Bare-Knuckled Blogging

With regard to the post below, Alex directs my attention to the boxing gloves Wikipedia page which explains:

Because of their added weight, heavier gloves are generally considered safer, since impulse in physics is a measure of force over time and a padded glove increases the time over which momentum is transferred. This reduces the average force experienced by both the boxer's hand and the target.

Several commenters, meanwhile, hypothesize that "take the gloves off" may be a reference to hockey in which the players take off their gloves before fighting. That made me think I should link back to an old post I wrote about hockey fights, but all I could find was me complaining that the Capitals need cheerleaders and Justin Logan writing about hockey fights. Oh well.

Comments

Its probably about no sport. Men used to where gloves regularly and to take them off for a strenuous activity or to fight may be the reason for the saying.

Anyway this really goes back to Orwell's complaint that people continue to use phrases even when they have no real idea of the origin of them.

Posted by Parmenides | November 13, 2007 7:22 PM

Before the 1860's, boxing was done bare-knuckled and with few rules except that a fight ended when one man couldn't get up, and it was a bloody enterprise. A series of reforms, eventually codified in the Marquess of Queensbury rules of 1867, were designed to reduce death and maiming, and required such things as gloves, a roped ring, timed rounds, a return to the corner when a man was knocked down, stopping fights for injuries, and the like. Fighting "with the gloves off" meant fighting under the old rules - that is, under virtually no rules. It's not related to hockey, and the addition of "taking" is later and probably came about when the people using the phrase had forgotten its original meaning.

Posted by Bloix | November 13, 2007 7:26 PM

The hockey slang for fighting is to "drop the gloves".

Posted by Dillon | November 13, 2007 7:35 PM

I'm not sure if this is right, but I seem to recall reading that gloves cause more long-term damage precisely because they make it harder to knock someone out, so a fighter ends up taking a lot more punches over a career than would otherwise have been the case.

Posted by David J. Balan | November 13, 2007 7:39 PM

I was going to say something similar to Bloix, just without any historical reference. Bare-knuckle boxing is much bloodier and more painful, for exactly the physics reason MY states.

And yeah, the metaphor is rather odd, considering a boxer can't take his gloves off by himself.

Posted by Jeremy | November 13, 2007 7:40 PM

The phrase "taking the gloves off" goes back to at least 1828. I suspect that it comes from two things, neither of which involve organized sports. First, the gentleman's habit of actually wearing gloves on a regular basis, such gloves being actually removed before fisticuffs could occur, and second the much older phrases "throw down the glove" or "cast down the glove" meaning to challenge to a fight. It's also possible that it comes from the opposite of "treating with kid gloves", although it seems from a glance that "gloves off" is earlier, so it may well be the other way around.

The OED is often helpful, if you want actual information.

Thanks,
-V.

Posted by Vardibidian | November 13, 2007 8:06 PM

You all seem to misunderstand the history of the term "take off the gloves." We know what it means, that now the person is going to get serious about what he is doing and not pussy foot around. When Obama takes off his gloves, it means he is going to start talking straight and tough.

It has nothing to do with boxing or fighting. As Bloix noted boxing was once done without gloves. But Bloix errs in equating the expression with fighting under the old rules for if that were so we would probably use the expression "time to take down the ropes."

Parmenides is closer to the answer. He noted that at one time men wore gloves regularly. That is untrue, but he is close because at one time upper class women wore them regularly.

It was in the contest of the sexes that the expression came about in the upper classes. One would understand this if he or she read much of Edith Wharton. For until a woman took off her gloves, a gentleman could not expect to get down to the business at hand.

So a gentleman engaged in locker room talk about a specific woman, before they had locker rooms, would ask whether she took off her gloves. That eventually wound its way into the everyday patois where it became understood that to bring about any serious endeavor one had to take off the gloves.

It came to be associated with boxing because the use of gloves by (and the influence of) society women diminished so when gloves were mentioned people only thought of boxing gloves. No one ever associated the expression with baseball gloves, however at one time it was thought to be associated with the old Negro Baseball League where many of the players played without gloves and were considered very tough. As Dillon noted, when associated with hockey, the gloves are dropped.

Posted by Matt | November 13, 2007 8:09 PM

Boxing gloves allow one to punch harder and deliver blows to the head regularly. Without them, one is very likely to break ones hand against an opponent's skull before the opponent is knocked out. This is part of the reason there are almost no serious brain injuries in mixed martial arts (tiny gloves) whereas it is pretty much only a matter of time until a professional boxer receives some brain damage.

