Question about the transition from bareknuckle to gloved boxing

Jack · Jun 20, 2012

I was just browsing through some archives, looking at Greb, Dempsey, Sullivan etc., and I came across an interesting comment regarding the transition from bareknuckle to gloved boxing. The article seemed to suggest that because gloved boxing resembled a "fight", it was looked down upon by those who, presumably, considered bareknuckle boxing more about strategy than a simple fight, and that it was a superior sport because it required more than sheer physicality.

Funnily enough, it seems to be the opposite now and those who compete in bareknuckle boxing do so because they think it's a proper fight and that gloved boxers are too protected.

Were any boxers around at the period of the transition or shortly after, supporters of bareknuckle? Did any noteworthy boxers, or those involved in boxing, want to see BKB brought back and gloved boxing banned? Why did Americans make the transition better than British fighters?

Quite a random thread, I know. I find the transition between bareknuckle and gloved boxing to be an interesting period in this great sports history, so if I manage to get any appropriate responses, that'd be great to read.

Diagoras · Jun 20, 2012

Not a direct answer to your questions but you might find this thread interesting:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=406354

As far as which is more of a "fight", it depends on what you view Boxing as.

I view Boxing first as a martial art and only then as a sport.

So if you are interested in Boxing training for self defense you are better off learning bare-knuckle techniques if anyone can teach you.

Dempsey put it best:

Unfortunately, my big gates did more to commercialise fighting than anything else in pugilistic history. They transformed boxing into a big-time business. As a commercial enterprise, the fight-game began attracting people who knew little or nothing about self-defense. Hoping to make quick money, they flocked into boxing from other fields.
They came as promoters, managers, trainers and even instructors. Too often they- were able to crowd out old-timers because they had money to invest, because they were better businessmen, or merely because they were glib-talking hustlers. They joined the gold rush in droves- dentists, doctors, lawyers, restaurant proprietors, clothing manufacturers, butchers, grocers, bookies, racket guys, and pool-hall hangers-on. Fellows who never tossed a fist in their lives became trainers. They mistaught boys in gymnasiums. Those mistaught youths became would-be fighters for a while; and when they hung up their gloves, they too became instructors.
It was only natural that the tide of palooka experts should sweep into the amateur ranks, where lack of knowledge among instructors today is as pathetic as among professional handlers. And that's not the worst. Too many amateur instructors have forgotten entirely that the purpose of boxing lessons is to teach a fellow to defend himself with his fists; not to point him toward amateur or professional competition with boxing gloves. To a menacing extent the major purpose of fistic instruction has been by-passed by amateur tutors who try to benefit themselves financially, indirectly or directly, by producing punchless performers who can win amateur or professional bouts on points.
Not one youth in fifty has any ambitions to become a professional fighter when he first goes to an instructor. That's particularly true among college and high-school lads. Yet the instructors continue-teaching boys to become "smart" boxers instead of well-rounded fighters. And that's a downright shame, for punch is absolutely essential in fist-fighting and it's an invaluable asset in amateur or professional boxing. Actually, it's stupid instead of smart instruction to teach other fighting movements to a boy before he has been taught to punch.
Because of this commercial, win-on-a-point-as-soon-as-possible attitude among modern instructors, the amateur and professional ranks today are cluttered with futile "club fighters" and "fancy Dans." In the professional game there are so few genuine fighters that promoters find it almost impossible to make enough attractive matches to fill their boxing dates.

http://stickgrappler.tripod.com/box/dempseycfbook.html
Click to expand...

Gloves make it more of a "fight" in the sense of allowing fighters to throw a lot more punches & haymakers constantly for KO's but they are an artificial addition designed for to attract spectators and protect hands, if you fight that way bare knuckle your hands will get ****ed up real fast.

As to fighters preferences, I am pretty sure I read that John L. Sullivan favored gloves. I am sure most fighters must have because they allow you to prolong your career by protecting your hands though they also increase the risk of serious brain damage and death.

Log in or Sign up

Question about the transition from bareknuckle to gloved boxing

Jack Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Diagoras Active Member Full Member