Hasn’t anyone noticed that “treat with kids gloves” and “take the gloves off” isn’t, in fact, an example of one expression with two opposite meanings? It’s an example of two opposite expressions having opposite meanings! There’s nothing at all unusual about that!
Oh, I noticed. I was just ignoring Sandwriter 'cause he’s wrong.
I.e., cleaning up on someone is taking HIM to the cleaners.
I know this conversation died years ago, but a random search led me to it and so I registered.
The variation of “take off the gloves” from “handle without gloves” predates the hockey practice, so while the hockey usage is interesting, it is not the source of the expression.
Gloves were indeed introduced into boxing to protect the fighters’ hands and allow them to strike their opponents harder and do more real damage, so “taking off the gloves” could not have originated from boxing by anyone that actually understood what was going on with the use of gloves.
Some have proposed that “handle without gloves” came before “handle with kid gloves.” This is not logical and highly unlikely. The concept of handling without gloves implicitly indicates the action of handling with gloves as a point of comparison to give meaning. Also, the lack of specificity to “kid” indicates an understanding that the soft touch of expensive kid leather, rather than heavy, rough, common, less expensive work-gloves, is what is coming off. People don’t generally add additional specific details when developing an expression based upon an earlier, the prior details are culturally “understood” and tend to drop out. It is much more likely that “kid” was dropped than added.
Either way, “handle without gloves” and its variations simply mean, “no more Mr. Nice Guy.”
If punching is not allowed, why do referees allow it?
Welcome to the Straight Dope!
Let me introduce you to one of our time-honored traditions: Cite?
From where did you acquire this knowledge about boxing?
From conversations with a very old boxer.
From experience breaking my hand on someone’s face when I didn’t wear a glove.
My friend, life is lived. Sometimes, folks get around to writing things down. Sometimes not. 
Anonymous boxers are not historians, and personal anecdotes are not a substitution for evidence.
Louis L’Amour was a historian (the only one I know of who was awarded a congressional medal for his life’s work), as well as a former prize-fighter, and he discusses the subject in a number of his books.
Generally speaking, courts do accept first hand experience as evidence. In fact, historically (pun intended) they rate little else as highly.
Without personal anecdotes, there is no history. History is not some abstract thing that happens in a vaccuum. History happens to people and by people. Acadamians come later and write books about what they THINK happenned. Anyone that doesn’t take the contents of a history book with a grain of salt is going to end up going down the wrong path.
I have read thousands of books, and would recommend for others to do the same, there is so much to learn.
Narrowing it down then, can you refer us to a passage where Louis L’Amour backs up the claims you’ve made?
From 2002:
“Mixed metaphor”.
Powers &8^]
Same reason basketball refs allow traveling.
Powers &8^]
You know, I’m going to have to back off on this. I don’t actually know the rules of hockey. It is my impression that punching isn’t allowed, but someone who actually plays the sport or watches the sport would know better.
Sure. But it will be awhile. Working full time and being almost a double full-time student and a parent doesn’t leave me much time for idle research. Most of his books include passages regarding bare-knucle fighitng and about 15% of the time he talks about prize-fighting and gloves, including references to Jem Mace, John L. Sullivan, and John Morissey. So, I could either get lucky or this could be many hours of research to locate the right books.
Here is another reference of note for the discussion: “sparring gloves are designed to protect both athletes during practice bouts. Professional fight gloves are specially packed to protect only the person who wears them” (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Boxing-gloves).
Also, while I don’t typically quote wikipedia, this passage is well cited: “The impact of gloves on the injuries caused during a fight is a controversial issue. Hitting to the head was less common in the bare-knuckle era because of the risk of hurting the boxer’s hand. Gloves reduce the amount of cuts caused, but British Medical Association research has stated that gloves do not reduce brain injuries and may even increase them, because the main cause of injury is acceleration and deceleration of the head, and fighters wearing gloves are able to punch harder to the head. Gloves may reduce the amount of eye injuries, especially if they are thumbless, but retinal tears and detached retinas still occur to boxers wearing modern gloves” (Boxing glove - Wikipedia).
As I come across the Louis L’Amour data I’ll post it.