Posted by Fin Fang Foom | November 13, 2007 8:16 PM

Vardibidian's reliance on the OED is misplaced. He/she must realize that OED in determining the origin of an expression would never have suggested that it originated in the relationship between the sexes. But being confronted with the the necessity of coming up with a definition, it went back to the middle ages knightly expression of "throwing down the gauntlet." Since the gauntlet was a reinforced glove, it found it easy to avoid the implications of the bedroom and assume the middle age expression would cover its need. But the gauntlet was thrown down, it was not taken off. We are dealing with "taking off," a relatively civil action fraught with meaning.

Posted by Matt | November 13, 2007 8:18 PM

Matt is just being ridiculous.
Vardibidian, bravo to you for finding the 1828 reference in the OED supplement, where the phrase is given as "handle with the gloves off." I stand in the presence of my better. The meaning may well be a sardonic reference to removing one's fancy gloves before administering a beating. I doubt it has anything to do with throwing down the gauntlet, which means a challenge - a very different thing. And it may yet have something to do with boxing, as protective mitts were worn even in the 18th century, and were taken off only for actual bouts.

Posted by Bloix | November 13, 2007 8:46 PM

That made me think I should link back to an old post I wrote about hockey fights, but all I could find was me complaining that the Capitals need cheerleaders and Justin Logan writing about hockey fights. Oh well.

Yeah, what's the deal with your archives?

There are huge gaps, and what is present is minimally organized. I would think that the crack staff at the Atlantic could do better.

Posted by southpaw | November 13, 2007 9:00 PM

Forget the gloves. Put on the foil! That machine took my quarter!

Posted by Pat Hanson | November 13, 2007 9:12 PM

The real problem with punching someone with a bare fist is that your knuckles strike unevenly, leading to the tendency to break the third knuckle. This is the real advantage of holding a roll of quarters or cigarette lighter or similar when you punch someone; the object evens out your knuckles for when you punch.

Posted by Freddie | November 13, 2007 9:16 PM

"Taking the gloves off" is a sexual metaphor for removing one's condom, so that the serious business of implanting semen may ensue. The original phrase, "handle with kid gloves," referred to the bladder of a young goat, which as everyone knows was the material of choice for the male prophylactic. The REAL original phrase was, in fact, "meddle with a kid's sheath," which, over time, for mysterious reasons appertaining to the relations between the sexes, morphed into the aforementioned. And, of course, it was "take the glove [singular] off" before it got pluralized to "gloves," because by now everyone had become thoroughly confused about it, and the idea of only one glove seemed odd. Because it was properly a sheath. Or perhaps a sock. Which leads me to the phrase, "to knock your socks off..."

Posted by Bill | November 13, 2007 9:27 PM

does that wikipedia entry make sense, even on its own terms?

"Because of their added weight, heavier gloves are generally considered safer, since impulse in physics is a measure of force over time and a padded glove increases the time over which momentum is transferred."

i like the "impulse" explanation; the thickness of the padding slows down the transfer of momentum, reducing acceleration and thus g's. all that sounds about right.

but to the extent it is right, "because of their added weight" is a red herring. a heavier object does not transfer momentum more slowly; if anything, it would be the opposite. maybe the thought is "because they have more padding, heavier gloves are safer despite having more weight...."

oh well. complaining that wikipedia articles need editing is like...doing something pointless.

Posted by kid bitzer | November 13, 2007 9:35 PM

"Taking the gloves off" is a sexual metaphor for removing one's condom, so that the serious business of implanting semen may ensue.

I am surprised that someone besided me is aware of this little-known historical fact. By the way, Bill, did you know the phrase originated with the celebrated 17th-century freak of nature, Oliver "Five Penises" MacGonnigle (of whom it was first said, "His trousers fit him like a glove?")

Posted by James Gary | November 13, 2007 9:39 PM

The real problem with punching someone with a bare fist is that your knuckles strike unevenly, leading to the tendency to break the third knuckle.

Lock your wrist to align it with your ulna and only use the surface of the index and middle fing to hit with(and throw a few thosand punches until it's instinct). Most human's don't know how to punch and that's probably good.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 13, 2007 9:40 PM

Most human's don't know how to punch and that's probably good.

Lord knows I don't. I haven't been in a fight (other than with my brothers) since eighth grade against Joe Aresco, and even that I regret.

