>>44665475 Nah nah, don't go on the offense before you have a strong defense. This is basic Sun Tzu. If you commit to an assault without having some sort of fall-back plan, without being able to defend yourself if something goes wrong, then you're putting all your chickens in one basket. It's like tossing a coin, hoping the guy's weak enough to fold, and if he doesn't you're screwed. That double edged shit isn't smart.
>>44665556 Anger doesn't work in boxing, not when boxers know how to spot openings and exploit patterns. It's true that the best defense is a good offense: but you need a good defense before launching a good offense.
>>44665404 >>44665515 Now wait, plenty of classical boxing manuals from the Pre-Marquis rules era devote time to stances and blocking. It seems a disingenuous to call any bare-knuckle pugilist without defense.
>>44665648 True, I guess. It wasn't a lot more advanced than simply blocking, though. On the other hand, it also matters what you mean by "old timey". I think of "old timey pugilism" as being that pre-Mendoza era of extremely basic defense through blocking. S'pose there's a lot of variation between what two people mean by "old timey pugilist" though. I was exaggerating a bit as well.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.