Picking out the technical shortcomings as compared to modern boxing - McFarland-Welsh

It seems to me that he drops his eyes form him opponent's while bending his head down. That will effect accuracy.

 

All in all, a big thanks to those posting these films. They're very interesting to look at.

 

Perhaps, I don't think he does though.

I think we are fairly much disagreeing on the effectiveness and form of Walsh's jab.

I watched some Joe Gans this morning, I think he is fairly modern. Watch this.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML5WLvrc0P8[/ame]

 

Really nice to see the Old Master in action. I really like his balance, control and calmness in there. The body shot he floors his guy with is a peach.

 

It is superb footage as well. He is a combination puncher also.

 

Just a few days ago read a piece by one boxing expert (from England) dating back into early 1900s, where he expressed his opinion why the American fighters were so successful against British boxers, style-wise. Will post it later.

 

The Americans and the Brits seemed to dislike each others 'styles' with the Brits thinking the Yanks were wild and ragged and the Americans thinking the Limey's were easy fodder.

Be interesting to see that Senya.

Walsh to me is the first fighter who really combined the British school of boxing with the American school of boxing. I can't think of anyone else who did this before him, as he learned to box in Britain but moved to the US early in his career.

 

Upon more attentive reading, it probably is not that interesting.


The American Style of Boxing.

It has been a standing puzzle to followers of boxing to find the reason why success has almost invariably attended the efforts of American boxers when opposed to those of the English school. To my thinking, it is not the fault of the style of our English boxers, but rather the lack of style, which is accountable for their defeat. The Americans have certainly introduced a new style or system of attack and defence, but the novelty of their methods should not puzzle a boxer who is a clever exponent of our English school. Of the English style of boxing I shall have something to say later in a future number of Famous Fights, but at present I want to explain what the American style of boxing is. It consists of the use of both hands for offensive and defensive hitting--ambidexterity in punishing--and as both hands are used for this purpose, primarily, the feet are trusted to for defence. It is this which makes the boxers of the American school so good at foot work; little fault can be found with them in this respect, as their skill in avoidance is very great. As a matter of fact, they overdo the thing, and cover a lot of unnecessary ground in their defensive movements, thereby tiring themselves more quickly than they would if they relied more on their arms for defence, parrying and stopping with right or left as occasion may require or judgment dictate. Much fault is to be found with their hitting. They have gone back in this to the days of the cestus. Swinging was practised and abandoned more than a century ago. Instead of driving his right or left in a straight line, the American boxer uses swings, backhanders, choppers, and other blows which were long ago discarded as of no use against straight in and out fighting. The whole working of the American style is semi-circular; they fight in segments, as it were; their blows are round, their movements are the same, instead of being all angles, straight in and out work. The swing, properly so called, consists of a straight delivery with the hand, the glove describing a straight line from its starting-point to the object aimed at; but the swing of which we read so much nowadays is not this by any means. It is the swinging of the arm, and not the body, so that the blow is round; the arm is slung out, the object being, of course, to land on the side of the jaw, and it is the same blow that was used in the days when the hand was covered with "tough bull hides" and the spaces "spread with iron or with heavy loads of lead." There is no doubt the Americans are fighters, and not boxers. Every sportsman knows the difference between the two, a difference which ought not to exist, because I take it that a man when learning to box--in other words, learning how to defend himself from attack and how to punish the attempts--should be taught to hit with all his power and strength. What do we learn when going for lessons in fencing? We have our faces protected by a mask, while the foil or rapier point is covered with a button to prevent the possibility of a serious injury to either party. The fencing-master teaches us to lunge or thrust with all our power, to fence as though in actual combat, unprotected by mask, and armed with lethal weapons. Why then should we not box in the same way? What the button is to the fencing foil the boxing glove is to the naked fist, a means of preventing serious injury and a pad for the hand, so that we may hit with all our power and still not inflict the injury which the ungloved, bony knuckles would. It is a great mistake to learn to "tap." It may be pretty, but it is not effective. I say it may be pretty, but I must confess that "lady sparring" disgusts me, and I have not the patience to watch two men slapping and tapping each other, hitting with open glove, flicking, and not striking hard enough to kill a fly. I cannot even see the prettiness of it. The foot-work may be good, and in exhibition sparring this is all I look at, but to me the manual work is poor and unattractive in the extreme. Fighting is commonly understood as rough, unscientific slogging--you hit me and I'll hit you sort of style--but this is not what it ought to be. Fighting--glove-fighting--and boxing ought to mean one and the same thing. If any distinction be necessary, fighting might be understood as without gloves and boxing as with gloves. Why do we learn to box? Why do we practice and ready and study the art? We do so in order that, when occasion requires, we may be able to put into practice the principles we have been learning, and that we may be able to defend ourselves with the weapons that Nature has given us. In order to do this we must practise as though in actual combat, and hit and guard and stop, retreat and avoid, just as we would if opposed to an enemy trying to commit an assault on us. It is impossible for us to use our hands with any effect if in mimic warfare we only tap and stroke the face and ribs of our friendly opponent. The Americans do not learn the tapping game--they are fighters--glove-fighters--not lady sparrers--but they devote too much attention to the right hand swing for the point, the knock-out, and every other movement is subservient to this, the means to this end. They have a radically wrong style of hitting round, too much swinging and hooking, and nothing near enough of the straight from the shoulder work that science teaches us is the quickest, the most correct, and the most punishing. One great point in their manual work is their ambidexterity. Both hands are used for hitting, and they are equally ready with either to strike defensively or aggressively. For this they are to be commended, and their success against the English boxers during the past few years may be put down thereto.

