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

Really, let's check again shall we?









:rolleyes:

Again, the importance of "just punching" is grossly underestimated; punches have a great balance between range, speed, power, and simplicity; proper punching does not compromise your base like kicking does and doesn't require super close quarters like other techniques like kneeing and elbowing.

I think a lot of people see it as basic arithmetic when it really isn't, "Since fists are only two of eight 'weapons,' punchers must be at a huge disadvantage to someone who has the other 3/4's of the arsenal, right?" Wrong, even in most combat sports which permit mixed strikes, punches are still the most frequently thrown strikes, and account for the highest percentage of knockouts, and at the very least, punches set up other strikes.

:rolleyes:

did I say it was impractical?

nope.

boxing alone is a wasted sport means that, if you train ONLY boxing, you are limiting your resources. tell me, what are you going to do when someone has your back if you only know how to box?

and with the who mentioned in the 2nd quote, I meant more likely in realistic combat with veterans of combat, not losers who don't know how to fight, I for one would not use just my fists. Im sure many others would not either.

I'd rather be training realistic mma techniques, doesn't mean this doesn't include boxing with the training tho. I'd rather know how to use all my weapons rather than just two. Realistic mma sparring is essential for knowing how combat is really like. Closest to anything goes as we can get right now.

If you only know how to box, you are limiting your resources. Is this not true?
you could be the best boxer in the world, but if the guy knocks you down, what the FUCK are you going to do.
 
Newsflash

MMA isn't all that realistic either.
 
How is MMA not realistic.

I'll dig up one of my older posts and add to it:

- real fights don't have rules to maximize safety
- real fights don't have timed rounds
- real fights don't have referees enforcing rules and judges evaluating performances and deciding a winner after the time limit
- real fights don't have cornermen who help heal the fighter and optimize strategies for the next round
- real fights don't have standardized equipment that are thoroughly examined beforehand
- real fights are usually spontaneous and don't let you study your opponent months beforehand

Addendum:

- real fights don't necessarily occur on flat, padded surfaces; slams, suplexes, pulling guard, etc. become less feasible depending on the environment
- what's to stop the dude's buddy from stomping a mudhole in your ass when you've mounted him?

MMA is a combat sport optimized for a specific set of rules, much like boxing.
 
I'll dig up one of my older posts and add to it:



Addendum:

- real fights don't necessarily occur on flat, padded surfaces; slams, suplexes, pulling guard, etc. become less feasible depending on the environment
- what's to stop the dude's buddy from stomping a mudhole in your ass when you've mounted him?

MMA is a combat sport optimized for a specific set of rules, much like boxing.

Yes, MMA is a combat sport optimized for a specific set of rules. These rules allow for punching, kicking, elbowing, kneeing, clinching, throwing, wrestling, grappling, and submissions. Boxing is a combat sport optimized for a specific set of rules, much in the same way, except, they ONLY allow striking.

So, which is more realistic?
 
Yes, MMA is a combat sport optimized for a specific set of rules. These rules allow for punching, kicking, elbowing, kneeing, clinching, throwing, wrestling, grappling, and submissions. Boxing is a combat sport optimized for a specific set of rules, much in the same way, except, they ONLY allow striking.

So, which is more realistic?

Again, how frequently are the other techniques utilized in real life, with no rules?

:icon_neut
 
Again, how frequently are the other techniques utilized in real life, with no rules?

:icon_neut

lets just say it this way.
for all the streetfights without rules that happen. In each of them, you are free to do whatever you can to survive. If you can box your way out of the situation, good! its the safest. However, if you can't box your way out of the situation, isn't it smart to know what to do otherwise?

Answer me, if you only knew the intracacies of boxing, how would u escape mount?
 
lets just say it this way.
for all the streetfights without rules that happen. In each of them, you are free to do whatever you can to survive. If you can box your way out of the situation, good! its the safest. However, if you can't box your way out of the situation, isn't it smart to know what to do otherwise?

Answer me, if you only knew the intracacies of boxing, how would u escape mount?

Good wrestling doesn't prevent others from jumping in and stomping you nor does it prevent the other person from using underhanded tactics like biting, clawing, gouging, etc. surely you also understand the limitations of MMA and that in real life, there are no guarantees because when shit hits the fan, anything goes.
 
