It changed entirely during the bareknuckle period. Look at guys like Mendoza, versus guys like Jem Mace. We have descriptions of their stances, and paintings.
Give us an example of how a bareknuckle fighter was described by his contemporaries in such a way, that it will make os think of him as having a "modern" style.
So you're saying that its easier to hit someone with a high/tight guard rather than a looser guard because it's easier to punch through and around the guard? Please elaborate on how this makes sense... Also I've read you mention "leverage blocks" at least twice now... What is that? Explain that and how it helps with grappling. I'll just say that the inside game hasn't seemed to change, other than being allowed alot more of it. It was much more accepted. Time burning tactics. This lends itself to the 20, 25, 45 round limits with these fights.. No different than the stoppages being faster now. They used to let people get bludgeoned half to death before stopping it, and sometimes all the way! People make fun of the lean back style because it very rarely works. If you've ever watched complete novices fight, guys with no experience, they lean back and are off balance exactly like that. Anyone who can step forward and punch will beat the posterior leaner from pillar to post. World Star Hip-hop has thousands of videos for you to check out as evidence.
He may beat some Jim Sullivan, Jim Corbet types, but I see him having lots of trouble against a Sam ******* or George Godfrey... definitely big Jack Johnson would have his way with Usyk
Some of you guys take this real personal lol! I see some who pick modern in nearly every case and others who will pick old time regardless...for me I think it is situational, and none of you make me mad, although I have laughed a few times at the dialogue. Usyk has shown me he is good enough in the ballpark of 200 lbs give or take 10-15 to be competitive and respected if not outright feared in most eras against comparable sized opponents. I do think Johnson and Jeffries perhaps Langford as well would be tough defining fights that are not give me’s even though some on both sides see it that way. I do think he would battle for supremacy in this era and either do it or only fail at the most elite level. Oh well, just my $0.02...but either way another semi enjoyable and always heated lol modern vs old time debate.
In the context of the smaller gloves. Just trying to cover up just gives gaps, so a loser reactive guard is the way to go. Typically with lower hands because it's better especially for body punching Basically when they block the arm, using leverage advantage. You see it a lot in old footage. It's pretty easy to go from that, to grabbing the arm and grappling. It's just not true. The old gloves allowed far more complex grappling than you can with the much larger gloves, especially with attached thumbs. And the refs allowing it more, allowed a lot of tactics, that can't be used anymore. Gans Vs Herman is a great display of some of the old grappling Yet they didn't do it originally. They originally leaned forward, and it shifted to leaning back. You can find countless people failing at all sorts of styles, doesn't mean they don't work This content is protected
Well obviously if you put the ear muffs on and have no other movement, guys are gonna get through and around your guard. My assertion is based on the assumption that in addition to a tighter guard, there's head movement and some footwork going on. The looser defense may be better for those with great reflexes, and there are plenty of guys through history that did. Different strokes for different folks. So you tie the guy up? Thats pretty standard stuff. Didn't ever hear that term until you. Still not clear on what you mean probably. Just trying to understand. This is obvious. The attached thumbs limits alot of tactics used in older eras, including thumbing. Well in support of your assertions, that could work, seeing as how you could see most of these punches coming from 10 miles away... You could get away with leaning back or to the side much more back then. I'll give you that. Agreed. Some people can get away with things you're not "supposed to do", but they do. Byrd and Ali are good examples of that. But not everyone is a Byrd or Ali. Boxing history is littered with guys who tried to employ certain styles and couldn't get away with it. I would like to have more clarification or examples on film of the leverage blocking. I'm interested to see exactly what you're talking about. I'm not that knowledgeable about that era and if there's something I'm not aware of or not familiar with, I want to learn about it.
And my main argument is, with the smaller gloves, it's basically the only option you have And so Usyk would have no experience of those elements of grappling, hence my assertion he'd be in serious trouble on the inside, especially against Johnson. Agreed. Some people can get away with things you're not "supposed to do", but they do. Byrd and Ali are good examples of that. But not everyone is a Byrd or Ali. Boxing history is littered with guys who tried to employ certain styles and couldn't get away with it. I don't know how widely used it is, but I've not seen another term for it. I got it from this video (well actually it was leverage guard), about 5min in if you don't want to watch the whole thing. This content is protected But it, especially some ways it's done, makes for a really easy transition to grappling. You can see it at points in the Corbett-Fitzsimmons fight https://streamable.com/fi1l7
Well we'll agree to disagree on this because with smaller gloves, yes it makes it harder to rely primarily on blocking against your head, but you can still parry, move, slip, duck, and block, so not your only option. I would venture to say he has more experience with it and would be better at it than you're giving him credit for. It's still infighting. Thanks I'll check it out in a bit.
It should perhaps be mentioned that Usyk had lots of street fights and came from a very rough area.He isn't just a "simon pure dancer".