Of the English school of the present day I purpose speaking in a future number. There could not be a better combination or one more calculated to ensure success against one-handed boxers than good foot-work and ambidexterity in hitting.

In George Dixon's contest with Frank Erne we are told that "Erne met his rushes with a straight left hand, against which Dixon rushed as he might against a stone wall." What a testimony to the efficacy of the straight left hand! And we read further that "Times without number Erne stopped Dixon with this blow, and he augmented the force of it with a wicked right, which seldom failed to land upon the body." Another tribute to ambidexterity! One can imagine one sees the thing done, so full of beauty and so clear are the actions above described. Then again we read that "Dixon's successes in the past were due to the fact that his opponents have never tried to analyse his peculiar style of fighting, with a view to overcoming his advantages." This shows a lamentable lack of brainwork on the part of the American boxers, and I am hardly inclined to take this view of it. I think it is more likely that the men he had previously met and defeated did not know enough to foil his efforts. I have never heard of any professor who teaches the American style of boxing, nor have I ever heard of any book published on the subject. There cannot be any rules, any method, or system in the American style, because it is not scientific. There is not a blow of any kind or description which a boxer with only a fair knowledge of the English style of boxing would find any difficulty in guarding or avoiding and countering. In the American style, on the contrary, as it is not founded on scientific principles, a man who is a hurricane fighter very soon overcomes their feeble resistance, and the limit of their defensive and offensive knowledge is quickly reached. The mistake lies in opposing round hitting with round hitting--semi-circular work with similar efforts--whereas some other methods should be adopted. I hope and believe that I have made clear what that style consists of. That it is wrong in principle--that it is radically wrong--that it is opposed in most of its leading features to science, nobody, I think, will deny. That it is effective against our present-day boxers has been partly proven, but this does not make it any better. I will admit that our English school have during the past few years fared very badly indeed against our American cousins, but I cannot admit that their style is better than ours; I cannot be made to believe that round hitting is better tit hitting. I cannot see or understand that foot and head work only, for defence, and both hands for attack are better than the use of head, hands, and feet for attack and defence. I have every admiration for the foot-work of the Americans. They get away and come again very nicely, but it is, in my opinion, overdone; they are constantly on tiptoe and full of action, hopping and skipping and dancing about when there is no necessity for it. This, no doubt, is characteristic of the Americans; their highly nervous temperament, their busy, anxious, active minds and brains constantly keeping them on the move. I have seen it in the streets of New York--business men rushing hither and thither, in Wall Street and the lower parts of Broadway, Broad Street, William Street, Maiden Lane, and all round that quarter, merchants, bankers, brokers, clerks, and others all hurrying and rushing as if their very lives depended on their fleetness of foot, and all after the almighty dollar.

 

And so it is with the American boxers. The ring is their Wall Street, boxing is their business, and the almighty dollar what they are after; and so, like their countrymen in other walks of life, they are all activity and nerves and energy and excitement, and this is shown in their boxing. They do not care how they get the money; they do not care for niceties, for beauty of style, for science and skill--all they want is to "get there," and he who wins, no matter how unscientific, no matter how awkward or ungainly his style may be, is the hero of the hour. His methods are not criticised, his position is not pointed out as ineffective or awkward or unscientific; so long as he wins it is sufficient, as this fact proves logically to them that the methods he uses must be better than those which his opponents have adopted, and therefore that, as the Americans have beaten the English oftener than the latter have beaten them, the American style must of necessity be better than the English. We have lately seen a good deal of the American style of boxing during the Coronation Tournament, and with such exponents as Ruhlin, Tommy Ryan, Erne, Sharkey, McFadden, and others, we ought to be well-informed as to their methods. During the past five years we have from time to time had opportunities of seeing Transatlantic boxers perform against the pick of the English school, and we have held our own when our representatives have been first-class. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of really good exponents of the English method at present in England, but Ben Jordan and Jabez White have upheld our prestige most gallantly. The fault is not with the method but with the man when England goes down before America. In a future number I will endeavour to show in what essentials our men are wanting to enable us to cope successfully with the exponents of the American style.

 

It seems to be more the British mindset rather than style that he is bemoaning.

Interesting read though, when was it dated?

Interesting thoughts on the Americans using their feet too much, if anything I thought that would be a criticism of the British school of boxing, as the Yanks tended to be more aggressive and used more head movement.

 

Transfer of weight is very different and looks to be lacking. If you look at the fighters shoulders they are very static and there doesnt appear to be as much meat in the punches in comparison to a modern fighter.

 

That is probably very much down to their squared upper bodies.

 

They were in 94 and 96 numbers, so probably dated late 1902 or 1903.

 

Was waiting for you to say that.

Cheers. Thanks for it though, they interested me.

 

The author was, in all probability, J. Frank Bradley, who started following boxing (bareknucklers) in 1853, and was the editor of The Mirror of Life and Boxing World in the 1910s.