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

Thomas Fewtrell
Boxing Reviewed
published in

This content is protected

[[pages 14-15]]
Sparring is at this moment absolutely necessary to form a complete pugilist. It is, I grant, a mock encounter, but at the same time a representation, and in most cases, an exact one of real fighting. It is the only proper introduction to Boxing, and a just mode of realizing whatever principles the scholar may have imbibed, or trying the success of any new plan, he may have invented. By this method he can also judge of the propriety of his Master's lessons, and exercise his reasoning faculties, an advantage of which he is often deprived in battle. Some are of opinion, that Sparring is of no great use, and that it takes from the natural powers of manhood, while it only teaches finesses, that cannot prove hurtful to a courageous adversary. This however is merely reviving an opinion maintained by the pupils of the Old School, in which strength generally prevailed over skill. Is it not evident, that preparation is necessary for every exercise; but more particularly for that, in which hostilities take place? And what is Sparring, but a preparation, and of the nearest affinity to Boxing?


[[pages 17-18]]
Strength, art, courage, activity, the power of bearing blows, a quick eye and wind, are the constituents of a complete Boxer.

I have given the first place in the list to strength, not because it is superior to art, but because it is impossible to display art in a proper manner without strength. It has been long a question, and is even now undecided, which merits the preference. From my own experience and the many careful enquiries I have made of the most intelligent professors, and the best seconds, art has evidently the superiority. What battles have been fought, particularly since the present system of Boxing has taken place, in which art has not been victorious? Instances may rarely occur in the course of a multitude of contests to confute me, but what opinion has ever been completely just? And while a great majority of cases appear in my favour, for the truth of which I appeal to the various battles that have been lately decided, I will maintain, that art is intitled to a preference over strength.


[[pages 19-20]]
Activity is in our time a greater requisite than it formerly was; for Shifting, which consists in the changing of ground, is more practised. Some have censured Shifting as an unmanly custom, but without reason. If indeed mere brutal force were to decide a combat, it might be deemed improper; but where the mind has a considerable share in the decision, as is the case at present, Shifting cannot be thought unmanly. The same censure might be passed on Fencing, or an accidental rencontre in a field of battle; but, would it not be absurd to say to a man, whose only care is the preservation of his life--"You must not avoid your enemy's sword, by changing your ground, you must not make use of that activity of which you are capable, because it is unmanly."

 

[[pages 23-26]]
The large knuckles of the hand should be only used, they are rarely disabled, but the knuckles in the middle of the fingers frequently give way.

Straight blows are preferable to all others, they are stronger, because they come directly from the centre of the power, and quicker, because they describe less space in the attainment of the object, it therefore follows, that it is more difficult to parry them than any others. Round striking is now universally exploded; it is condemned by the same reasons which recommend straight blows, for it is directly contrary to them.

It has been of late the custom to extol Chopping, as the best mode of hitting, it is a blow struck on the face with the back of the hand. Mendonza claims the honour of its invention, but unjustly; he certainly revived and considerably improved it. It was practised long before our time; Broughton occasionally used it, and I am at this instant acquainted with some of Slack's pupils, who have assured me, that he struck the chopper in giving the return in many of his battles. The advocates for chopping are now, particularly among fighters, very few. Mendoza's scholars only adhere to it. Experience proves, that it can be of no great service, since of all the pitched battles, which have been lately fought, it has not contributed to gain one. In the contest between Tyne and Crabb, chopping suffered a shameful disgrace; Crabb was thought, next to Mendoza, the most successful in the use of it, yet he never hit Tyne. Indeed reason convinces us, that it can be of no great utility, it partakes of the nature of a round blow, for it is given downwards or sideways, and must therefore deviate from the centre. It also exposes the arm to danger; every chopper should take its force from the play of the arm, between the elbow and wrist; but if in the eagerness of action, the elbow should be thrown too forward, the small of the arm may be broken. Though no friend to chopping, I do not wish it should be entirely laid aside. It may be happily used in giving the return, and should a pugilist engage with a person ignorant of the science, it will certainly prove successful. But when two skilful Boxers meet, no reliance is to be placed on it, and such is the opinion of the most experienced professors of the present day.

