[Best consumed
along with the companion piece essay “The
Day Jiu-Jitsu Died in Paris.”]
First—As
with the companion piece regarding jiu-jitsu this is not an argument regarding
the superiority of Boxing over Savate/Kickboxing or vice versa. I have no
interest in that, and the wise readers out there don’t either. Rather we are
looking at the hazards of what mathematicians and engineers know all too well,
the hazard of a Binding Constraint. We’ll come back to this.
Second—This
is also not merely a Boxer vs. Kickboxer story. The records are rife with such matches,
what fascinates here, is less the stylistic match-up than it is the relaxation
of the Binding Constraint. Again, we’ll come back to that as it is the crux.
For now, on to
the history.
Location
London, May
1906.
The Britannia
Theater in Hoxton.
Our Protagonists.
The Boxer: Pedlar
Palmer.
A canny
bantamweight, his father a bare-knuckle champion of Essex. Palmer had a fleet style
and a wide repertoire. So deep that he was known in some circles as the “Box o’
Tricks.”
He snagged the
British World Bantamweight Champion in 1895 and held it through 5 defenses.
The Savateur:
Louis Anastasie
Anastasie is
listed as a lightweight champion of the sport.
The Tale of the
Tape
Palmer was 5’3”
tall. As a bantamweight the weight cap at the time was 118. We don’t have an official
weight for this bout, but it safe to say this ballpark is sufficient.
We are only
provided relative measurements for Anastasie when we are told that Palmer comes
in 3” shorter than the Savateur, making Anastasie an approximate 5’6” and we
are told that Palmer gave up weight, nearly a stone [14 pounds to we Americans
using the avoirdupois scale.]
The Ruleset
Palmer was to
adhere to the Queensberry Rules.
Anastasie was
allowed to box, kick “when and where he liked” anywhere except the groin
and “to put on body or leg-holds.”
Boxing-wise those
at ringside did not think much of Anastasie, some thought the hand skills were laughable—could
be mere British anti-savate bias [it was widely considered unmanly.]
It also could be
the fact that ringside reports have the larger man seemingly avoiding the fray
by using his extended right leg to keep Palmer at bay and when “Box o’ Tricks”
would side-step or duck under the leg, Anastasie would resort to “body-holds”
to further stave off the fight, muffling punches.
Anastasie did
let fly with a head-kick that “grazed the nose” but that is all that is recorded
of note from Anastasie who stayed with his avoidance strategy, in the vein of Antonio
Inoki’s avoidance strategy vs Muhammad Ali in their “Boxer vs. Wrestler” match
of 1976.
The Outcome
In the 4th
round, Palmer frustrated at the lack of action, took matters into his own hands
and one of three things happened—depends on your source.
He either
decided to add to his game and applied a handful of shin kicks that stopped
Anastasie
Or…he applied
shin kicks and was immediately disqualified for stepping outside the
Queensberry Rules.
Or…the kicks
were not to the shin at all but merely reported as such “to be delicate.”
Rather Palmer
kicked Anastasie in the groin promptly ending the affair, leading to a fight
stop, unaccepted apologies etc.
The final
version is the one accepted and recorded by fistic historian Graeme Kent.
If [If…] we
accept either Version 1 or Version 2 of the outcome we are looking at a situation
similar to the one detailed in the companion essay “The
Day Jiu-Jitsu Died in Paris.”
This leads us to
the concept of Binding Constraint.
[Note: We
are discussing Binding Constraint and NOT Bound Constraint. Similar terms for
two different concepts altogether.]
Textbook time…
Binding
Constraint: A limitation (which could be a bound
or a formula) that the optimal solution perfectly pushes up against. If you
relax this constraint, the final result will change.
In a combative
context, the ruleset or “acceptable rules of play” as in a given combat sport
are the Binding Constraint, the Limitations.
In boxing, a binding
restraint would be “No hitting below the belt.”
In warfare the Binding
Constraints are the “Rules of Engagement” [e.g., “No biological weapons”
“No civilian targeting” etc.]
In the seemingly
“Anything goes” world of the street, there are still Binding
Constraints, BUT they exist only inside the skulls of the individual.
If one assailant
thinks “I’ll show this guy what’s what for bumping me as I walk by, he has
no idea who he’s dealing with. Why I’ve been doin’ MMA for 5 years and Filipino
Martials for 10.”
If the other participant
is thinking “I’ve got this SIG Sauer P365 I’m just itching to use”
Well…we all know
where those years of experience go.
Let’s look at
that Binding Constraint definition again but emphasize the last line.
Binding
Constraint: A limitation (which could be a bound
or a formula) that the optimal solution perfectly pushes up against. If
you relax this constraint, the final result will change.
Rough n Tumble
is not only a relaxing of Binding Constraints, a mere step outside of Binding Constraints,
it is a rebellious refusal to recognize binding restraints.
The story of
combat sports is a story of existing within boundaries.
Stories of
survival are often about what persists and is effective outside
of boundaries.”
For
more on Combat Solutions that Exist Outside of Boundaries…
Have a gander at
the following resources, perhaps even consider joining our Subscription Service
and Becoming Part of the Black Box Brotherhood.
Resources for
Livin’ the Warrior Life
The Black Box
Warehouse
https://www.extremeselfprotection.com/
The Indigenous
Ability Blog
https://indigenousability.blogspot.com/
The Rough ‘n’
Tumble Raconteur Podcast
https://anchor.fm/mark-hatmaker
Comments
Post a Comment