you stole my response!
Originally Posted by wetware
i think a big portion has to do with the ringtime boxers get. u train 4 punches, then variations of those. always practicing those punches. then you basically hop in the ring and spar. they get alot of experience at fighting. and if u wanna be good at fighting..you fight!
What I wouldn't give to see Sarah Palin vs Michele Bachmann. We could call it "Battle of the Batshit!"
Originally Posted by Colin
Oh I should probably say something about the topic too huh? Well yes boxing is the ****. Its a small list of techniques trained hard and under pressure but most of all it comes down to mental stamina. A lot of martial artists out there cannot take a punch the way most boxers can. I cannot count the number of times I've seen x-degree black belts revert to flinchy white belt status as soon as they get rocked by a couple of good rights. Pros and cons to ring or sportive arts vs RBSD or TMA aside one thing the sportive arts do right is condition and spar often.
Last edited by HereBeADragon; 7/10/2011 1:36am at .
No particular order:
a. It's two different boxers, not one guy who fights 2 opponents in a row.
b. Looks like the 2nd fighter is TKD not Karate (or maybe they both are, I dunno). He's got TKD across the back of his gi as does (I think) the ref.
c. It looks like the karate/tkd guys are only allowed to punch to the body because they're bare knuckle while the boxers could obviously hit to the head with gloves?! Not saying the boxers weren't the more skilled guys, but that's a recipe for fail right there.
d. Boxing sucks, krotty is the bestest ever.
Last edited by maofas; 7/10/2011 2:39am at .
Reason: forgot I'm in ymas, so I added d
Yes, boxers are tough, and boxing is effective, but if you are trying to say that boxing is the most effective fighting form, I've got two words for you: Art Jimmerson.
OK, now that I got that out of the way, all of your points are valid with regards to the effectiveness of boxing, and I am not really enough of a martial artist to go picking styles apart. But I enjoy watching the very early UFC matches. in UFC 4 Melton Bowen but up a very game fight, showing toughness, grit, and resourcefulness, but lack of knowledge of groundfighting cost him. Al the punches, covering his face, and moving his head could not help him when Steve Jennum locked in the arm-bar after sitting on his chest for four minutes.
So I'd say that boxing is effective as long a the other guy does not have a style that is specifically designed to defeat boxers.
Boxers are paid a shitload of money to be good at what they do. So not supprisingly they have worked out an effective way to punch people.
Boxings effective simply because its based entirely on the punch, the hands are held close to the face essentially letting you punch exactly where you are looking what you see is what you hit making punching someone alot easier than kicking someone, The Ancient greeks used boxing to a great extent, as did the british army and navy, british sailors would strap two men to a cannon facing each other and make bets who could take the most punishment, The Russians have a folk boxing style and even take wing chun for example could you imagine anyone chain kicking to the same effect as chain punching? Boxing is effective because punching is overwhelming when and if it is used precisely and powerfully to battle and opponent into the dust
And what styles are specifically designed to defeat boxers?
Originally Posted by captain zorikh
From the makers of anti-grapple comes... antibox! When it touches boxers, they annihilate each other.
Originally Posted by cualltaigh
The chin is one of the best places to knock someone out without it looking like an attempted murder. The hands are closer to the face than the legs.. Add to this the importance of movement in a fight, staying mobile and stable, that is really hard while kicking especially high kicks. Boxing is science in that it is tested and developed all the time, you do not waist a second on non-tested, non-effective stuff, everything you do is designed to better you in the ring which simulate a fight pretty darn good if you ask me. The main difference between a boxer and a MA is toughness, in TMA (most) they don’t spar as often as boxers do, resulting in nice attacks but no real ability to take a punch and no good close range defenses. One of the best examples sparring against a Karateka or some TMA is when you jab or faint a jab, he will immediately swing his arm away from his face in a blocking motion. You just repeat that twice fast, the lead jab a faint the second one harder, followed by a hook or whatever by this time they lean backwards so they can’t effectively counter anyway. Boxing starts loosing when you pit it against kickboxing (fighting karate) and MT, where you have the same training just with kicks. I think the reason Boxing isn’t swallowed up by MT or K1 Kickboxing during MMA training and gets its own time slot with BJJ , MT and wrestling is because what I said in the beginning, you need to move and stand fast while fighting, kicks can land you on your ass or be countered. (Not saying kicks aren’t affective) and classical boxing have the best punches and counter in the business plus a great defense
It's still fighter>style. I've krotty'd a very poor boxer and I've be boxed to oblivion by an average boxer while believing my krotty was boxer-proof (based on previous experience)
Boxing is about fighting. Or, at least, training to fight.
A lot of other martial arts are about collecting belts every three months and adding techniques like it's a Pokemans. Or something.
You'd have to be a pretty good boxer to get a belt every three months ;-)
Also, screw the OP's 4 punches.