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

[ambertch]

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.

I mispoke by not placing my statements into a historical context.

When we are talking about the origin of Karate/judo for example, we are not really talking about samurai or other historical japanese arts (even though karate and judo take inspiration from historical arts), we are talking about societal conditions in the late 19th/early 20th century.

Similarly when we talk about the origin of boxing, we're talking about living conditions in Europe (mainly Britain) and America during the 18th and early 19th century - because this is the part of the world where modern boxing developed into a sanctioned sport, kind of a ritualized form of combat. My best guess is that bunch of people started punching each other in bars and it grew into more and more of a spectacle, people started making money off of it and holding spectator events, until eventually this show became so popular it became boxing.


All TMAs are fairly modern, the vast majority having been developed within the last 100-150 years. And few TMAs are military in nature

 

[jlagman]

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.

I'm not really trying to bash MMA, I just dislike when people think it's the be-all-end-all of fighting, especially since it also occurs in a very controlled environment. I guess I also dislike how much shit boxing gets, as if it's inferior to everything.

 

[YeahBee]

Biting, fish hooking, headbutts, etc, for the most part are more effective as the range closes.
Essentially, and this is certainly arguable, these tactics are more likely to be effective against a grappler than a striker.

say what? IMO they are more likely to effective against a striker because the grappler would be the one in position to use it!

doesn't take a rocket scientist to use dirty tricks

 

[TheeFaulted]

^^^^^

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.

Steel-toe Doc Martens with the win.

 

[Inquisitus]

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)

My point boils down to this.

In the West, self defense for the people who could spend the time to train was primarily by sword or gun. Thus, there was no need to develop self defense techniques. Boxing & wrestling both remained primarily as sport.

In the East, because the gun was not prevalent, hand to hand combat remained the primarily hand weapons based. As edged hand weapons became prohibited during period of peacetime, empty handed and blunt edge weapons combat came to the fore. Culturally, martial arts would've developed more as a self defense (or duelling) system than sport.

 

[Inquisitus]

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.



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.



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.

For military purposes, the Asians may have had the firearms technology first, but proliferation into civilian use was very limited or non-existent compared to the West.
Development of firearms for personal defense or dueling is, i believe, very rare or non-existent.

Evidence of this is seen in the Boxer Rebellion as the secret societies believed their kung fu would be enough to protect them from bullets. If firearms were common in civil hands in China during this period or earlier, I doubt very much this belief would survive.

Also, i do not believe empty handed combat with punches & kicks would've been common during wartime periods. Pikes, swords, & pole arms are one thing, but to punch & kick armored opponents is another. Jujutsu as an art form did not coalesce in Japan until well into the Tokugawa shogunate. It's precursors would've been more common in conjunction with knives & hand to hand combat.

 

[singdawg]

I'm not bashing the skill of boxing, im bashing the idea of limiting the knowledge people obtain. If you want to spend most of your time training boxing, then you should. what shouldn't be done is esclusively train boxing. If you are attacked on the streets, you want to have multiple things you can do to protect yourself.

its a wasted sport if you ONLY practice it. You need to practice allowing other things as well. If everytime you fought you limit yourself to practicing with punches, then you'll get good at punches. put someone who only trains punches against someone who is good with takedowns, grappling and punching, that person uses one of his other skills against you, you don't know what to do = your loss.

isn't it better to expand your knowledge than limit it?

i want to limit this argument to one on one, no holds bar street fighting, this means you are alone with the other guy. No weapons, no friends, nothing other than your survival. It is possible to encounter anyone with any skill.

my instinct if someone attacks me is to find a way to take someones back, if the exclusive boxers first instinct is to strike, he has the chance of success. If I avoid him and manage to take his back then what the fuck is he going to do? I'll choke him out if he doesn't know the defense to the rear naked.

If I took the back of someone who knows how to escape it, they'd have a way better chace of escaping.

 

[thirteen]

i want to limit this argument to one on one, no holds bar street fighting, this means you are alone with the other guy. No weapons, no friends, nothing other than your survival.

In that case a boxer is probably the last person I'd want to scrap with.
Training how to punch people in the head with the intent of rendering them unconscious can be pretty useful in an altercation.

(And just for the record I'm from a BJJ + Wrestling background)

 

[Too Defensive**]

If you are attacked on the streets, you want to have multiple things you can do to protect yourself.

On these mystical streets you keep referring to, both the Boxer and the MMA guy are at a huge disadvantage because of the rules involved in their respective sports. THe MMA guy has a slight advantage, but the advantage is so slight that its not worth your money training in MMA for street defense. Better to save that money to purchase a fire arm, and to obtain a concealed weapon permit.
Because on the murky, shadowy streets of Gotham, anything can go down.

its a wasted sport if you ONLY practice it.

What if someone likes to compete in boxing. Is he wasting his time? Did Floyd Mayweather waste all those years of training he put in? Id say it paid off pretty well for him.

i want to limit this argument to one on one, no holds bar street fighting, this means you are alone with the other guy. No weapons, no friends, nothing other than your survival. It is possible to encounter anyone with any skill.