Good wrestling doesn't prevent others from jumping in and stomping you nor does it prevent the other person from using underhanded tactics like biting, clawing, gouging, etc. surely you also understand the limitations of MMA and that in real life, there are no guarantees because when shit hits the fan, anything goes.

I really don't know what you are aruging about.
Someone can jump in against a boxer too.
Someone can use dirty tactics against a boxer too.
not to mention, both boxers and mixed martial artists can use dirty tactics too..

I want to talk about 1 on 1 combat only, so lets ignore mutliple people, most of the time you'll be fucked if both people know something about fighting.

Which has more knowledge about different situations? a boxer who only punches
or the mma guy who can punch, kick, elbow, knee, headbutt, clinch work, takedowns, and grappling on the ground.

both could use dirty tactics or not. I don't care.



you've ignored this question like 8 times, so, what is the guy who can only punch going to do 1 on 1 when hes taken down and mounted.
 
I really don't know what you are aruging about.
Someone can jump in against a boxer too.
Someone can use dirty tactics against a boxer too.
not to mention, both boxers and mixed martial artists can use dirty tactics too..

I want to talk about 1 on 1 combat only, so lets ignore mutliple people, most of the time you'll be fucked if both people know something about fighting.

Which has more knowledge about different situations? a boxer who only punches
or the mma guy who can punch, kick, elbow, knee, headbutt, clinch work, takedowns, and grappling on the ground.

both could use dirty tactics or not. I don't care.



you've ignored this question like 8 times, so, what is the guy who can only punch going to do 1 on 1 when hes taken down and mounted.

Firstly, you're much more prone to attacks from others when mounted and focused on one opponent. Secondly why should the takedown and mount a given, when multiple attackers and other unfair advantages aren't? Whose to say the guy going for a shot doesn't run into an uppercut or a blade on the way in? What happens if the grappler can't get inside the opponent's punching distance?

All this talk about realism, yet you're placing all these restrictions in an environment where there aren't any: one-on-one only, etc. When there's more than just punching going on, how often do fights remain "fair" anyways?
 
Listen, im just saying its better to know more than just 1 aspect of fighting. Anything is possible in combat. I could get knocked out by a good boxer yes. I would much prefer to go into the guard of someone who only knows boxing than someone who knows grappling too.

I don't know why you have such a big problem with this?
are you an exclusive boxer?
have you tried to be an exclusive boxer in a streetfight and been sucessful?
have you tried to be an exclusive boxer in a kick boxing match?
have you tried to be an exclusive boxer in an mma style match?

I 100% garuntee that if you were mounted, you would wish to god you knew even 1 escape. almost anyone who has never been mounted before will be arm barred.
 
It's comments like these that make people think you are trying to take cheap shots at boxing:

I find boxing alone to be a wasted sport. A boxer isn't worth much mounted.

How is it a wasted sport? A sport is a sport, it has rules, how is it wasted if it's a sport? Is Soccer a wasted sport because you can't pick up the ball and run with it? What does being mounted have to do with the sport of boxing?

i'd rather be training realistic mma techniques.

And what makes up all these techniques? The "restrictive forms of combat" that you were talking about earlier?

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.

Boxing and Jiu Jitsu are sports, why would it be bad for being your only skill? In what context would it be bad? For MMA? For defending yourself?

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.

When you say fighting, are you referring to "MMA fighting"? Cause there isn't any fighting (as you seem to see it) on the streets only outbursts and assaults.

But, put someone who has trained 5 years of boxing against someone who has trained 5 years of bjj and boxing, then the odds are a little different.

What is the point of this comment? When would a boxer and a bjj guy ever meet to fight if they are in different sports? In the street? Highly improbable.

I'm not berating the skill of boxing, only the sport.

YES, you were berating the skill of boxing as well as the sport in your earlier posts, they are one and the same, stop flip flopping your statements.

boxing alone is a wasted sport means that, if you train ONLY boxing, you are limiting your resources. tell me, what are you going to do when someone has your back if you only know how to box?

Limiting resources for what? I thought that all a boxer needed in the boxing ring was well...boxing. When would someone have his back? Does everyone in the street know bjj? What are the chances of you getting into a fight w/ someone that knows bjj?

