Did the British WASTE their fighters with the No Foul rule?

jimglen · Post by **jimglen** » 13 Apr 2005, 02:02

Did the British WASTE their fighters with the No Foul rule? Now obsolete!

While I was researching Gilroy's case naturally I noticed the amount of fighters who were "immediately" disqualified for a 'low-blow' whether they were "leading" or not!

I just wonder how many 'legitimate' contenders and their contention rights and International title chances might have been ill effected by this ruling and more importantly "do you think this old ruling (which I believe was non-existent most everywhere else in the world), 'forced' the typical 'upright' British style?

I think this might have prevented British fighters from being able to enjoy the benefit of all-out rugged fighting and brawling in addition to basic and often times their 1st Class boxing ability (???).

Alex · Post by **Alex** » 15 Apr 2005, 10:37

Interesting thought. I've noticed too from reading old time fight reports that fighters were often disqualified for a low blow upon the first offence, without being given a caution, and often giving a victory to the other feller against the run of the fight.

I think there were still some very rugged fighters about, but the rule must have impacted on the amount of body punches a fighter would throw, or the caution with which they would execute them. Ironically - low blows aside - refs were a lot slower to stop a fight in those days. A fighter would be given every chance to box on, sometimes being knocked down several times and being allowed to take a severely one-sided (and unnecessary) beating, before a ref would step in.

JC · Post by JC » 15 Apr 2005, 16:17

It is an interesting thought, particularly about the British stand up style I've always wondered the oragin of that compared to the classic American crouch.

I've heard Jefferies was one of the first to use the crouch. I've always thought the stand up style maight have come out of the bare knuckle era when you didn't have gloves to block with as you came into fight on the inside, and that might be why you see pictures of old time fighters holding their fists way out from their faces.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 15 Apr 2005, 18:42

I always thought the 'no foul' rule meant that a fighter could not win as a result of receiving an UNINTENTIONAL low blow and was instituted in the USA after Schmeling won the world title in unsatisfactory circumstances.

After that a fighter was to be given time to recuperate and if, after that time, was unable or unwilling to continue, his opponent would be declared the winner by TKO.

This rule has now been abolished / amended in most jurisdictions.

Alex · Post by **Alex** » 16 Apr 2005, 05:56

Collins2000 wrote:I always thought the 'no foul' rule meant that a fighter could not win as a result of receiving an UNINTENTIONAL low blow and was instituted in the USA after Schmeling won the world title in unsatisfactory circumstances.

After that a fighter was to be given time to recuperate and if, after that time, was unable or unwilling to continue, his opponent would be declared the winner by TKO.

This rule has now been abolished / amended in most jurisdictions.

I think you're right, this was the rule that came in after the Sharkey/Schmeling fight. However jimglen is still correct on what he says about many British refs disqualifying fighters after one low blow.

jimglen · Post by **jimglen** » 16 Apr 2005, 13:43

Yes and I may have the termonolgy wrong (No Foul rule),

but the point is Britain had some great and all-time great 1st class BOXERS, whom I believe were wasted and FORCED to fight this 'upright' style for fear of disqualification and that is what resticted their opportunities in World titles against and in America.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 16 Apr 2005, 15:55

Jimglen does raise an interesting point, I agree. It's always interesting to think outside the square.

Alex · Post by **Alex** » 17 Apr 2005, 16:32

While the way refs were might have made fighters more cautious, i'm not sure I agree that it was the reason for the British style of boxing. There were still British fighters about who adopted the American style of fighting, such as Kid Berg and McAvoy and used it to good effect over here. I think our methods were just the way boxing developed this side of the Atlantic and were not necessarily at all inferior to the American’s. However, apparently not as popular with judges and fans in the States.