What is the 1595 Club Ireland?

hakunapesa

The 1595 Club Ireland is a study of the lost martial system of Vincentio Saviolo covering unarmed combat, the study and practice of historical weapons and the study of authentic swordsmanship.

We will be offering courses suitable for all abilities from the beginner to advanced students both in individual classes and group workshops. Everyone welcome.

Our fully insured teachers are also available to teach workshops at other clubs around Ireland. Classes can be tailor made to fit in with your club.

Our club, The 1595 Club is dedicated to the practice, study and rebirth of the ‘lost’ martial arts of Europe. Our primary source is the work of the sixteenth century soldier, philosopher and Master of Fence Vincentio Saviolo and it is from the year of publication of ‘His Practise’ in 1595 that the Club takes its name.

The terms ‘fencing’ or ‘to fence’ originated from the Elizabethan slang for ‘defence’ and ‘offence’ and this is the meaning that we wish to reclaim.

Fencing is the art of combat: the art and science of defence.

The 1595. Club’s approach to the Art of Fence offers:

• A full martial system: ranging from unarmed combat to the study and practice of historical weapons.

• The study of authentic swordsmanship and the Art of Arms.

• A practical and effective form of self-defence.

• An exploration and study of the co-ordination and harmony of both mind and body, not only as a combat discipline but also as a form of solo practice, that encourages and benefits both physical and emotional well-being.

• The promotion of a philosophy of respect and goodwill:


“…the more skill a man hath of his weapon the more gentle and curteous should he shewe himselfe, for in truth this is rightly the honour of a brave Gentleman, and so much the more is hee to bee esteemed : neither must he be a bragger, or lyer, and without truth in his word, because there is nothing more to be required of a man then to know himselfe…” Vincentio Saviolo.

The weapon forms we study are:

Sword (Arming sword or early Rapier)
Sword and Dagger
Sword and Shield
Sabre
Staff and Pole weapons (Partizan)
Walking stick/Cane
Pugilism (Victorian boxing)
Savate (Classic French Foot Fighting)
Elements of Pugilism and Savate are combined with all weapon forms to show the student that the weapon in hand is but one weapon amongst many that can be used.

The 1595 Club Ireland is happy to announce the opening of 2 new Salle in Galway & Dublin City at the start of 2016.

We also have 2 clubs running weekly in Letterkenny Co. Donegal and Ballinasloe Co. Galway.

If your interested in learning more about 1595 or watching some videos of what we do, drop me an email and I can direct you to our Facebook and Webpage.

Thank You

Mellor

hakunapesa wrote: »

Pugilism (Victorian boxing)

How does this "Victorian boxing" differ from boxing. Pugilism is simply an old word for boxing, prob from Latin. The modern rules developed from the queensbury rules drafted in the mid-Victorian era.
Obviously we all know the funny old fashion stance. But I've always considered the change into the modern style to be the result of people getting better at boxing, rather than a different form. The basic principles are the same, unlike say muat thai, savate, karate, etc where the different principle dictate the form.

hakunapesa

Good question. Pugilism or boxing as you said pre dates the Queensbury rules. In the old form of Pugilism anything was aloud, including binds grabs and kicks. The reason that it differs so much from modern boxing apart from the rules were that the fighters did not wear gloves. Not wearing gloves means that the fighters had to move around a lot more as they could not afford to be hit as much, so they would have very different foot work to what we see today. Also the reason behind, as you said ''the funny old fashion stance'' was because without gloves the targets were different. Instead of going for the head (a small target which is quick to move) the fighter would target the small ribs and kidneys. Thats why the old guys would have there elbows tucked in like that, to defend the small ribs area. Also the Guard was very different. having the lead arm out in front meant that you could use it to parry or deflect blows as they came in and if a hit got through you still had the other arm to defend with. It's called a closed guard. A lot of what the modern boxers use is called an open guard (one hand on either side of the face with an opening down the middle)

The differences are fascinating and are in fact so great I would that I would put them down as two different forms.

Also you say '' the change into the modern style to be the result of people getting better at boxing'' That is a common enough believe and the same thing is thought of sports fencing but simply isn't true. The rules have changed and gloves have got heavier and heavier so the style has changes to compensate. This like any martial art which is made into a sport results in the techniques getting watered down and changed in to something new.

