with the style and has been reconstructing it for Bartitsu.

Thanks, but no, you covered it all. My main point re. the videos is to underscore that most of them show boxers literally playfighting for the camera rather than actual contests.

 

[Cross_Trainer]

Have my posts inadvertently stumbled into some sort of intra-boxing style feud that I didn't know about?

 

[Cross_Trainer]

Thanks, but no, you covered it all.

Good to hear.

Out of curiosity, do any Western MA enthusiasts in the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic teach 19th century boxing these days?

My main point re. the videos is to underscore that most of them show boxers literally playfighting for the camera rather than actual contests.

This, too.

 

[Goat Meal]

I don't think you see that, considering all I did was point out what happened in the video. There's no "feels"...and you didn't cherry pick any video, you simply misstated something. The classic stance doesn't need cherry picked video to prove anything, there's years of both Historic instances, and modern instances of effectiveness.

Sorry, but you seem to be the one "caught in the feels" here.

Did I say I cherry picked video?

Oh, there's historic instances of this fighting stance? As are set shots from the old NBA days, however, I highly doubt there's a forum dedicated to the set shot > all mentality like there is in this forum pertaining to one f'ing fighting stance. For years most, if not all, fighters fought with this stance which means that many won with it and many lost with it, though when the herd of backyard trained Sherdog posters come online to post "hunch over your hip, bro" they don't realize that. In fact, until your post stating "you can still be caught out of position, even with this stance" I hadn't seen anyone point out any flaws with the stance at all, then again, I don't view this forum a whole lot. I'm sure this place is just chalk full of balanced fight discussion.

P.S. I loved the "I didn't catch feelings, you did!" retort. Well done.

 

[Sinister]

Did I say I cherry picked video?

Oh, there's historic instances of this fighting stance? As are set shots from the old NBA days, however, I highly doubt there's a forum dedicated to the set shot > all mentality like there is in this forum pertaining to one f'ing fighting stance. For years most, if not all, fighters fought with this stance which means that many won with it and many lost with it, though when the herd of backyard trained Sherdog posters come online to post "hunch over your hip, bro" they don't realize that. In fact, until your post stating "you can still be caught out of position, even with this stance" I hadn't seen anyone point out any flaws with the stance at all, then again, I don't view this forum a whole lot. I'm sure this place is just chalk full of balanced fight discussion.

P.S. I loved the "I didn't catch feelings, you did!" retort. Well done.

So you're getting all pissy because you feel the fight discussion is unbalanced? You're the one who came in here and made a comment intended to "poke fun" as you stated. I'm replying to you in a rather dry manner and yet you keep replying with what seems like bitter hostility. If the fact that some people like or prefer the classical stance chaps your ass, that's really your problem.

As you said, I pointed out that fighters won and lost with more classic-natured boxing principals. That was to counter your implication that people seem to think it makes them invincible. Judging by not only your rhetoric, but your seeming over all view of this section of the board, I wonder how much time you really spend here. There are "back yard trained posters" who parrot nearly any fighting principal, just as there are gym-trained posters who do the same.

I don't really care what stance you personally prefer or not, you've given your input and that's fine. I don't really think it needs to go as far as being slanderous.