Seems to me you are basing all your thinking around what you see in MMA.

Yes, MMA is a combat sport optimized for a specific set of rules. These rules allow for punching, kicking, elbowing, kneeing, clinching, throwing, wrestling, grappling, and submissions. Boxing is a combat sport optimized for a specific set of rules, much in the same way, except, they ONLY allow striking.

So, which is more realistic?

Both of them are equally realistic, because they are both sports. "fighting in the streets" or more properly "being physically assaulted by someone" isn't as glamorous or easy or choreagraphed (or as frequent....that's why i hate the term "street fighter") as people think, these aren't the movies.

I want to talk about 1 on 1 combat only, so lets ignore mutliple people, most of the time you'll be fucked if both people know something about fighting.

Ok, so here you want to 'only' talk about 1 on 1 combat, yet at the same time you want to talk about fighting on the street, yet at the same time you want to assume that the guy got taken down and mounted.....

I see contradiction here. From reading all your posts, It seems like your imaginary street assailant you keep referring to also happens to be a BJJ practitioner.

I 100% garuntee that if you were mounted, you would wish to god you knew even 1 escape. almost anyone who has never been mounted before will be arm barred.

Make up your mind, are you talking about street fighting, jiu jitsu matches, or MMA? Is my street assailant gonna know how to properly mount and armbar me now?

I'm sorry dude, but your logic is all jumbled and you contradict yourself often, and all of this is to further your hidden agenda, or vendetta, or whatever it is.

Be real man.
 
As Much as MMA is less restrictive i wouldnt say its a more realistic fighting encounter..

Have you ever seen someone pull guard onto a curb or a rocky surface?

Ever seen what happens when someone puts a crazy guy inbetween there legs and tries to choke him?

Ever seen a wrestler try to lay on top of someone for 15 minutes whilst half the street and police force jump in?

No, neither have i! But if you have half a brain you can figure out the implications of such 'realistic' combat methods. Personally i think training to punch someone and get away is far more realistic. I wear skinny jeans.. ever seen a Thai kick in skinny jeans? fucking ridiculous.
 
^^^^^

This is interesting to me. Maybe even thread worthy. Everyone talks about streetfighting as if every technique is always available. But, how does the clothing we wear impact the techniques available to us in a streetfight.
 
Firstly, you're much more prone to attacks from others when mounted and focused on one opponent. Secondly why should the takedown and mount a given, when multiple attackers and other unfair advantages aren't? Whose to say the guy going for a shot doesn't run into an uppercut or a blade on the way in? What happens if the grappler can't get inside the opponent's punching distance?

All this talk about realism, yet you're placing all these restrictions in an environment where there aren't any: one-on-one only, etc. When there's more than just punching going on, how often do fights remain "fair" anyways?


You are losing the argument.
It boils down to which one is the more complete fighter. The obvious answer is the guy who can fight standing and on the ground.
In the real world, being mounted, being jumped, fighting against a ninja, all these senarios are possible. If confronted by a gang, both the boxer and the MMA guy are fucked. A guy pulls a gun, both are fucked. A guy wants to fight one on one standing only, both can handle themselves. But if for some reason, you slip on a bananna peal during the exchange and fall, and for some reason, the attacker wants to jump on top of you, the fact is you have a higher percentage of success with an MMA background.

No one is saying 99 percent of all fights go to the ground in the real world. But obviously, the MMA guy has a slight advantage. A very, very slight advantage since we know anything can happen on the mean streets of Santa Cruz CA, but it still exists.

I hate the argument of which sport is more realistic for street fighting, because we are talking about apples and oranges. BUT, the slight nod goes to MMA.
 
There's a lot of weird or straight up wrong information in this thread. It should be noted that there is, or was, a Chinese style that strictly used only hand strikes. I know very little about it, but I have heard about it.

Guns.

The development and use of the firearm made the use of hand weapons obsolete. There really was no point to man to man combat once guns came around.

There was no pressure on Westerners to develop empty handed combat to a higher level because the people who had the time & money trained in sword or bought guns.

This was not so much the case in the East. Handguns would not have been common so it would have been sword. Swords would've been outlawed or restricted during peacetime so knives, sticks, and empty handed arts would've been the preferred weapon for self defense.

