Classical versus pre-Classical boxing and the "Gap"

[billeau2]

When we compare fighters a lot of misunderstandings arise. To either group, Preclassical/Classical the other group would look like strange amateurs. For example, we see the great Fitz wing a big ole haymaker against Corbett and you can hear the rumblings... Or we see fighters today, right in front of their opponent, squared up, not throwing a blow, which would make a preclassical guy cringe.

Some of this has to do with a magic space that forms in different places in the two approaches to boxing. If you look at preclassical fighting, as I have said before, there is a 3 foot (sword length) distance. You will seldom, if ever see a competent preclassical fighting man in this space... Much as in Japanese sword nobody would be ****** enough to be in cutting range unless setting a trap. In both cases... a three foot razor blade (the sword), a quick lead (like jeffries hit Fitz with for example) acts as a deterrent to being in that gap.

Dempsey and other punchers changed the focus to slipping blows, being able to use combinations and the distance that a hand would travel to the target, and not a sword (a la James Figg). So we see the front lead turn into a jab, a range finder, and a punch with more reach than a lead which is generated using slightly different body mechanics. Johnson may have been one of the first guys to actually turn the lead into a jab.

With Louis came the perfection of less frenetic footwork, the puncher, in stalking fashion methodically cut the ring down, tried to take angles in as entry points, and to put the opponent to the ropes. This gap dissapears almost entirely.

This post is an oversimplification but it is designed to point out a major "apples and oranges" type comparison boxing historians are often forced to make. Fighters fought with total different considerations... in preclassical boxing one either jockeyed for position, set a trap, or otherwise primed the gap, to come in and deliver a blow... if it went to grips, then the grappling, the inside game came into play. For later boxers the punch came right directly from a fighting distance that allowed either man the immanent ability to hit the other man. Speed, and entry point became the emphasis.

Consider this first clip and watch at 2 minutes and 7 seconds the front left lead Jeffries delivers to Fitz. Also notice that magic gap that exists between them... Notice how much effort is made in how to enter the gap to attack the opponent.



Now here is Louis by comparison.



Discuss

[Bundana]

When we compare fighters a lot of misunderstandings arise. To either group, Preclassical/Classical the other group would look like strange amateurs. For example, we see the great Fitz wing a big ole haymaker against Corbett and you can hear the rumblings... Or we see fighters today, right in front of their opponent, squared up, not throwing a blow, which would make a preclassical guy cringe.

Some of this has to do with a magic space that forms in different places in the two approaches to boxing. If you look at preclassical fighting, as I have said before, there is a 3 foot (sword length) distance. You will seldom, if ever see a competent preclassical fighting man in this space... Much as in Japanese sword nobody would be ****** enough to be in cutting range unless setting a trap. In both cases... a three foot razor blade (the sword), a quick lead (like jeffries hit Fitz with for example) acts as a deterrent to being in that gap.

Dempsey and other punchers changed the focus to slipping blows, being able to use combinations and the distance that a hand would travel to the target, and not a sword (a la James Figg). So we see the front lead turn into a jab, a range finder, and a punch with more reach than a lead which is generated using slightly different body mechanics. Johnson may have been one of the first guys to actually turn the lead into a jab.

With Louis came the perfection of less frenetic footwork, the puncher, in stalking fashion methodically cut the ring down, tried to take angles in as entry points, and to put the opponent to the ropes. This gap dissapears almost entirely.

This post is an oversimplification but it is designed to point out a major "apples and oranges" type comparison boxing historians are often forced to make. Fighters fought with total different considerations... in preclassical boxing one either jockeyed for position, set a trap, or otherwise primed the gap, to come in and deliver a blow... if it went to grips, then the grappling, the inside game came into play. For later boxers the punch came right directly from a fighting distance that allowed either man the immanent ability to hit the other man. Speed, and entry point became the emphasis.