A knowledge of the parts of the body most dangerous to be struck is necessary to every Boxer; but first it should be observed, that any blow planted on the waistband or below it, is unfair, and causes the loss of a battle. The eyes, the part between the eyes, the temples, the nose, under the left ear, immediately below the short ribs, and the pit of the stomach, or what is universally termed the Mark, are the parts liable to be most affected.

 

[[pages 27-30]]
Attitudes are as various as men, but may be generally reduced to three. Those of Humphreys, Mendoza, and Johnson. The first consists in placing the left hand foremost, the fist opposite to the mouth; the right hand nearer to the body, the fist covering the stomach; the legs considerably extended, the left foremost, the weight of the body poised on the right, and the head erect. This position is the most graceful I have ever seen, the head, the breast, the arms, and the legs, are truly picturesque, and combine to improve each other. It is also the most manly; the breast expanded, the head boldly raised, and the limbs firmly planted, express the most martial air. The weight of the body thrown on the hinder leg must give greater strength to the blow of a person in this guard than in any other. Some pretend that it is not good for defence; but this opinion proceeds from Mendoza's success in striking Humphreys so repeatedly; whereas the fault lay in the man, not in the guard, for Mendoza is a quicker hitter, and his blows would have perhaps equally told, had Humphreys been in the safest of all positions.

The second is formed of the fists placed nearer each other, almost opposite to the chin, the left a little before the right; the legs not far removed, the left somewhat before, and the weight of the body on the foremost leg. Here the blow must be weaker, because there is a loss of weight to propel it, the body being mostly poised on the foremost leg. It is, however, better calculated for Shifting, gives the practitioner an opportunity of putting in more blows, but has very little of the graceful or manly in it.

The third or Johnson's attitude consists of the fists held before the head, the arms nearly extended, the legs almost square, the body much bent with the breast forward. This has little elegance or manhood in its appearance, and is practised by very few. The body is protected by this more than any other guard; but the head is exposed. Men possessed of uncommon strength in the loins should only accustom themselves to it, as it must fatigue all others. The great advantage of this position lies in its being alike calculated for offence or defence, for the weight of the body being equally sustained by both legs, it is by little exertion moved in any direction, so as to guard against or give vigor to a blow.

 

You can't really lump in totally different eras like that.

From my reading, it seems in most of the 1700's backing up was seen as something you should do if you needed to, and it was seen as sort of dishonorable. They did, however have defence, but it relied on parries and blocks

for example Godfrey said of Broughton
"He stops as regularly as the Swords-Man, and carries his Blows truely in the Line ; he steps not back, distrusting of him- self to stop a Blow, and piddle in the Return, with an Arm unaided by his Body, producing but a kind of flyflap Blows; fuch as the Paftry-Cooks use to beat those Insects from their Tarts and Cheesecakes. No— BROUGHTON steps bold and firmly in, bids a Welcome to the coming Blow ; receives it with his guardian Arm; then with a general Summons of his swelling Muscles, and his firm Body, seconding his Arm, and supplying it with all it's Weight, pours the Pile-driving Force upon his Man."

The science really declined, and it does seem the fighters in general between Slack and Tom Johnson were pretty crude, but I've not seen a lot of information on the fighting styles of fighters between Slack and Corcoran. I'll need to check some stuff for details of fighters inbetween. But the likes of Mendoza was skilled, and has plenty discription of defense.

There's plenty description in later bareknuckle manuels too of horizontal movement, and blocks. Tom Cribb was known for using backward movement to his advantage. And the later fighter Jem Mace, who trained Peter Jackson and Bob Fitzsimmons, I've seen described as a more offensive version of Corbett (or actually Corbett as a more defensive version of Mace).

