The Development of Western Boxing Vs. Martial Arts that include Kicks

[DukeIsh]

I am curious to know why western boxing developed without kicks, while nearly all other martial arts include kicking of some sort. Is it cultural, practical-based, environmental?

Any input would be appreciated, even just a nod in the right direction.

[Darwinist]

How far back are you thinking of? Victorian/Enlightenment era bare-knucle boxing? Medieval fighting techniques? Ancient Greece?

[DukeIsh]

As far back as it goes, I guess. The most likely scenarios might include
1. Kicks simply never developed in whatever particular area advanced western boxing.
2. Kicks existed originally, but were removed from it as part of regulation
3. Kicks existed originally, but were not incorporated well, and fell by the wayside.

There are probably thousands most possible variations, including the grey areas between these three. But, to answer you question, any time-period would be interesting. For sport, Victorian-era is probably most relevant. But, for fighting systems, for the purpose of real combat, the Ancient Greece to medieval Europe is probably most interesting.

[vicious]

Even when they had Pankration they had matches where only fists were allowed. I guess there's something alluring about confining two men to only their hands while they beat the hell out of each other.

[singdawg]

Originally Posted by DukeIsh

As far back as it goes, I guess. The most likely scenarios might include
1. Kicks simply never developed in whatever particular area advanced western boxing.
2. Kicks existed originally, but were removed from it as part of regulation
3. Kicks existed originally, but were not incorporated well, and fell by the wayside.

There are probably thousands most possible variations, including the grey areas between these three. But, to answer you question, any time-period would be interesting. For sport, Victorian-era is probably most relevant. But, for fighting systems, for the purpose of real combat, the Ancient Greece to medieval Europe is probably most interesting.

this takes alot of explination about human history, but well, humans have fought for a very very long time. For the most part, humans were nomadic and didn't live in the same place, hunting and gathering. There were many many conflicts during these times, as conflict is usually about self interest. In these types of societies might ruled over right, and the mightier would grow mightier unless conquered by someone stronger yet. This lead to conflicts evolution between at first, small groups of people attacking (usually 1 person defending and 1 attacker) anyway they could. If outnumbered greatly, then most were doomed. Eventually people begin to group together in bigger and bigger numbers until they form cities, the city offers a measure of protection in trade with an individual following the societies laws. These cities were still attacked and fell, giving way to empires, empires grew so strong that wars against other empires become useless endevours in which both groups of people fail, peace begins to be the common goal, and here we are in modern time.

very condensed and all, and I know you are thinking "what the fuck does this gotta do with anything"

so, people who evolved their fighting skills for war began to become a little more obscure in necessity, and developped even stronger. Wars were still fought, but people who had immense skill developed were sequestered in order to continue developing martial skill and teaching it. These people lived instead of perishing needlessly

well, soon after cities began forming, people realized that to prove themselves they couldn't simply kill their opponents anymore and had to defeat them on peaceful ground, debates conquered moral and philosohphical problems, while sports evolved to destroy pent up human energy. We have this need for engaging in something competative.
So, sports begin.

the most natural human sport is fighting. It requires little to no equipment and can be done easily.

In ancient greece, and continuing at this time stitll, boxing, wrestling and full contact pankration were three seperate sports. so one of the major goals was to ensure relative safety , altho usually these sports were brutal and have only recently developed relatively good safety measures.

Boxing allowed only for striking with the hands, as the kicks were seen as somewhat unsafe and they wanted to limit their resources to simply hand techniques as they saw it as a skill in itself to only use their hands.
wrestling developed without strikes.
and mma events were still practiced.

Eventually, some groups of pracicioners got way better than others and their influence has spread around the world, their techniques gather together slowly but surely, and mma utilizing many many techniques has finally begun to take real shape.

rather than individual arts such as kung fu, tkd, hapkido, karate or traditional jiu jitsu, among thousands of other arts, people are looking for the most realistic form of self defense as well as the most realistic form of fighting sport.

thus, while some people still practice individual arts, which some focus on only one or two aspects of combat, others have begun to see combat, and thus sport, as a no holds bar contest in which you can do anything if you learn it.
Knees, elbows, kicks, striking, clinch work, takedowns, grappling ect, ect all begin to evolve into one.



i know this is a litttle muddled and all.
but, I just wanted to show that the evolution of combat is a long process and is continually ongoing, we are at a point in time which is really good for us, as quicker access to knowledge is allowing us greater improvment in our self defense.

boxing is without kicks as they want to focus exclusively on striking with the fist in order to show dominance through that aspect of combat.
other arts chose to elevate other aspects, some choose takedowns, others choose pins, others choose kicking, others choose grappling, boxing chose to elevate punching as very important.