Consider this first clip and watch at 2 minutes and 7 seconds the front left lead Jeffries delivers to Fitz. Also notice that magic gap that exists between them... Notice how much effort is made in how to enter the gap to attack the opponent.



Now here is Louis by comparison.



Discuss

You do know, that it's not really Fitz and Jeffries, right?

[ShoulderRoll]

The English and the Europeans focused a lot on fighting from the outside. A holdover from "fencing with the fists."





The thing is that landing a single sword thrust or cut can be definitive. But landing a single punch rarely is. It was the Americans who innovated in-fighting. Georges Carpentier acknowledged that and gave particular praise to Frank Klaus in this area.




Carpentier ambitiously hoped that from a mix of the English school and the American school would emerge a French school, one that combined the best of both.

That never panned out. Instead I would argue that it was in America where these refinements eventually took place. Peaking somewhere in between 1920-1955. Since then the knowledge of the sport has been in a slow decline.

[billeau2]

You do know, that it's not really Fitz and Jeffries, right?

Is that a simulated match? LOl no I didn't. I thought the simulated match was choyinski and Fitz. Thanks for the catch. I will find a better example.

[billeau2]

Imprtant Edit on example

Bundana pointed something out here that needs to be addressed:

The jeffries match was a simulation. There was a similar Choyinski match with Fitz that was also a simulation.

The concept still holds, here is a match with Moran and Johnson to demonstrate the point with a real match.



The actors simulating the fights are apeing the fighters... But it is still a real ****** mistake to make...

Anyone who so desires should smack me on the proverbial rear for this one, I will start...

"billeau you are an idiot."

Ok proceed!!

Oh and thank you bundana for sparring me further ridicule.

[billeau2]

The English and the Europeans focused a lot on fighting from the outside. A holdover from "fencing with the fists."





The thing is that landing a single sword thrust or cut can be definitive. But landing a single punch rarely is. It was the Americans who innovated in-fighting. Georges Carpentier acknowledged that and gave particular praise to Frank Klaus in this area.




Carpentier ambitiously hoped that from a mix of the English school and the American school would emerge a French school, one that combined the best of both.

That never panned out. Instead I would argue that it was in America where these refinements eventually took place. Peaking somewhere in between 1920-1955. Since then the knowledge of the sport has been in a slow decline.

Awesome information. The FRench developed a great boxing tradition that took hold in the South of France, particularly marisles... this was known as Savate of savate fancious. An art based on boxing and the use of whip kicks. Great art, a favorite of Bruce Lee.

[Bundana]

The actors simulating the fights are apeing the fighters... But it is still a real ****** mistake to make...

Anyone who so desires should smack me on the proverbial rear for this one, I will start...

"billeau you are an idiot."

Ok proceed!!

Oh and thank you bundana for sparring me further ridicule.

No worries - an honest mistake.

[billeau2]

No worries - an honest mistake.

I am trying to find the fitz choyinski fight that was simulated lol. I cant find it on Youtube. There was even a little presentation made about the simulation.

[ShoulderRoll]

Awesome information. The FRench developed a great boxing tradition that took hold in the South of France, particularly marisles... this was known as Savate of savate fancious. An art based on boxing and the use of whip kicks. Great art, a favorite of Bruce Lee.

The boxing in old savate comes from England. Not much different at all, if anything it's more basic and ******lined.

[billeau2]

The boxing in old savate comes from England. Not much different at all, if anything it's more basic and ******lined.

Yes, that is a true statement. Edit: The comment about "steamlined" is a great observation. It really does look that way lol.

Savate translates as "old shoe." It is probably similar to how different street boxing systems evolved here... For example, 52 Blocks in the prison system.

Marsailles was a tough town and had the docks where the criminal elements dwelled. They would have these hard soled shoes, perfect for a snapping kick, usually aimed at the head, and a front kick to the midriff area. They combined this with basic boxing and the art was born.

It is a very nice art... the boxing is basic but usually well done. No real head movement, but it integrates well with the kicking aspects.