I hope that answers your question :-)

arybvtcw0eolkf

^^^ Nice read, and very informative.

Dyr

Mellor wrote: »

How does this "Victorian boxing" differ from boxing. Pugilism is simply an old word for boxing, prob from Latin. The modern rules developed from the queensbury rules drafted in the mid-Victorian era.
Obviously we all know the funny old fashion stance. But I've always considered the change into the modern style to be the result of people getting better at boxing, rather than a different form. The basic principles are the same, unlike say muat thai, savate, karate, etc where the different principle dictate the form.

You hear all sorts of reasons for the changes, rule changes seem to be a big driver in many of the innovations

http://www.warriorseskrima.com/articles/magazines-articles/western-boxing-vs-filipino-boxing/

I've always considered reconstructing weapons arts from manuals to be a bit dubious tbh

Mellor

Bambi wrote: »

You hear all sorts of reasons for the changes, rule changes seem to be a big driver in many of the innovations

http://www.warriorseskrima.com/articles/magazines-articles/western-boxing-vs-filipino-boxing/

I understand that the no holds barred rules meant a different approach to a lot of areas. Especially regarding in-fighting due to throws. But I was refering to the fact even that after the rules changed (Queensbury rules 1867) the old style was prevalent for 50 years or more. I was just the way people boxed, and it took a while for people to fully improve their style.

Mellor

Thanks for the reply Hakunapesa.

hakunapesa wrote: »

Good question. Pugilism or boxing as you said pre dates the Queensbury rules. In the old form of Pugilism anything was aloud, including binds grabs and kicks. The reason that it differs so much from modern boxing apart from the rules were that the fighters did not wear gloves.

I understand that boxing predates the queensbury rules, by a long way. Right back to ancient Rome and Greece. A famous example being a statue called "Boxer at Rest" (2000+ years old). And that pre-queenbury rules where much more liberal (throws, kicking etc). But I was more curious as to why it was called "Victorian Boxing", as the Queensbury rules were implemented in the Victorian era, and the old form goes back much longer. The first ruleset written down was 1740s, but there weren't many rules.

Not wearing gloves means that the fighters had to move around a lot more as they could not afford to be hit as much, so they would have very different foot work to what we see today.

My understanding is that fighters moved a lot less in the old style. Preferred to grab and tie up and punch it out. One variation, called "irish boxing" at the time, involved people planting their feet and just swinging punches, toe to toe.

Also the reason behind, as you said ''the funny old fashion stance'' was because without gloves the targets were different. Instead of going for the head (a small target which is quick to move) the fighter would target the small ribs and kidneys. Thats why the old guys would have there elbows tucked in like that, to defend the small ribs area.

I think one of the main reason for favouring body shots was that punching the head resulted in broken hands.

Also the Guard was very different. having the lead arm out in front meant that you could use it to parry or deflect blows as they came in and if a hit got through you still had the other arm to defend with. It's called a closed guard. A lot of what the modern boxers use is called an open guard (one hand on either side of the face with an opening down the middle)

Closed vrs open guard are grappling terms to me.
I'm more familiar with (old fashioned) extended vrs (modern) close guard in boxing. But I understand what you mean. I suppose they are separate variables. Like a high or low guard.
The old style would be a low, extended, closed guard I suppose.
Tyson's peek-a-boo was a closed variant of the modern close open style.

Lately the extended guard is making a comeback in MMA. Conor McGregor uses a open extended guard, switching between low and high. It works very well for him.

The differences are fascinating and are in fact so great I would that I would put them down as two different forms.

Also you say '' the change into the modern style to be the result of people getting better at boxing'' That is a common enough believe and the same thing is thought of sports fencing but simply isn't true. The rules have changed and gloves have got heavier and heavier so the style has changes to compensate. This like any martial art which is made into a sport results in the techniques getting watered down and changed in to something new.

