https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-03/legal-bare-knuckle-fighting-makes-bloody-debut-in-wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyo. (AP) -- The first ever state-sanctioned bare-knuckle boxing match got a bloody ending Saturday night — and a big response from a raucous crowd.
Arnold Adams, a 32-year-old MMA heavyweight, pounded ex-UFC fighter D.J. Linderman's face into a bloody mess in front of 2,000 rowdy fans at a hockey rink that usually hosts
birthday parties and skating lessons in Wyoming's capital. Tens of thousands more tuned in for the pay-per-view event, which featured 10 bouts, including four heavyweight
fights in a tournament format.
Fans were lined up outside the Cheyenne Ice and Events Center more than an hour before the first major bare-knuckle event in the U.S. since 1889. Forrest Peters, from Cheyenne, was
among those in attendance. He came to cheer Estevan Payan — who served in the same Army unit as Peters — and to witness history.
"With the bare-knuckle fighting and everything, having them bring it back for the first time in over 100 years, you knew it's pretty exciting to see," Peters said, "and especially having it
here in Cheyenne, kinda out here where the West is still a little wild."
Cheyenne resident Bryan Pedersen, an MMA fighter and former state lawmaker, successfully sponsored a bill in 2012 to create a state board of mixed martial arts — the first state to
do so. While MMA was thriving, bare-knuckle competition wasn't even considered when the law was passed. However, Wyoming jumped at the chance to host Bare Knuckle
Fight Championships action after 28 other states passed.
The International Boxing Hall of Fame said the last significant bare-knuckle bout was July 8, 1889, when John L. Sullivan went 75 rounds to beat Jake Kilrain. Even that event was
illegal and had to be staged under the cover of secrecy as most states had outlawed the non-gloved version of boxing.
Fighting was forced underground until 2011, when the Yavapai Nation sanctioned a match that Gunn won over Richard Stewart at the tribe's reservation in Arizona. The bout
drew more than a million viewers, and the promoter of that event and the Wyoming one, David Feldman, realized there was a hungry market for bare-knuckle fights within the combat
sports fanbase. It took him another seven years to find a state willing to sanction the next event.
Wyoming became the first state to sanction and regulate the activity sport its commission reviewed research that indicated bare-knuckle boxing would be safer than other combat
sports, especially when it comes to concussions, Pedersen said, adding that the commission, which he chairs, spent about a year developing the new rules governing the sport. He
also viewed Saturday's competition, and future bouts, as a way to generate economic diversity and promote the Cowboy State and its strong sense of Western independence.
The first rule of fight club is you don't talk about fight club. Except in Wyoming.
I mean, I don't see why not to allow it, the gloves are there to protect the fighters hands, not their opponent.
Don't boxing gloves actually make it more dangerous? The fighters would break their hands without them, but with them on they can punch even harder. And they still hit hard. It only increases the risk of brain injury, if I recall correctly.
I recall it also being a case of blows to pretty much anywhere on the body being effective with bare knuckles, while pretty much only blows to the head work in gloved boxing. This of course leads to way more hits in the head, thanks to it being a much more viable place to punch. That, and fingerbones are more fragile than skulls.
In old depictions of bare-knuckle boxing, you often see the fighters' stance being lower with arms closer to waist-level than the high, face-guarding stance most modern boxers use.
Good. Bareknuckle Boxing needs to make a come back in the United States. It was one of the primary methods of duels/settling disputes in the 1800's.
Not to mention the internal damage caused by glove fighting is fucking atrocious. Yeah, you'll get some scrapes and blood with bareknuckles, but the effect of gloves causes a great deal of residual shockwaves in someones head, and can lead to major medical issues down the road.
I wish we could also bring back rapier fighting as a way to settle disputes, but that has the nasty side effect of being the deadliest type of dueling. Even flintlock dueling frequently ended with only minor grazes. But rapiers are almost exclusively a thrusting weapon, and a single thrust on the main target can go straight through the chest.
The instant this becomes legalized in AZ is the instant I sign up
While I don't have anything against those who compete, I really can't support any of the impact combat sports. The sacrifice of the long term health of the competitors isn't something I can tolerate to enjoy the sports.
Why is settling disputes with violence something that y'all want back?
