Meaning
Describes a remark or action that is unfairly hurtful, striking at a known weakness in a way that breaks the unwritten rules of fair contention. It is usually said of words rather than blows, and the unfairness rather than the severity alone is the point. Standard across English varieties, from casual speech to journalism. Neutral register with a built-in negative judgement, since the phrase labels conduct unfair. Regional use: General English (boxing origin).
Origin
From the rules of English prizefighting. Jack Broughton's London Prize Ring Rules of 1743 barred hitting a man when he was down and forbade seizing him by the ham, the breeches, or any part below the waist; the Marquess of Queensberry rules of 1867, the basis of modern boxing, restated the ban on low blows. Figurative use began in the United States: The Phrase Finder's earliest known example is the New York Daily-Times of June 1853, which speaks of never striking below the belt as a rule of pugilistic chivalry, while Etymonline dates the fully figurative sense, meaning unfair, to 1889. The popular link drawn specifically to the Queensberry code is therefore a simplification, since the prohibition it codified was already more than a century old.
Research Sources
References used to check this entry’s meaning, history, or documented forms.
Variants
- a blow below the belt
- hit below the belt
- strike below the belt
Usage Examples
- Mentioning her divorce during the debate was below the belt, and the audience let him know it.
- Criticising the policy is fair game, but going after the researcher's stutter struck below the belt.
- The advert hits below the belt by implying that rivals' safety records have cost lives.