social opinion of boxing

>>2209120
Aristocrats and the upper classes have historically been more into fencing. The need to be able to defend oneself with ones fists is more of a modern thing when carrying bladed weapons became less common.

>>2209120
>he doesn't know about the secret all-colonial boxing tournament held in Buckinham Palace by the duke of kent during the victorian period

Started becoming interested in Pugilism. In the times before Queensbury rules became popular, The only rules being no hitting a man while he was down and no grabbing below the waist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS9izJnza18

Also some pugilism matches were fought toe to toe, with no movement or footwork allowed, first man who hit the floor was the loser.

File: Chu_knife_match.jpg (28KB, 639x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 639x480px

>>2209221
>Also some pugilism matches were fought toe to toe, with no movement or footwork allowed, first man who hit the floor was the loser.
Chu was real

>>2209142
>>2209120
We've got scant records of boxing from before the hannoverians. From what it seems from bans during the reign of Edward VI and Cromwell, Boxing was regarded less as a companion piece to fencing, and more thought of as a game or sport like bowling.

When it really took off though was the late 17th century, and there it was a joint Aristocratic Lower Class venture, linking the two (largely against the middle class, who would again try to ban the sport in the Victorian era, ending the Golden Age of Boxing). Aristocrats would frequently be the sponsor of boxing matches and boxers, offering their property as dedicated training grounds, etc. since the commercialization of boxing hadn't taken off yet. Of course the majority of the spectators and participants were lower class, with most boxers being miners, water carriers, butchers, smiths and other jobs that work your upper body.

As for fencing, once boxing really took off in this era, Fencing and Boxing were usually taught as companion pieces. All of the first boxing gyms were fencing academies (and they all also taught quarterstave).

A few reasons for this: One, if you were interested in self defense, the two go together logically: if you find yourself in a situation where you don't have a sword, you don't want to be defenseless. If someone is coming at you with a stick or a sword, you don't want to be capable of using only your fists.

But more important during this era, all of these were used to settle contests of honor, and it was customary to agree on a 'fair' contest, so knowledge of all three arts was important. Boxing was much more about contests of honor then then the sport/spectacle it would become, for example, Daniel Mendoza began his boxing career when apprenticing for a merchant, who got into a disagreement with a customer about a decimal place.

>>2209221
There were other rules and rulesets before Queensbury. Queensbury was a late 19th century invention, replacing Broughton's rules.

>>2209120
Is it true that boxing with just fists is safer than using gloves?

I've heard people temper their hits more since they feel pain as well when ungloved.

>>2209286
Nice post

>>2209286
Great post.

>>2209478
It depends on what you mean by safer, but in general, yes. Gloves were introduced to reduce injury to hands; they work for that, but the ability to throw harder hits to the head means that brain damage is more likely with gloved boxing.

File: img000006.jpg (173KB, 750x1184px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 750x1184px

Not exactly related to boxing, but did this game really exist ?

>>2209638
no, Oliva was making it up