james figg vs 20's-40's fighters?
james figg vs 20's-40's fighters?
james figg vs. 20's-40's fighters?
BARE KNUCKLERS FAVORED BLOWS TO THE BODY, NECK AND BEHIND THE EAR RATHER THAN FACIAL BLOWS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR HANDS. COMPARING A PIONEER LIKE FIGG TO MODERN FIGHTERS IS TANTAMOUNT TO DOG PADDLING IN THE WATER AGAINST OLYMPIC SWIMMERS. TECHNIQUE HAS IMPROVED AND THE GAME HAS EVOLVED.
OLD TIMERS HAD HUGE STAMINA AND GUTS, BUT ANY GOOD PRELIM FIGHTER COULD PROBABLY BOX THEIR EARS OFF AND SLICE THEM TO RIBBONS....BUT THAT'S JUST AN OPINION. WE KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT FIGG.
OLD TIMERS HAD HUGE STAMINA AND GUTS, BUT ANY GOOD PRELIM FIGHTER COULD PROBABLY BOX THEIR EARS OFF AND SLICE THEM TO RIBBONS....BUT THAT'S JUST AN OPINION. WE KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT FIGG.
I know about Mace and I am well educated in the bare knucklers, but apparently you have a problem with anyone who does not share your point of view. Too bad. You make good observations at times, but you resort to a personal attack every time one does not agree with you. You are only hurting yourself and people will not take you seriously...
Okay, let's try this one more time.
It's really impossible to compare Figg and Mace and the knucklers to the gloved generations.
Take at look at Mike Donovan's boxing instruction book. Check out the way the jab was thrown, the blocking of punches etc and compare to modern technique. Like the Red Baron against a Harrier.
Knucklers training consisted of many miles of hiking to build up stamina, but records do not seem to indicate that they sparred often, although they did wrestle as preparation to bouts. They shaved their heads for butting and to prevent hair pulling and they generally aimed for the ear neck and body rather than the head to prevent hand injuries. Since most fights took place on turf, footwork was minimal.
I would agree that if you cloned Figg or Mace today and taught them as they grew, being technically competitive they could be champions because they were phisically gifted athletes. In the same manner I think Von Richtofen would have been an ace Harrier pilot.
Technique was primitive and the line of innovative pioneers who developed these techniques from scratch should not be minimized, but I seriously doubt that Figg or Mace could have handled Archie Moore. Jimmy Bivins, Nino Valdez, Eddie Machen, Zora Folley or George Chuvalo. Any one of these I mentioned would have outboxed and busted up Mace or Figg, simply because the knucklers were at the crawling development of the game when they were kings.
Look at Corbett in film. He's good and very fast, but some of his movements seem awkward to a modern fan. Gentleman Jim was a super athlete and the great innovator of the sport, but even with his speed and innovative abilities, he did not throw a lot of combinations.
The first fighter I have seen in film that shows very modern movements is Sam Langford. I think there was a dramatic increment in proficiency in the 1900-1915 period.
It's really impossible to compare Figg and Mace and the knucklers to the gloved generations.
Take at look at Mike Donovan's boxing instruction book. Check out the way the jab was thrown, the blocking of punches etc and compare to modern technique. Like the Red Baron against a Harrier.
Knucklers training consisted of many miles of hiking to build up stamina, but records do not seem to indicate that they sparred often, although they did wrestle as preparation to bouts. They shaved their heads for butting and to prevent hair pulling and they generally aimed for the ear neck and body rather than the head to prevent hand injuries. Since most fights took place on turf, footwork was minimal.
I would agree that if you cloned Figg or Mace today and taught them as they grew, being technically competitive they could be champions because they were phisically gifted athletes. In the same manner I think Von Richtofen would have been an ace Harrier pilot.
Technique was primitive and the line of innovative pioneers who developed these techniques from scratch should not be minimized, but I seriously doubt that Figg or Mace could have handled Archie Moore. Jimmy Bivins, Nino Valdez, Eddie Machen, Zora Folley or George Chuvalo. Any one of these I mentioned would have outboxed and busted up Mace or Figg, simply because the knucklers were at the crawling development of the game when they were kings.
Look at Corbett in film. He's good and very fast, but some of his movements seem awkward to a modern fan. Gentleman Jim was a super athlete and the great innovator of the sport, but even with his speed and innovative abilities, he did not throw a lot of combinations.
The first fighter I have seen in film that shows very modern movements is Sam Langford. I think there was a dramatic increment in proficiency in the 1900-1915 period.
-
Irishlad69
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 57
- Joined: 09 Mar 2003, 22:04
Bareknuckle greats.
Bareknuckle fighters prior to sullivan, whom IMO would have been great in the modern era are, tom sayers, camel heenan, bendigo, tom king, and jem mace. Cribb was a fraud who fought a bunch of saloon dwellers, and cemented his spurious reputation fighting two black fighters. One an aging smaller man [richmond], and two, a complete novice who merely LOOKED the part in tom molyneaux,and was lucky to win that one.
James Figg, Set up a boxing acadamy on London in 1719. Although Figg is credited as being the "father of boxing", his speciality was sword and cudgel fighting.
His boxing teaching was based on his sword fighting, using the same stances and footwork etc.
Figg stood 6 foot and weighed 185lb. Figg against someone like Dempsey, (6 foot and 187lb), would have been a total mis-match, I think Dempsey would have destroyed Figg.
Yes they were all tough guys back then. Fights consisted of constant fouls, wrestling, eye-gouging, and "purring", which consisted of the raking of spiked boots across a falen man.
But i am sure you guys knew all this anyway.
IMO, the real originator of boxing was Jack Broughton.
The best of the bare-knuckle boys were Daniel Mendoza, Tom Cribb, Tom Spring, Tom Sayers, Jem Mace, and John L
His boxing teaching was based on his sword fighting, using the same stances and footwork etc.
Figg stood 6 foot and weighed 185lb. Figg against someone like Dempsey, (6 foot and 187lb), would have been a total mis-match, I think Dempsey would have destroyed Figg.
Yes they were all tough guys back then. Fights consisted of constant fouls, wrestling, eye-gouging, and "purring", which consisted of the raking of spiked boots across a falen man.
But i am sure you guys knew all this anyway.
IMO, the real originator of boxing was Jack Broughton.
The best of the bare-knuckle boys were Daniel Mendoza, Tom Cribb, Tom Spring, Tom Sayers, Jem Mace, and John L