I think I was a bit unclear in that part. As I said above, I understand why the bare-knuckle fights had that style. I was talking about the use of the extended guard after the switch to gloved boxing. In the picture I posted the fighters were using large gloves, from 1890, long after the rule change. It took maybe 50 years for the modern style to emerge under the new rules. That's what I was meant by changing as they got better.

But I agree bare-knuckle was so different, that it's basically a different form. I was assuming the Pugilism (Victorian boxing) above was a gloved variant, but maybe that my mistake.

hakunapesa

Hi again,

So to answer a couple of the questions.

1st. The reason I refer to pugilism as 'Victorian Boxing' is simply because it an easy way of describing it to people who ask me ''what is pugilism''. Your absolutely right in your comments, i just call it that for ease :-)

My understanding is that fighters moved a lot less in the old style. (i haven't figured out the quote yet)

I think this is quite far from the truth. The foot work the old boxers would have used would have been far more sophisticated then modern boxing and it had to be. The reason being that they could not afford to be hit as much. What you described ''people planting their feet and just swinging punches, toe to toe.'' is more what i would think of in modern boxing. Grappling and wrestling would be last resort if someone got to close and would be by no means a good way to go.

There is video footage (although hard to find) of boxers from the 20's and you can still see the way they are in constant motion around the ring. A lot more tactical fighting as well, hunting the opponent. If i can find some I will surly post it.

I didn't see you picture you posted?

Mellor, if you don't mind me asking. What style do you train in yourself and were are you based?

Mellor

hakunapesa wrote: »

I think this is quite far from the truth. The foot work the old boxers would have used would have been far more sophisticated then modern boxing and it had to be. The reason being that they could not afford to be hit as much. What you described ''people planting their feet and just swinging punches, toe to toe.'' is more what i would think of in modern boxing. Grappling and wrestling would be last resort if someone got to close and would be by no means a good way to go.

What leads you to believe was more sophisticated? Anything I've read suggest the opposite.

Also, I've found a description on the variation I was referring to;

Irish Boxing/Stand Down
This was a form of toe to toe combat in the 19th century and was similar to that of the earlier Russian version in the 13th century. Where combatants would not manoeuvre round a ring and would stand toe to toe and basically take turns hitting each other. It was popular amongst the less fortunate. It later was replaced in the ghetto’s by the Irish-American community in the form of bare knuckle boxing.

Obviously this is a specific variation. but my understand of the pugilistic era was that the exchanges were similarly crude. They'd circle on the outside, but when it came to attack they aggressively press forward in a straight line fashion, aiming to land single heavy punches. I imagine this was not unrelated to fencing.

I could probably clarify, a lack of footwork is synonymous with a lack of movement. The circling on the outside, chasing an opponent around the ring, etc is movement, but its not footwork.

There is video footage (although hard to find) of boxers from the 20's and you can still see the way they are in constant motion around the ring. A lot more tactical fighting as well, hunting the opponent. If i can find some I will surly post it.

There is a good amount up on youtube. The quality isn't great, and obviously, the further back you go, the quality deteriorates. But a lot of it is very interesting.
There is none of the true bare knuckle era though, fighters like John L Sullivan who was considered the last bare-knuckle champ. But there's videos of other fighters similar who style stayed stagnant into the next era.

This fight is Jim Jeffries from 1901
Definitely a crude, pressure fighter. But tough none the less

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

Another pressure brawler of the era was Stanley Ketchel. Here he is fighting Jack Johnson - one of the first to use the more strategic footwork and counter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0R5PQU5lbw

This one one of the better quality videos of the era. You can see what I being less reliant on footwork. It's just run indie, and leather the body.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6foQEfkFHFM

I didn't see you picture you posted?

Mellor, if you don't mind me asking. What style do you train in yourself and were are you based?

It was this picture http://www.avictorian.com/sports/boxing_fencing_1890.jpg

I don't mind you asking at all. My striking training is mix of boxing and muay thai/kickboxing for MMA. I tend to bias boxing/punching more than kicking. Or maybe I just need to get better at kicking. Then in in terms of grappling, I train in BJJ and wrestling.
I compete in mainly MMA and BJJ. The relatively open rule sets means I'm free to include elements judo/sambo as part of a cohesive style of grappling.
Based in Sydney at the moment.