It's not really violent though. Duels were something seen as "gentlemanly", and weren't to the death (Unless we're talking about pre-renaissance judicial and private duels). With rapiers, it was done to first blood. It wasn't done to hurt the opponent, but to show your skill. In it's essence, it was a way to solve a dispute without turning to violence.
Fighting with a sword with the intention of slashing or stabbing your opponent doesn't count as "turning to violence"?
If I call your wife a whore and beat you in a fight that means I'm right.
Yeah sounds like a great system wish we had it back.
No, if you've ever done any technical fencing then you'd know. It's not violence, it's an art. Before thrusting rapiers were introduced, there were very injuries (other than small nicks and cuts, but nothing serious) and deaths within the dueling scene. German longsword rules didn't permit thrusting for a good reason. The art isn't about hurting the other person, but about the skill in sword.
We already have wars, do we not?
Then why not just advocate for fencing, bringing swords into it sounds like a good way to make it bloody. Not to mention I'm sure the ER would be very unhappy with all the gentlemen needing stitches.
Nothing as peaceful as stabbing your enemies.
It's both.
Yeah, and wars are just a grand o'l time that everybody is super okay with.
Wars only exist because of necessity.
Whoever has a better grip on the historic facts feel free to jump on me and call me an idiot if wrong, but I recall reading before that the sort of people (nobles) who were likely to do 'honor' duels were often taught a specific dueling style designed for their needs.
I.E.: Flashy, and for pansies.
Fight for the first nick, not the first impalation, because that was the deciding factor and everything else was just pampered nobility beating their chests about being tough and fearless. To the point that in certain areas it was fashionable for young rich men to have a scar on the face from such a practice; Most notably Germany, just in time for that generation to grow up and establish the "Scarred Nazi Officer" stereotype.
That's a very wrong view on it. It's not "for pansies", it's so you can actually learn and practice it. You severely misunderstand the danger of a thrust to the chest and the mortality of man.
The noblemen fighting in those duels were often taught by masters and they didn't just teach to win a duel. They taught actual swordsmanship, and their students would be a real threat even to a hardened mercenary in a duel. It was the most effective way to wield a sword, not flashy. Some techniques like the German mastercuts might look flashy, but that they are very effective. The book "Historical European Martial Arts in it's context" covers judicial and private duels quite well. A duel isn't just for ending a dispute, it also creates mutual respect between the fighters.
And no, sword duels (with the exception of pre-renaissance judicial duels), by definition, aren't violence. Violence is described as the intentional use of force which results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury or death. The intention is to make a small cut or nick on the enemy. There is no intention to actually harm opponent. As described in historical manuals, thrusts are too dangerous and would cause serious harm to the opponent. The fighters are expected to fight fair, cutting with intent to kill brings them no respect and could get them tried for murder.
Duels with rules like these aren't violence just like Judo isn't violence.
Anyway, bringing back something like this doesn't really help much except for entertainment. Forcing people to do it would be stupid, but if they want and can do it safely, I don't think anyone should stop them.
Gloves not only protect the hand against injury, but the protection lets you align your hand in a way that lets you hit even harder. A horizontal blow to someones eye without gloves is a fast way to shatter your hand. With gloves you can just unload.
Bare knuckle boxing is a lot bloodier because of all the scrapes and cuts, but the concussive force is a hell of a lot less, which effectively makes it safer. It's like rugby vs American football. Rugby players aren't universally having their brains turn into cauliflower in the way that footballers are.
You know, we still have fencing and sword duels. We just make people wear protective equipment for them. The only thing you'd be "bringing back" would be using them to settle disputes which is inane in all aspects unless the dispute was about who is better at sword fighting.
it would solve disputes if honor was still a cultural institution
Do you just look for the craziest position to take and then jump on it.
the last part reminds me of the guy in an older pictures of you thread that purposely cut his face and tried say it was from "traditional" rapier duelling and being a total cool guy but everything about it was off and it was obvious he just wanted to give himself a "cool" scar
I have no problem with non-lethal duels to settle disputes. If it's done in an organized and legal manner that is.
