- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,775
- Reaction score
- 1
I agree with alot of what you have to say- slipping, shoulder rolling, and to some extent bobbing + weaving can be used in MMA, but not the same as it is in straight boxing. Special consideration has to be given to knees, kicks, elbows, & takedowns, lest you eat a knee/ kick.
HOWEVER. Saying that straight boxers do better in K-1 & MMA rules is a harsh over- generalization.
Of course Thai's have to adapt to rulesets like that of K-1, where the clinch striking is severely limited, and theres much more emphasis on range striking. Buakaw has improved his hands since debuting, but that didn't stop him from dominating with his kicks & brutal clinch knees when he first hit the K1 MAX scene.
Now, if you're hypothesizing that boxers do better in K1 than Thais, you would be making a statement that isn't supported by empirical data. Francois Botha is probably the best boxer, most reasonably within his athletic prime to ever do decently well in K-1, and his only real quality win was over JLB, who has always been best with his hands. Anyone who could really kick worth a damn beat Francois, Aerts not withstanding.
As for your assertion that Boxers do better than Nak Muays in combat sports in general, again, empirical evidence disagrees. Show me a fight where a boxer type striker outstrikes a MT type striker, and i'll show you 5 where the opposite result happens. Cantwell/ Stann 2, Aldo vs. Brown/ Gamburyan, Edgar/ Penn 2, Feijao/ Mo, etc etc ad nauseam.
K-1 style rules emphasize kicks and punches (as well as knees from a distance/ a 1 handed clinch, I guess...); in MMA, the hands do receive a bit more emphasis because of takedowns and the smaller gloves, but if you're not prepared to at least defend kicks/ knees/ elbows (as straight BOXING will not prepare you for the 8 points of Muay Thai.
Again, I always appreciate your posts and you are correct. I should of been more concise when addressing boxers, holistically as athletes, vs. the art of boxing. I should of said that "boxing" as a skill has shown to be the single most important and effective aspect of striking more consistently than any other art in combat or ring-sport. Not that "Boxers" are better combat athletes, as a generalization. Instead that boxing ability, whether or not it is the base of your style is imperative, and empirical evidence would suggest that being able to strike effectively and defend the hands is overwhelmingly the most influential factor amongst combat sports (generally speaking). Hence, Boxing ability, not boxers per say, is in my opinion the most useful and consistently effective striking tool to posses in combat sport.