I think hand to hand combat with kicks and punches really developed fairly recently. It would not have made military sense to develop your punching & kicking against armored opponents. Wrestling and grappling would've been better developed because they are useful as training and as an adjunct to weapons use.

Keep in mind, karate is not really Japanese and was not adopted by the Samurai. The Samurai's empty hand art would've been jujutsu. There may have been some strikes, but not as extensive as Karate. Karate is more in the Chinese vein of civilian fighting

I find this a very weird argument for many reasons. I'm gonna have to make a few points. First, the development of firearms is relatively new in the world of combat. Ranged weapons and gun power weapons were technologically more advanced and/or developed faster in China initially.

Although Europeans eventually developed better firearms, East Asians acquired and implemented these weapons in the 15th Century on a very large scale (the Sino-Japanese-Korean war is a good example) along with swords, spears, and arrows.

Even with firearms and artillery, hand to hand combat was still encouraged by both Western and Eastern armies up until the early 20th Century. Pikemen stood by side by side with musketeers, and in WW1 calvary troops wielded spears. Even now some militaries encourage bayonets to be fixed. Hand to hand combat was not made automatically obsolete the moment firearms appeared on the battlefield. I believe the turning point was the invention of the mini ball, which was in the 19th C (relatively new in human history and history of combat).

Hand to hand combat with punches and kicks have been around for thousands of years. The ancient Greeks trained in boxing and pankration. The Spartans had a more "hardcore" version of pankration of their own that allowed techniques illegal in the Olympics.

Practical: Let's not forget westerners come from a colder environment where they wore more clothing, heavier boots, etc. making it both harder to kick and harder to get up if one fell down. In Thailand people basically walk around naked. So that being said, if you were in those shoes (literally, haha) you guys would use Muay Thai in a street confrontation?

Well, not all "western" environments are cold, and not all "eastern" environments are hot. I think we are generalizing the use of eastern and western here. Greek, and rest of southern Europe isn't very cold but the Greeks were known for boxing, and that part of the world might have been the first to do so. Ancient Greeks weren't going around hearing heavy boots all the time. China, Korea, and northern Japan gets pretty damn cold yet they have kicking styles. If you look at medieval Chinese and Korean clothing, there are heavy leather boots. I just don't think climate is an accurate indicator of what kind of martial arts develop. I'm sure it has some affect since environments influence culture, but I doubt it has had a major impact.
 
Guns.

The development and use of the firearm made the use of hand weapons obsolete. There really was no point to man to man combat once guns came around.

This still doesn't explain why it is considered un gentlemanly to kick in western cultures.

Again, the correct answer is culture. Culturally, westerners think kicking is for dudes with no honor. Other cultures give you props for kicking (Korea)
 
I find this a very weird argument for many reasons. I'm gonna have to make a few points. First, the development of firearms is relatively new in the world of combat. Ranged weapons and gun power weapons were technologically more advanced and/or developed faster in China initially.

Although Europeans eventually developed better firearms, East Asians acquired and implemented these weapons in the 15th Century on a very large scale (the Sino-Japanese-Korean war is a good example) along with swords, spears, and arrows.

Even with firearms and artillery, hand to hand combat was still encouraged by both Western and Eastern armies up until the early 20th Century. Pikemen stood by side by side with musketeers, and in WW1 calvary troops wielded spears. Even now some militaries encourage bayonets to be fixed. Hand to hand combat was not made automatically obsolete the moment firearms appeared on the battlefield. I believe the turning point was the invention of the mini ball, which was in the 19th C (relatively new in human history and history of combat).


We have to make a distinction between origins of martial arts:
- military/imperial (IE used by the army and officially taught by the government. Fencing could fall under here, as could traditional jiujitsu)
- temple (originated in religious setting)
- village (originated by commoners to protect themselves. Okinawan Karate and most Chinese arts, and likely Muay Thai fall under here)


Very few of the martial arts we practice today can actually trace their lineage to military arts. Most fall into the village category, where weapons were not available and so weapon use is sparse if at all. For example Okinawan karate uses farm instruments/rudimentary weapons like staff, nunchaku, those sickle thingys, tonfas (obviously I don't know the real names of these things lol)



So if we're talking about how boxing/muay thai/etc. evolved, we almost certainly have to separate this discussion from military combat
 
Back
Top