As for taking high-roads in term of nutty ideas, I just believe that personal liberty is a good thing. If two men wanna beat the sod' outta each other over a legal dispute, let them. Maybe we can make a TV show, in which legal disputes are settled via bareknuckle boxing!
How the hell does beating your opponent prove you're right in your dispute? Im all of allowing two people to box without gloves, but to settle disputes is dumb.
Honor and pride exist at a very primitive level as human social drives and they can't be rid of. It's just that nowadays rationality, democracy and compromise have (thankfully) replaced butting heads at the more developed institutional level but people still fight over their primitive pride every day and even in the circles of milder mannered more rational people the most heated disputes are usually fought partly or even mostly over pride rather than the actual matter at hand, even though it may not seem so. Fighting is just the last resort in establishing a primitive order after reason and posturing become exhausted.
So maybe of interest, I actually had two bareknuckle fights back when i was competing in boxing. I competed in ammy boxing for almost a decade.
The BK fights were technically illegal, but illegal in the same way almost everything is but the police dont give a shit as long as they get some of the money in one way or another. Its never as down and dirty as promoters make it out to be believe me, there usually a considerable amount of money involved. I got $500 USD for my first fight and $700 for my second. Show money, not win money, of which there was none. Might sound like a lot to some people here but its not, or at least wasn't, sustainable income at the time. I'm sort of baffled that that this is happening since IME, BK promotions tend to be "here today, gone tomorrow". Thats true of combat sports in general though, people strongly underestimate just how much of the success of a promotion is pure marketing, it has nothing to do with how "interesting" or "exciting" the sport is - thats why the UFC is what it is today, meanwhile goofy shit like multiple combatants or HEMA is just a strange curiosity that will run out of money to put on shows very soon.
BK boxing is really not that different to gloved boxing, except you get cut way more easily (i had two minor lacerations on my cheeks and brow in both BK fights, compared to the some 30 ammy boxing fights were I had one cut in my entire run) and bone on flesh tends to hurt more. It also hurts more to block/parry with your hands/arms/shoulders, so you rely on movement to avoid blows more. You surely could do some mayweather shit in BK, and you surely will be in a lot of pain from doing it.
I'll dispell some myths:
"people only punch to the head with closed fists because of gloves" - In both of my fights and all of the BK I've watched, which i consider to be pretty extensive, this doesn't really hold up to examination. The majority of punches are still thrown to the head, with closed fists. I can't even remember the last time i saw a palm heel strike or slap in BK boxing. Same thing for favoring body shots, I never really saw it. Most people still throw the majority of the punches to the head because surprise, its the fastest way to stop someone.
- the idea that BK boxing is "safer" that gloves because x y z is really specious. The data really isnt there, this is mostly hyperbole that BK advertisers have seeded. At best we can probably say that it isnt that much more dangerous than boxing. However it is worth noting that without gloves, the punches are coming at a much higher velocity and have less surface area and cushioning to the impacts. Depending on the rulesets of the particular promotion regarding knockdowns/counts, it could and very likely is just as a "dangerous" to the brain as gloved boxing. The chief problem with boxing remains the aspect of a man receiving a concussion, and then being allowed to continue again and again until he cant intelligently defend himself or has sustained horrendous damage.
that gloves are there to protect hands: Historically, its hard to say. Combat sports are inseparable from gambling, and the problem with bareknuckle fighting is that knockdowns and knockouts happen far more easily and often than with large gloves, due to the factors i mentioned earlier (BK: higher velocity, less cushioning/surface area for impact). The aesthetic of boxing in the very early days was very much a drag out affair, people did not like to see a short fight. Hell that continued well into the modern era, a lot of people would feel robbed of their money when they'd go see the big mike tyson fight and he'd get his man out of there in the first round. However, it is also true in this respect, that over the course of a very long fight, fighters would injure their hands, hence the advent of protection, first starting with "slips" that offered very little protection and eventually moving into comically large looking gloves filled with things like horse hair. So it might be a case of killing two birds with one stone: longer fights that are better for gambling, and more protection for the fighters so they could throw more punches and fight more frequently with less downtime (in the golden era of the 20s-40s, top guys were fighting sometimes twice a month, which would be considered insane by todays standards where a top fighter might fight just two or three times a year once hes established).
With their population density that might be the only way
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
