The Evolution from Low Gaurd to High Gaurd

[Irish Steel]

I dont think that they used the low guard because of glove size. I think its because back then, once a fighter got in the inside... there were basically no rules. Thats why, as you can see in the pictures, a fighter would keep his left arm out (if hes right handed) To sort of keep the other guy at bay.

Thats what I read anyway.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by BIG DEE

BIG DEE HERE= The picture in which you are talking if you knew what the hell
you were talking about which you don`t once again is that Fitzsimmons and Corbett had just broken from a clinch. shoving each other away.
That`s way they are at arms length after shoving each other back.
They fought with their guards low because it saves energy in a long bout
that they fought at the time but when they got within punching range the guards came up high.

Yes, and this is what the film shows us too.

While the thread is interesting, still photos do not tell the tale. Even fighters with high guard can be photoed once or twice with low guards. It is best not to draw conclusions from still photos. You have to watch the full fight.

Also, having a high or low guard does not translate to defense. Ali had a low guard, and he made them miss plenty.

[BlackWater]

While the high guard is the norm and best defense, the class and coolness factor of the low guard cannot be forgotten.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by Boilermaker

How is UFC stance even slightly relevant? Their main guard is against wrestling isnt it? I rarely bother to watch it, butwhat is the record for most number of punches absorbed in a fight? Actually, now i think about it, has anyone ever landed a body punch? I dont think i remeber ever seeing one.

One interesting comparison of the two stances, i find, is kick boxing. Not so much the guard high and low, but more the square, weight on the back foot stance. Kick boxers seem to really use that old fashioned foot positioning and weight on back foot stance.

Crasch course: While standing the UFC-guard is a boxing one. It's meant to defend from punches. Comparing to kick-boxing is no good since they have the weight on the back foot to better defend against leg kicks and to being better able to kick themselves. That kind of stance give less movement and also less power behind the punches due to the straight legs and stiff knees. It does a boxer no good.

The better strikers use body blows in UFC. UFC-fighters also have to defend against kicks and flying knees to the body, so if a low guard was needed to protect the body they would defnitely use one.

[punchy]

I don't think kick boxers use straight legs and stiff knees, you still need to "spring" to get power I think kick boxers and muay thai which I train at stand at more of a 45 degree angle than boxers so they kick and defend better, almost all leg attacks come from the side, especially leg kicks, and this stance means a better balance and a quicker leg defence on low kicks which have a tremendous amount of power in them. Boxers tend to stand more straight on which produces more power of the back foot with their punches, you often here the term " this fight will be won of the back foot"

[janitor]

Some people here almost seem to be suggesting that for centuries fighters dithered round with their hands low getting hit, and they didnt much like getting hit but they couldnt do anything about it.

Then one day around 1936 a fighter had the idea of raising his hands a bit higher and found that he didnt get hit as much and everybody else coppied it.

That is obviously nonsense.

Once a high guard was used even for 30 seconds the posibility to use it constantly would be implicit. Once a fighter used his hands to intercept a punch the posibility of holding them high for protection would rather obviously present itself.

It seems much more sensible to asume that the style of an era is more or less optimum for that era. Perhaps it is optimum for 20 years earlier in some cases but there is method in the madness somwhere.

[Bokaj]

I see your point, Janitor, but I'm not 100% convinced, for reasons stated above.

Even if man has fought with his fists since time immemorial, boxing only became truly professionalised during the early 1900's, didn't it? Football (or "soccer", as some like to call it), for example, had been a huge sport for a long time when modern defensive tactics was adopted in the 1960's and 70's. Sometimes tradition is a very strong obstacle to change.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

I see your point, Janitor, but I'm not 100% convinced, for reasons stated above.

Even if man has fought with his fists since time immemorial, boxing only became truly professionalised during the early 1900's, didn't it?

You are right but it should be noted that boxing was as big and organised when it was illegal in many ways.

When Tom Cribb fought Tom Mollineux, boxing was illegal but it was patronised by royalty and when a major fight took place every boarding room for a 30 mile radius got booked out.

When Tom Cribb fought Tom Molineux the fight actualy got more press coverage than the battle of Trafalgar!!!!!!

Football (or "soccer", as some like to call it), for example, had been a huge sport for a long time when modern defensive tactics was adopted in the 1960's and 70's. Sometimes tradition is a very strong obstacle to change.

There is certainly an element of that in boxing but the concequences of screwing up are more serious than in most sports which tends to force a rapid pace of evolution.

Call it natural selection.

[The Kurgan]

Originally Posted by Kamus

I guess I now know where Rahman got his "mummy" defence from that worked so well against Lewis.

No, that was from Foreman, who was ineffective against all the 1970s heavyweights.

[The Kurgan]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Why would they be worse than with MMA gloves? I realize they are not as sturdy, but why would it be more effective a blow to the body, considering the hardness is similar and the surface area of the punch is pretty much the same.

Because an MMA fighter couldn't land a good solar-plexus shot to save himself. Plus, going to the ground was not an option for the old timers. It's ridiculous to compare two different sports in this way.

Of course, given the changes in rules and equipment, comparing boxing across 100 years is just as silly an enterprise.

[punchy]

[quote=janitor]

When Tom Cribb fought Tom Molineux the fight actualy got more press coverage than the battle of Trafalgar!!!!!!



.

Unbelievable I bet if England had lost Trafalgar it would have been a different story, thanks for this little bit of information.

[PaddyD1983]

Good thread!!

I'd be intrigued to read some more like it, maybe the evolution of footwork... the evolution of the jab... body shots etc etc. Makes for an interesting comparison!

I've also pondered on the future evolution of the sport. Given the way that amateur boxers are scored at the moment (number of punches landed) do you think we will start to see less and less brawlers? Its already evident in the heavier divisions where the Eastern European stand-up amateur style is beginning to rule and obviously you have someone like Joe Calzaghe. Going forward I think this may be more common place unless amateur boxing is changed so as to be more score friendly towards sluggers and counter punchers.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by The Kurgan

Because an MMA fighter couldn't land a good solar-plexus shot to save himself. Plus, going to the ground was not an option for the old timers. It's ridiculous to compare two different sports in this way.

I've already been over this, so one last time: There are MMA-fighters that are adept at bodypunching (Horodecki, for example), and since MMA-fightes also have knees and kicks to worry about they have every reason to defend their solar plexus, which the modern boxing guard cover quite well. The reason they use the modern boxing guard is to defend against punches, not take-downs. It's not a guard specifically used in MMA - they have just taken the modern boxing guard straight off. So obviously it works well also against very small gloves. Now I'm done with this!

[janitor]

[quote=punchy]

Originally Posted by janitor

Unbelievable I bet if England had lost Trafalgar it would have been a different story.

If we had lost at Trafalgar we would have set Tom Cribb on them.

That is what everybody said at the time.

[punchy]

[quote=janitor]

Originally Posted by punchy

If we had lost at Trafalgar we would have set Tom Cribb on them.

That is what everybody said at the time.

HA