[Sohei]

Asian unarmed combat arts developed directly form their sword and weapon based martial arts, which included kicks in addition to sword/spear/halberd work. In many traditional Asian arts you can see this in the fact that the only hand techniques they use are called "sword hand", the knife hand in karate which originally was called tegatana which literally means "hand sword".

Western boxing was developed from English boxing that started in the 17th century that developed wholly as a sport and not an actual combat art or means of self-defense, and as such, actions that werent boxing, i.e. kicking, grappling, biting, etc. were considered 'dirty', 'ungentlemanly', and unsportsmanlike.

And generally, Europeans are more upper-body oriented with regards to strength and physical action whereas in Asia where people are generally smaller they see the hips and lower body as the seat of strength.

[Snubnoze707]

That's a pretty good question. My best guess would have to do with westerners typically being larger in size than people from asian countries making kicking more difficult and less instinctive. At the same time tho, Savat did develop out of the streets with an emphasis on kicking. Its hard to say.

[Sohei]

Savate had Asian influence. It was supposedly developed by French sailors who observed/studied Asian martial arts.

[DukeIsh]

Interesting answers all around. Thanks guys.

It's noteworthy, singdawg, that you seemed to approach the question from a more anthropological/sociological angle than I. I started thinking about this in terms of language, or terms. For example, if we turned on the TV and saw two western boxers fighting, we say, "oh, boxing."

If two Chinese men turn on the TV and see a Kung Fu match, they say, "oh, boxing."

Two Thai men say, "Oh, Thai Boxing."

If you see what I mean. It is the same sport. The same spirit, at least, but with different rules on the use of limbs.

So, as you said, Singdawg, "boxing is without kicks as they want to focus exclusively on striking with the fist in order to show dominance through that aspect of combat."

That is really where my question begins. Why was it preferred to show dominance through only the use of fists.

As Sohei said, "Western boxing was developed from English boxing that started in the 17th century that developed wholly as a sport and not an actual combat art or means of self-defense, and as such, actions that werent boxing, i.e. kicking, grappling, biting, etc. were considered 'dirty', 'ungentlemanly', and unsportsmanlike."

So, why was kicking considered dirty and unsportsmanlike in European style boxing, when it so many other places it was not.

Forgive me if this stops making sense, I have been drinking.

[singdawg]

Originally Posted by DukeIsh

Interesting answers all around. Thanks guys.

It's noteworthy, singdawg, that you seemed to approach the question from a more anthropological/sociological angle than I. I started thinking about this in terms of language, or terms. For example, if we turned on the TV and saw two western boxers fighting, we say, "oh, boxing."

If two Chinese men turn on the TV and see a Kung Fu match, they say, "oh, boxing."

Two Thai men say, "Oh, Thai Boxing."

If you see what I mean. It is the same sport. The same spirit, at least, but with different rules on the use of limbs.

So, as you said, Singdawg, "boxing is without kicks as they want to focus exclusively on striking with the fist in order to show dominance through that aspect of combat."

That is really where my question begins. Why was it preferred to show dominance through only the use of fists.

As Sohei said, "Western boxing was developed from English boxing that started in the 17th century that developed wholly as a sport and not an actual combat art or means of self-defense, and as such, actions that werent boxing, i.e. kicking, grappling, biting, etc. were considered 'dirty', 'ungentlemanly', and unsportsmanlike."

So, why was kicking considered dirty and unsportsmanlike in European style boxing, when it so many other places it was not.

Forgive me if this stops making sense, I have been drinking.

I chose my angle to show how fighting evolves, I find boxing alone to be a wasted sport. I see a load of people believing that in order to be great at self defense you just need to be a great boxer. Sure you'll be alot better at fist fighting someone if you are a great boxer, but come on, whose going to attack someone with just their fist? Me, if someone attacks me with their fists held high as if they only want to punch me, im either going to nut shot them or or take them down. A boxer isn't worth much mounted.

I think this about any of the restrictive forms of combat tho. I mean, sure i'll box, or kickbox, or thai box, or wrestle/judo from standing, or wrestle/jiu jitsu from the ground, if I must, but i'd rather be training realistic mma techniques.

Its EXTREMELY hard to prepare to anything like realistic combat, but its nothing at all like boxing or jiu jitsu from the knees.

good for preparing certain parts of your skill level, bad for being your only skill.

I don't really know why people are so much more into punching than all other forms of combat, striking might seem like a big part of fighting, and it is, but its far from the dominant part.