He knocked my glasses off in front of the whole cafeteria, though. So not fighting him would have been social suicide. Also it prompted me to get contacts and I've never gone back.

Posted by Freddie | November 13, 2007 9:44 PM

Come on, punching with a closed fist is asking for a broken hand. When the student is ready, Col. Fairbairn will appear:

"Fairbairn taught that when you’re facing a frontal attack, your best option is usually the tiger’s claw blow. To execute it, Cestari says, you should curl your fingers and spread them as though you are trying to grip a shot-put. Deliver the strike into the attacker’s face using a piston-like motion.

The technique can be combined with a forward step (using the strikingside foot) to put your body weight into the technique, Cestari says. Your splayed fingers should be driven into the assailant’s eyes, while your palm and the base of your hand smash into his nose, mouth and chin."
http://www.blackbeltmag.com/archives/191

Posted by beowulf | November 13, 2007 10:34 PM

damn, but that dude is hott.

Posted by belle waring | November 13, 2007 11:04 PM

When the student is ready, Col. Fairbairn will appear

You are just snarking, right?

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 13, 2007 11:38 PM

Another reason why Yglesias is so endearing: on a post all about punching, he posts a picture of a guy kicking somebody.

Posted by Freddie | November 13, 2007 11:45 PM

Boxing gloves allow one to punch harder and deliver blows to the head regularly. Without them, one is very likely to break ones hand against an opponent's skull before the opponent is knocked out. This is part of the reason there are almost no serious brain injuries in mixed martial arts (tiny gloves) whereas it is pretty much only a matter of time until a professional boxer receives some brain damage.

Lighter gloves may be part of the reason why MMA has a better safety record than boxing, but only part. Another important point is that most MMA fighters aren't very good punchers* and therefore don't land hard punches like boxers do. They especially have trouble landing left hooks, which are both the most difficult type of punch to master and the type most likely to cause serious injury. In addition, MMA is still a new sport, and there are fewer MMA fights than boxing matches in any week, month, etc.

* = if you were a good puncher you'd probably go into boxing instead of MMA, as there's a lot more money to be made in boxing. Not to mention the fact that boxing training is cheap or even free, while MMA training is exhorbitantly expensive.

Posted by Peter | November 13, 2007 11:51 PM

MMA is just a different sport than boxing.

I studied kickboxing under Brad Hefton from fifteen to twenty-two, and fought a decent number of amatuer fights before I decided that I wasn't going to be a star and the training was just sucking the life out of me.

You could have the most perfect punching technique in the world in MMA, and it won't do you any good because the grappler isn't going to fight you. Haul any boxer in the world in there and he's not going to win because they won't box with him.

I think this is illegal in the "octagon" style fights, but a friend of mine was talking about MP duty in Korea and talking about restraining people and I told him "restrain me", thinking I knew all the outs. The guy stuck his fingers in my mouth got a nice pinch with his thumb inside my mouth and his forefinger clasping on the opposite side and dragged my head around for about thirty seconds while I tried to figure out what the hell was happening.

That's what happens when your boxer get's pitted against the MMA guys. You are not playing the same game at all and you aren't going to get to punch that guy because he knows you want to punch him and he's going to get inside before you can do it right.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 14, 2007 12:28 AM

Couldn't you just bite down?

Posted by Freddie | November 14, 2007 12:30 AM

Re beowulf's comment ""Fairbairn taught that when you’re facing a frontal attack, your best option is usually the tiger’s claw blow. To execute it, Cestari says, you should curl your fingers and spread them as though you are trying to grip a shot-put. Deliver the strike into the attacker’s face using a piston-like motion."
---------

1) Actually, that strike to the jaw was a SECONDARY strike-- because at best it only delivered a knockout, not a kill. It was to be followed by one of the prime killing strikes.

The primary stikes were edge of the hand to the side of the neck (carotid artery/vagus nerve ), to the windpipe (death by suffocation) or to the back of the neck. Power was concentrated on small surface area of edge of hand.
Ref: SOE Syllabus, Close Combat course, sections 1 and 3.

IF the man was down, of course, a kick to the temple or throat worked.

2) "Taking the Gloves Off" in the old days --as one poster noted -- allowed for more deadly, crippling use of the open hand. Another term was "No Holds Barred". Controlled boxing with gloves was ludicrous by comparison.

In 18th-19th century America, unarmed fighting depended upon such useful tactics as grabbing the opponent by the side of the head and popping his eyeballs out with one's thumbs -- after which he was easy prey. Or grabbing his testicles and twisting. Or punching him in the windpipe.