 

The author clearly and explicitly separates old school (Broughton's era) and modern school (at least 1780s). If you read this and the other two books published in 1788 and 1790, they clearly knew a lot about skills and cleverness, both offence and defence, even if not all boxers were fighting smart.

 

I was in a rush when I posted that and was a bit unclear.
I was replying to the writing on the Opie, saying from Figg to Ward.
I said most of the 1700's, but I meant from post Broughton until around the rise of Tom Johnson, like I said I wrote that in a bit of a hurry and it showed..

 

Notice that the mythical period where Real Men stood and traded punches without dodging is always about 3 or more generations before the writer.

1990s people claimed it about Sulliva's era, people in Sullivan's era claimed it about Mendoza's era, and Mendoza's people apparently claimed it about Broughton's era.

Coincidentally, more than 3 generations is usually the point where oral traditions degrade to the point of worthlessness.

 

Why bother with manuals when you have film of these Carneresque flailers?

Here's some hard truth:

We've evolved beyond gin-soaked, bare-fisted wrestleboxers beating each other to death in an abandoned field. If you enjoy that kind of thing, google Kimbo Slice. Toughman competitions went out with John L. Sullivan, and we should be happy we have a real sport now.

And since this is a boxing forum, I'm going to repeat my opinion of these guys on film, as boxers: They couldn't box. Their best "technician" fails the film test so badly that he doesn't know what a jab is.

Just like how some modern boxing "historians" keep chasing evidence that there's some early heavyweight, somewhere, who could box a little. These wizards are always over the next hill. Always one scrap of footage away. If only we had HD clips of the third McRunty vs. Jim Handlebars fight.

Enjoy footage of real fighters, and stop chasing a mirage.

 

Poor Jim Corbett can't catch a break from you, it seems.

Without those starry-eyed romantics chasing down evidence from the distant past, you wouldn't have any ammunition to throw at the old-timers.

Your attack on Corbett rests on the foundation they built for you.

 

Good post. Corbett is one of the worst I've seen on video, but there is a lot of competition for the absolute worst. I'm not going to watch enough old film to make a list, I find watching old boxing film boring and a waste of time. I don't know how anybody can watch the old film then read a book or newspaper article and believe the book or newspaper when the old boxer is described as a masterful boxer. The video doesn't lie, maybe these old "boxers" look so bad that the "historians" can't believe the film? You nailed it, "They couldn't box."

 

Get a load of this. When I was documenting Corbett's ineptitude for the evolution deniers, I couldn't even find a clip directly saying it's a mistake to wind up your jab.

It's so obvious that no trainer today believes any fighter would be stupid enough to do it.

But there's inept, and then there's Gentleman Jim...

 

He uses the word "jab" in his book, but never mind.

I don't care what you call it. It's his fans who seem to think he had a jab. It's not a jab.

I agree. When it came to boxing, Corbett was one of the absolute worst heavyweight champions.

I'm glad that someone from this forum aside from PatM and mrkoolkevin sees the obvious.

Ali got away with a lot of bad technique, Unforgiven. He was unconventional. He often improvised in the ring.

Leaning forward with the jab isn't standard, though, as Russ Anber testifies in the video I posted, and will repost. Start at 3:40:

This content is protected

Furthermore, Corbett doesn't lean like Ali. Corbett has a ridiculous uncoordinated lunge like a drunk fencer. Ali floats when he jabs.

Ridiculous. At the latest, boxing was fully modern on the day Rocky Marciano retired.

 

I didn't say Carnera was typical of the 1930s.

Carnera was typical of the 1900s. If you want to get technical, he was a better boxer than Corbett.

 

I'm going to listen to your opinion. Afterall, who knows 1900's fighters better than someone with no interest in, or interest in watching them.

 

Corbett is one of the best outside boxers I’ve seen on video.

His speed, defense, reflexes, agility, ring IQ, punching mechanics, slips, footwork. Dude was a problem to say the least.