On another note, I had not heard the version using “white kid gloves” which are typically opera gloves (http://www.operagloves.com/history.html). “White glove” itself usually refers to a painstaking inspection which ensures everything is imaculately clean, or something that would pass such an inspection (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/white+glove). It is possible that the “white kid gloves” variation began as a mixed metaphor, but not necessarily.
As for origins and timeline, the Random House dictionary puts “kid gloves” at 1705-1715, but doesn’t specify which definition it is dating (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kid+gloves).
Those two cites were pretty good, and certainly more up-to-date than anything Mr. L’Amour has to say on the subject, so a quote from him isn’t really necessary in my opinion.
Punching isn’t allowed. While some light scuffling might be ignored, anytime punches are thrown someone is going to be called for a penalty.
To return to the basic point, this very thread has illustrated that most people do not know the reason for boxing gloves (I certainly never knew until I was in my thirties or so, and I’m old enough to remember when boxing was as ordinary and commonly encountered a sport in the US as baseball). Which means in turn that it’s no good arguing that someone who knew the truth wouldn’t have coined the phrase; that may be true, but the phrase could have been born and popularized very easily by the people who didn’t.
Sure. But the timeline doesn’t match. Idioms about using kid gloves or taking them off predates common use of boxing gloves.
“Kid gloves” has various dates attributed to its use as an expression. One being the 1850’s (kid | Etymology, origin and meaning of kid by etymonline).
Another simply the second half of the 1800’s for both handing with and without gloves (http://idioms.yourdictionary.com/handle-with-gloves)
The Marquess of Queensbury rules were published in 1867 and mandated the use of gloves. However,these rules did not come into use in America until 1889 (Marquess of Queensberry Rules - Wikipedia). This is a ittle late to have created the cultuaral awareness that would lend meaning to the exression. “Kid gloves” only became an expression itself around 200 years after the gloves themselves went into use.
On the other hand, the controversy about switching to the Queensbury rules (or rathr, adding them to the Revised London Prize-Ring Rules), which limited what fighers may do to each other during a bout, may have fueled a more rapid entrance into cultural awareness, and “taking off the gloves” may have started out to more directly mean “the hell with the rules.” Since the rules were to ensure a fair fight, including such things as not wearing spikes on your shoes, “take off the gloves” as a boxing reference would then imply that you aren’t going to follow the niceties of fair play. Kicking and gouging had been banned by the Revised London Rules of 1853 (London Prize Ring Rules - Wikipedia).
To further confuse matters, here is a reference that says that instead of getting rough, “take off the gloves” means to become nonconfrontational and play nice: What does the phrase taking the gloves off mean? - Answers
The above attributes the term to boxing, but with the opposite meaning as we have discussed. The meanng we have discussed is consistent with “handle without [kid] gloves” - or, to get rough. I don’t put much credence in the “play nice” source.
And what would that reason be?
Fighting is against the rules, but the simple fact of the matter is that referees stand by and watch it happen. If they wanted it to stop they would stop it. They don’t. Contrast that with the NBA, where one punch earns a player at the very least an immediate ejection, with a fine and/or a suspension possible.
Hockey is the only sport, as far as I know, where you can throw a punch and stay in the game.
Well, there’s boxing. 
(d&r)
Years and years of erosion of the strictness with which the infraction is called. There was never any conscious decision to allow it, it just got worse and worse until it got the point that calling it would be considered surprising.
That said, there are some differences. As noted earlier, ice hockey players can and will be penalized for fighting (as opposed to a little pushing and shoving). The reason it’s not an automatic ejection at the (men’s) professional level is because most people consider fighting to be part of the game in hockey. It has existed for so long that to remove it would be removing a significant part of the game’s attraction for some people.
It is believed that fighting in hockey allows players a slightly more structured (structured, that is, via unwritten rules and etiquette) way to vent frustrations and prevent injuries to teammates. Without fighting, the argument goes, players would instead retaliate for perceived infractions by checking more viciously, which would be more dangerous for both parties than the fight would have been.
The referees don’t step in during a fight because a) the audience wants to see the fight, b) the refs don’t want to risk their own injury, and c) it’s considered part of the game. They step in once one player goes down to the ice or is otherwise perceived to be at a significant disadvantage.
Powers &8^]