Ok. Lets say you are visiting a buddy in an insane assylum, and you notice one of the padded rooms open, so you walk inside. Suddenly a boxer walks in behind you and closes the door. The boxer starts talking shit and the fight is on. In this scenerio, no weapons, no friends, no trees rocks birds etc. you do have a minor advantage thanks to your ground skills. But why are you training in MMA for this scenerio? :icon_neut

 

[panamaican]

I'm not bashing the skill of boxing, im bashing the idea of limiting the knowledge people obtain. If you want to spend most of your time training boxing, then you should. what shouldn't be done is esclusively train boxing. If you are attacked on the streets, you want to have multiple things you can do to protect yourself.

its a wasted sport if you ONLY practice it. You need to practice allowing other things as well. If everytime you fought you limit yourself to practicing with punches, then you'll get good at punches. put someone who only trains punches against someone who is good with takedowns, grappling and punching, that person uses one of his other skills against you, you don't know what to do = your loss.

isn't it better to expand your knowledge than limit it?

i want to limit this argument to one on one, no holds bar street fighting, this means you are alone with the other guy. No weapons, no friends, nothing other than your survival. It is possible to encounter anyone with any skill.

my instinct if someone attacks me is to find a way to take someones back, if the exclusive boxers first instinct is to strike, he has the chance of success. If I avoid him and manage to take his back then what the fuck is he going to do? I'll choke him out if he doesn't know the defense to the rear naked.

If I took the back of someone who knows how to escape it, they'd have a way better chace of escaping.

I'm not knocking the value of getting someone's back but how are you getting it? If you can encounter anyone with any skill a good boxer is going to be using footwork to keep you at jab range and snipe you to hell. I don't know about your chin but I don't relish eating jab after jab until I can close the distance on a good boxer who wants to really hurt me. In a cage or ring I can eventually get close enough to do something but in the real world, there's no guarantee he'll run out of room to manuever.

So I ask again, when there's essentially an unlimited space to fight in, how are you getting to his back? Not knocking your strategy but asking for clarification.

 

[Metsudragon**]

On these mystical streets you keep referring to, both the Boxer and the MMA guy are at a huge disadvantage because of the rules involved in their respective sports. THe MMA guy has a slight advantage, but the advantage is so slight that its not worth your money training in MMA for street defense. Better to save that money to purchase a fire arm, and to obtain a concealed weapon permit.

Because on the murky, shadowy streets of Gotham, anything can go down.

I couldn't read that without cracking up, great post xD

 

[Kozbot]

The whole style vs style debate for the street is so retarded.

Your chances of encountering another trained guy on the street where you square off like you're in feudal Japan is not going to happen.

Be good at striking, be good at grappling, be good at dirty shit, be fucking smart. That is the formula for the streets. You should be able to put any untrained guy out with strikes, throws, or slams if you are any good.

Or if you are really concerned with self defense. Get a gun or a knife.

 

[ambertch]

The whole style vs style debate for the street is so retarded.

It is. WTF is wrong with you noobs - do you guys not see the title of this thread? It is discussing history and the development of boxing and other martial arts

 

[panamaican]

It is. WTF is wrong with you noobs - do you guys not see the title of this thread? It is discussing history and the development of boxing and other martial arts

Sorry, didn't mean to get off track.

As far back as 3000 B.C. men have fought competitively with just their fists. They have found boxing gloves dating to 1500 B.C. The ancient greeks formalized a set of rules for use in the Olympics around 600 B.C. or so.

Since fist fighting is close to 5,000 years old, I don't think any of us have any realistic clue why it developed that way. At least with arts like karate and certain other Eastern arts we have some idea on their origin. Boxing is so old, speculation is kind of pointless.

Crap, I just realized that boxing is 5000 years old and gloves are at least 3500 years old. That's just crazy. Kicking itself probably evolved after fist only fighting - not contemporaneously.

 

[Sinister]

For as long as it's been around, and as long as it's been a staple Art, for all the mysticism contained in the hallowed "street"...I've yet to see someone catch an actual punch from someone who knows what they're doing, and go on to win that Fight.

In every live Combat scenario, anyone with any tactical training should reference the notion that the person who can strike the most efficiently first (and by "strike" I mean, apply a technique), is going to come out on top.

There's too many variables to say who can do what and why every time out. But like I said, I've never in my life seen a guy get clocked clean by another guy who threw that punch with good form (I.E. knew how to box or any other Art that borrowed how to punch from Boxing), and continue Fighting very well.

 

[Ron Powell Jr]

The whole style vs style debate for the street is so retarded.

Your chances of encountering another trained guy on the street where you square off like you're in feudal Japan is not going to happen.

...be fucking smart. .... Get a gun or a knife.

Well put! that's what i was trying to say.

 

[Ron Powell Jr]

I know this doesn't have to do with the thread, but in my opinion Judo and Boxing are the most efficient ways to dispatch an attacker of any skill level.

Punches that aim to knockout, or sucker punch. Or a really tight judo clinch and a hard throw to the pavement.

Even though i absolutely love thai boxing and Jiujitsu infinitely more than judo & boxing as sports, i personally think MT & BJJ are less practical for a person that's new to martial arts and wants to know how to defend themselves right away.

From my experience with other people, MT and BJJ takes a little more time to develop....well, they are all equally hard when you get to the highest levels, but as far as BASIC learning curve boxing and judo are pretty quick to pick up.

MT and BJJ COULD work if you were at a high enough level where you could throw on a solid clinch and knee/elbow decisively (i wouldn't kick above the waist just to be safe)..or if you were extremely well-versed the self defense applications of Brazilian jiu jitsu (which are hardly taught more than briefly since the art is sport oriented nowadays).

So basically, if you wanna learn to generally defend yourself in the least amount of time, i'd recommend some good old fisticuffs, hardly ever fails. And Judo would work too, i've seen some beginner level Judo players lay guys out, it isn't pretty either.

 

[aries]

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)

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

No Muay Thai definitely evolved from military combat forms.

You could argue that probably all martial arts were developed from military combat because supposedly Alexander the Great brought the greek military martial arts to India and then that later was introduced to China and Kung fu was born.