"Gentlemen" were not so stupid as to engage in such bouts with commoners. Gentleman didn't remove their gloves -- they shoved a sword through an attacker or blew the attacker's brains out with a pistol.

3) Remind me to never depend on you nancies in a bar fight.

Posted by Don Williams | November 14, 2007 12:39 AM

Not if the guy is doing it right, it's called "fishhooking" and the idea is that you are stretching that cheek out as far as it will go so that that person being fishhooked has no concern in the world other than keeping his body caught up with the head.

Have someone else try it out on you, it's not the same as the shock of someone doing it to you out of the blue but I still think they could force you to put 100% of your energy into keeping them from pulling your face apart vs. stopping them (and if they are pulling even remotely hard your teeth would be an inch from their fingers).

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 14, 2007 12:43 AM

Fin Fang is correct.

Boxing gloves were designed to protect the hand and allow boxers to punch harder, quicker, and without concern for their hands meeting bone. As a result, a boxers likely suffer a lot more head and brain trauma.

As for the physics, wouldn't extra mass of the boxing glove increase the force of the punch, as long as the boxer is trained to punch with the same velocity?

Posted by blah | November 14, 2007 1:03 AM

It's not just physics, people throw punches differently when their hands are taped and gloved.

When there is no pain involved they hit harder.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 14, 2007 1:11 AM

but..

getting hit with a correct bare knuckle blow is going to cut, break bones, smash noses, etc.. ever if it wasn't thrown with the same pounds per square inch.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 14, 2007 1:13 AM

and, I screwed that up twice thinking I'd finished, PPI squared is the key there. The glove does spread out the pain somewhat. It doesn't do anything for the brain getting knocked against the brain pan, but it does one hell of a number on whatever the focus of your two bare knuckles decided to concentrate on.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 14, 2007 1:22 AM

As best I can infer from the caption, the guy in the black "USA" trunks has knuckles in his feet.

Posted by rea | November 14, 2007 8:28 AM

Not if the guy is doing it right, it's called "fishhooking" and the idea is that you are stretching that cheek out as far as it will go so that that person being fishhooked has no concern in the world other than keeping his body caught up with the head.

It indeed is prohibited by almost all MMA organizations, including the UFC, Elite XC, Bodog, IFL, etc. Rio Heroes might be the only organization where it's still allowed.

Posted by Peter | November 14, 2007 10:07 AM

1) Actually, that strike to the jaw was a SECONDARY strike-- because at best it only delivered a knockout, not a kill. It was to be followed by one of the prime killing strikes.

If you're a barfight, I'd strongly urge you to go for a "knockout, not a kill". If you knockout a drunk idiot, you can go home, if you kill a drunk idiot, you can be arrested for manslaughter.

If its not a barfight, and you really are in a live or die situation- then I'd suggest studying SOE Syllabus, I.4 Section 5 (Knife fighting) or just cut to the chase and study I.5 Weapons Training ("You must kill your man. One shot may kill him but it better to make absolutely certain by putting two shots into him"".)

Posted by beowulf | November 14, 2007 11:40 AM

Re women being discriminated against in coffee shops: how is this even possible? In Starbucks, the orders are filled in the order received. So if an order takes longer than normal to prepare, it slows up not only the person ordering but everyone waiting behind her (presumably including men). How can this be labeled discrimination? It doesn't make sense.

Posted by DB | November 15, 2007 6:20 PM

Well, here's a hockey-fight story for you, MY:
Back when the Caps played at the Cap Center (shudder), they had a game with the NY Islanders that was ugly from the first minute. So, in the final moments of a particularly foul-ridden third period, the players on both sides just sort of skated around in circles near the benches, waiting for the clock to run out. As soon as it did, sticks, gloves, and sweaters hit the ice, benches cleared, and the most amazing brawl I've ever seen took place for a few minutes before the refs and coaches got them to their respective dressing rooms. More fighting took place later, in the parking lot.

(As an aside, what I find disheartening is that most people don't even know that a hockey player wears a sweater, not a jersey.)

Ah, this post makes me nostalgic for the fun of going to Rangers games when Mark Messier played for them. The sheer pleasure of hurling anti-Ranger epithets his way was worth the (high!) price of every ticket. For this reason, I was quite sad when he retired.

Posted by ajw_93 | November 16, 2007 1:15 PM