i've noticed there isn't much discussion in here about the old old timers.i have read everything i can get my hands on about jem mace and am fascinated by the era preceeding the modern.comments from jim corbett about mace being the father of "scientific" boxers and his involvement with the development of fitz(albeit through one of his own students) coupled with mace's championing of certain fighters like langford and jeanette really show that the common misconception of this era being filled with one dimentional sluggers might be misplaced. i love reading about fighters like tom spring,tom sayers and heenan right back to mendoza and broughton and wonder does the rich history of bare knucklers back to the 1600's have much relevance to their contemparies of the modern era?? sorry for rambling!!
If you're serious about your Boxing history then it is essential to get a good grounding in the era of London Prize Rules. The differences where stark, but the technical similarities have carried on 'till this very day; the diagonal stances, high hands, cross-armed, feinting, you name it. The hex most authors put on England’s grand history is that science started with Corbett, a theory which is not only inaccurate but ugly with misplaced accreditation. To learn about not just how, but why the great 'plea for style' begin to creep its way into the prize ring is one of the most interesting aspects of boxing; men like Pearce, Cribb, and Belcher all had very different styles to get to their man in different ways. Grab yourself a manual or unearth some of the old microfilm in your local library; there's a lot more in there than just blood, dukes and brandy.
Researching the latter part of the bareknuckloe era I came top some rather odd conclusions. That most of the facets of gloved boxing technique evolved in the bareknuckle era and that they went a long way towrds promoting the adoption of Queensbury rules. The cart was invented first and the horse was introduced to make better use of it!
