[1889] Richard Kyle Fox, Boxing, on the evolution of boxing "science"

I've made similar arguments about Corbett for years, and can only speak to the ones I've made.

I've based my case on a cluster of things, including the fact that boxing technique appears to move *away* from modern methods during the bareknuckle period, the anecdotal testimony of Western martial arts people who work with 19th century manuals, boxing's long professional history, and the trend noticeable in all combat sports where the competitors adapt to new rulesets within a generation or two.

With the rise of UFC striking with dirty boxing and tiny gloves, there's probably more evidence out there now, either way. But the alternative hypothesis that pro boxers were clueless for 200 years under different rules never made sense to me.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I started my interest in boxing history as a side research project from researching Western martial arts (best side research ever; completely eclipsed the original project).

So I didn't begin as a fan of old-timey Queensberry guys and then later look for any scrap of info to justify my beliefs. Rather, I started with the assumptions of the MA'ists reconstructing 19th century pugilism, and what I found in conventional boxing history was consistent with my initial assumptions.

 

Why not define what the debate is about, at first? The original post started with a quote by Bert Sugar about Corbett's jab. Why not quote somebody serious, instead of that ...

 

Neither, exactly. Let me give some context, and then my answer will make more sense:

As you know, boxing was divided during Corbett's era between primitive gloved rules and bareknuckle LPR rules. Because of this, gloved fights looked a lot like LPR matches without throws or chokes. The gloves were often tiny, even compared to the gloves in Joe Louis's era. Many of the dirty boxing techniques that you see in the late bareknuckle manuals also show up on film during this period.

So Corbett's "boxing" is well adapted for a tiny-gloved match where the refs will allow a lot of bareknuckle tactics in the clinch (but not all of them).

You're right that it's not perfect for those rules, but it's good enough. Best analogy would be a guy who trains full Muay Thai, but only competes in K-1 rules kickboxing.

Some. It's been a long time since I argued any of this stuff in depth (literally about a decade), and I didn't expect to get into a long thread defending Corbett as a quasi-bareknuckle fighter. For a detailed debate, I'd have to dig up a lot more and prepare.

Here's the short version, again from memory:

The small gloves reduce the effectiveness of a high guard, and glove blocking generally. They also make the stakes of getting hit a lot higher. Fighters stand at longer range. Also, since the ref will allow you to grab and maul your opponent in the clinch, you can negate a lot of combination punching. You don't see people standing in mid-range as much. That's why you see the feint-feint-lunge-clinch-maul pattern in a lot of old film.

For the most part, Corbett limits himself to clinch tactics like shoving his forearm into the throat, grabbing his opponent behind the head, trapping his opponent's arms and punching, etc. These were only part of the complete arsenal that somebody like Sullivan or Kilrain would use. If we had footage of the genuine bareknuckle fighters in action, we'd see Corbett-style dirty boxing holds transition into full guillotine chokes, side headlocks, or throws. But movies were popularized too late to record Sullivan v. Kilrain under London Prize Ring Rules.

Technically, Corbett's tactics were illegal back then. Practically, the refs didn't seem to care.

So that is my answer. Corbett's technique is reasonably well adapted for the kind of "gloved" match he expected to fight. It isn't perfect, though, because it's watered-down LPR style in a ruleset that's different from true LPR.

If I had to guess, the closest thing to perfection under "we-wear-gloves-but-don't-care-if-you-cheat" Queensberry rules would have been Johnson or Jeffries. After that, the refs start getting tougher about actually enforcing the rules.

True. I'd expect their insights to be limited to a couple areas. First, changes in punching and blocking technique with small gloves. Second, whether Corbett's technique, including his punching technique, would make sense as entries to dirty boxing.



...So, does that make my position a little clearer?

EDIT: Just one thing to add: primitive hooks + crouching did come in at the end of this period. Tommy Burns said that they changed the game. So if a modern fighter faced Corbett under 1897 rules, I think both guys would have some nasty surprises.

 

One other thing:

Now that we're seeing some types of bareknuckle boxing coming back (not old style LPR, though...), it would be interesting to contact the participants and ask them about whether any of the stuff Corbett is doing makes sense.

When we were first arguing about London Prize Ring Rules a decade ago, we didn't have anything like the amount of info we have today. We should probably update our conclusions as new info becomes available.

 

And just like clockwork, they did.

Either option would be progress, though. Option (A) admits that Corbett didn't "box" by today's standards. Option (B) admits that Corbett relied on "athleticism" to cover up his technical incompetence. Unfortunately, Corbett was not an "athlete" like Ali or Roy Jones. Corbett was a vaudeville actor who fought in illegal toughman competitions. So that defense would fail.

 

apollack got back to me, and unfortunately, the answer is that it isn't possible to say with certainty either way.

 

Did he say what he thought was likely?

 

No.

I'm afraid your princess is in another castle.