![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jan. 6th, 2013 09:45 amDumb thought for the day;
You know how the stereotyped Victorian boxer has his arms up, the striking surface of his fists facing upwards? I was thinking about that. Not only would that make blocking strikes from the side a little more easily, but it suggests a lot of uppercuts. A lot. Rather than jabs or haymakers that broadcast more and have more chance of hitting skull or rib cage. So my contention, based on just the pose we associate with these guys, is that Victorian guys were going for quick knockouts a lot more often - possibly because there was money riding on it more often - whereas most modern boxers are going for big brutal entertainment.
You know how the stereotyped Victorian boxer has his arms up, the striking surface of his fists facing upwards? I was thinking about that. Not only would that make blocking strikes from the side a little more easily, but it suggests a lot of uppercuts. A lot. Rather than jabs or haymakers that broadcast more and have more chance of hitting skull or rib cage. So my contention, based on just the pose we associate with these guys, is that Victorian guys were going for quick knockouts a lot more often - possibly because there was money riding on it more often - whereas most modern boxers are going for big brutal entertainment.