2/12/2006 8:18pm, #1
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
Weakest arguments against boxing?
I've heard quite a few...interesting remarks on how boxing can be easily beaten by other arts. Now, I box, and I admit a good grappler would have advantages wafting off his excretement, it's not a well-rounded style in any way.
But I love it when a Chinese stylist or krotty follower laughs at the concept of fighting a boxer twice his size.
"...I'll just block all his punches!"
Or, a high school wrestler, who at a manly 91 pounds told me when he found out I boxed as a kid.
"Just headlock 'em until they pass out.."
Or, a personal favorite, a friend of mine who practices no sword styles but owns a sword.
"I'll just slice the idiot in half if he tries anything."
...No, he doesn't carry a sword on his back when we go clubbing...maybe he should start.
Boxing is just asking for criticism because it only focuses on one aspect of fighting, under a rule set at that. Yet it's regarded as an essential experience in MMA, because while TKD was developing enw dance moves, we were punching. While BJJ was developing into a popular and effective ground art, we were punching. When Nixon died, we were punching. If boxing can contribute anything to the world of martial arts...it probably involves hitting some one with your fist.
But some true BS artists think that a conditioned boxer, who trains to compete, is just going to stand there and throw slugger punches. Where did this stereotype develop? Speed is half the sport, where did these kids and idiots get this mental picture of some fat guy with no shirt just standing there sucker punching little guys? This passes onto the MA community, where boxers are seen as less intelligent and worse fighters because of their way of training. It's not a complete art. What a sin.
I'm throwing this out here, simply to discuss why boxing is and isn't bashed. This isn't a victim situation, I know for a fact boxers tend to look at the way most MAs punch and dismiss the whole thing as a scam.
Should boxing be labeled as seperate from more traditional MAs, or should it be thrown in with the full-body styles and be considered an incomplete but essential art?
2/12/2006 8:21pm, #2
2/12/2006 8:29pm, #3
Boxing is one of the best sports to learn basic fighting skills. Learning how to put your weight behind a punch, how to TAKE a punch without wimping out and how to throw combinations instead of just wild haymakers all equal solid foundation.
I think every fighter should spend at least three or four months in a boxing gym, if not more.
But it certainly isn't the be all end all of fighting arts." If one wants to have a friend one must also want to wage war for him: and to wage war one must be capable of being an enemy." - Fr. Nietzsche 'On The Friend' Thus Spake Zarathustra
2/12/2006 8:33pm, #4Originally Posted by OZZ
2/12/2006 8:35pm, #5
"your legs are longer and stronger than your arms so of course TKD will win against an art thats nothing but using your hands ... such as boxing "
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
Seriously though, take a boxer and take a TKD/Karate/what ever strikeing art. Assuming they are both equally conditioned and trained for the ring and give them a K-1 or MMA rule set and let them go at it. In this type of situation I believe boxing is at a slight disadvantage only because the other striking arts are slightly more well rounded. The pure boxer will be really good at using his fists, while another artists, or kick boxer, would have decent hands as well as feet strikes. Being constantly kicked in the thigh does wear you down after a while.
The fact most TKDists/Karate people/what ever miss is the "equally conditioned and trained part". Yeah you practice using more tools in a more rounded game, but you don't train them like the boxer does. Thus, you lose.
2/12/2006 8:38pm, #6Originally Posted by Shu2jack
edit: also, I would very much disagree with your last statement. Boxers have the advantage of specialising in a very powerful skillset, whereas the "more well rounded striker" that is a karateka/TKDer will not have anywhere near the hand skills and the kicking skills will more than likely not be as useful.
2/12/2006 8:42pm, #7
I hardly ever throw kicks anymore and i absolutely unquestionably beat the **** out of everyone in my muay thai class and pretty much every kicky martial artist ive gone up against.
Boxing rules, kicking can suck it.
2/12/2006 8:45pm, #8
Punches over kicks any day of the week." If one wants to have a friend one must also want to wage war for him: and to wage war one must be capable of being an enemy." - Fr. Nietzsche 'On The Friend' Thus Spake Zarathustra
2/12/2006 8:46pm, #9
In my expirence punches do more damage then kicks. Hence Boxing skills are very important. Also boxing's training method produce great fighters (endurance, strength, speed, ability to take a hit).
Still an art focusing on nothing but punching is incomplete by itself. Until your in a boxing match.
2/12/2006 8:59pm, #10
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
Boxing always gets the short end of the stick when people talk about MMA training- all the hype goes to BJJ, Wrestling, and Muay Thai.
I personally believe that hand skills are the most important striking aspect on your feet, when compared to kicking, kneeing, or elbows. Kicking, in my opinion, is not a necessity but can be of great advantage if you put the time in.
As far as what I base my opinions on, fighters such as Robbie Lawler, Takanori Gomi, Jens Pulver, Rodrigo Nogueira, Fedor Emilianenko, Mark Hunt, and even Vanderlie Silva are fighters I see using almost exlusively hands. These guys are all the top fighters of their class as well.
Kicks have their place as well, as Cro Cop, Hayato Sakurai, Pete Spratt, Chuck Liddel, and Bas Rutten have displayed. As good as their standup is, Sakurai and Spratt seemed to rely mostly on leg kicks, while Liddel, Cro Cop, and Rutten were famous for knocking people out with them. As good as they may have utilized their kicks, I think even they would acknowledge hand skills as being far more important than kicking skills.