Miracle Course.

[donnydarkoIRL]

As I was googling earlier I came across a man who claimed he had located an old book outlining miraculous techniques in boxing defence and attack which could revolutionise your boxing.
http://www.master-boxing.com/?gclid=...FRdJEgodGWaiFw

I do hold a lot of respect fro old school technioques, but the sensationalism of his presentation, made me doubt this ploy.
A check check with box rec actually revealed the Only Joe Barnes with a winning record was from Austrailia in the 50's. All trhe others had abysmal records. However, just because he didn't fight as a pro doesn't mean he couldn't be a good pro or am trainer. What really disuaded me and robbed him of any respect was his advocation of street and fist fighting.

Opinions?

[FeuerFrei]

Oh, yeah. I've found that in my never ending quest for new ideas for training. I've pretty much chalked it up as crap but I've never actually read a copy.

[Chris Nagel]

I checked out their website. It looks like the old Stillman's boxing course repackaged and rehyped. I was able to buy some prints dirt cheap a few years back. It's nothing that will make you say oooh or ahh, but for the sake of interest it's worth the read, especially in regards to the author's ideas on morality and daily living. Now it's not worth the money that these internet crooks charge, and if you're a serious boxer you don't need it.

If you're interested in some good boxing manuals, there are few good ones in the ebook section under 'Useful/Important Posts.' The Edwin L. Haislet book and the Jack Demsey books are excellent if you spend time to go through and test out the ideas first hand instead of reading it over and saying "ok". Also if you dig through some of the other boxing manuals there, you'll also find some uncommon tricks and techniques that'll be worth your while.

[donnydarkoIRL]

Cool, Tahnk you, I felt that it was indeed a bit of a scam and nothing to get excited about, I just googled old boxing techniques in the hop that I'd get a pictorial instruction booklet on how to fight in the stance of the 20's and 30's

[ThomasTabin]

Donny I know how you feel. The old style is just not taught by anyone. Very hard to find anything to give you an idea of how to fight this way.

I think ultimately the thing to remember about the old style of fighting is that its a product of the bareknuckle/early glove era. Its more of a set of attitudes than it is anything really. Long rounds and barely padded gloves create interesting fighters and fighting styles. You can imagine how drastically fighters today would have to change their styles to adapt and survive those conditions. For one thing being hit anywhere hurts enough already but when you're being hit with a 5oz glove one mistake could be the last. Not only that but gloves this small could barely cover up enough of the head for blocking or offer the padding necessary to absorb the impact of punches. Being punched on your arms by something that was essentially a thinly padded fist would also be very painful. This is one of the primary differences between today's fighter and the fighters from back then. Today fighters stand still and absorb punches on their arms and gloves but in the early days of fighting the first defense came from using distance with blocking used only as a last resort. Two very different philosophies. Basically - and you will see this in the stances of fighters from the 20's/30's - the body was positioned in such a way to maximize its ability to slip and roll away from punches. In essence, to be able to create distance from punches instead of standing there and absorbing them.

This is why you will see them standing at a slant and leaning slightly down and away from their opponents with their hands lowered. Being slanted provides a much smaller target area for your opponent. Leaning slightly down and away enhances distance and makes it easier to get behind and underneath your shoulder. Carrying the hands low enhances your vision and allows the upper body to move freely and with greater ease (since your arms aren't glued to you).

Everything there is dedicated to making the fighter hard to land punches on whereas today the popular idea is to soak up the punches on your arms and gloves instead of preventing them from landing on you completely.


Anyway thats one of the big things and also one of the first things to consider if you're interested in the older styles. There are more things like how that stance relates to punching and the way this stance allows you to progressively pull your opponent's punches closer/make him reach and therefore vulnerable to counters.

[donnydarkoIRL]

Thomas you've really exposed my motiuves there!

I remeber thinking "those gloves in the old dyas were constructed to protect the fist rather than the fighter. Their purpose was to elongate fights and ensure steady action over rounds, as I remeber a famous bareknuckle fighter claiming a win saying "See My head broke his hands."
So I assumed that their styles would be more focused on productive movement and defense.

I was first attracted to the 20's/30's style by Gene Tunney, the origins of his parents is a lcation not too far from myself. As good as he was I knew the smaller men at Middles and Welters would have styles similar, but more applicable to me personally.
Harry Greb is a fighter that naturally intrigues me. A fighter of his record, although infamous for questionable tactics, must have had a solid base style from which he fought.

Lik I sai I just wish I had a pictorial instruction kit to see what adaptions I could make.