Archive through April 28, 2006

Tim's Discussion Board: Martial Arts - Miscellaneous: Western Boxing: Archive through April 28, 2006
   By Terry on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 03:43 pm: Edit Post

Well said Chis


   By Steve James (Unregistered Guest) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 11:22 pm: Edit Post

Hi,

just wanted to add one point. "Boxing" has rules that limit what is allowed and what has to be dealt with. "Boxers" do not. Imo, the point was that boxers, even at the lowest amateur level, train very hard. The same could be said for NCAA wrestlers. The athletes produced by these programs are, very often, much more prepared than many average martial artists. I agree with those who've said that this doesn't make the "art" better. (Anyway, tomorrow we'll see the big test of "skill" against "size" in boxing. Should be interesting.)

Best,
Steve James


   By Michael Posch on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 11:32 pm: Edit Post

Chris - agreed with the philosophy that the boxer generally does focus on principles, and then applies them in a sparring context regularly. This, in turn, helps him to become a better fighter. However, the same philosophy could be applied to a great martial arts school, where principles, technique, and consistant sparring are practiced regulary, thus also creating an effective fighter. It all depends on the teacher (and the system, of course). I guess my point is that boxing is lacking in variety in technique, and when faced with an equally skilled martial artist that has an arsenal of punches, kicks, locks, throws, etc., I'd put my money on the martial artist.


   By Mike Taylor on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 02:28 am: Edit Post

I wasn't going to comment, but I can only take so much BS (Bandini Sacked) before I feel impelled to comment...

Please drop the (pointless) "this art is better than that art" concept. Rather, please just favor what art or arts that you will for the strengths you find therein.

I've met proficient men & women in many arts: western Boxing, Karate, Savate, western Wrestling, Judo, Jiu-Jitsu, etc., etc. Please don't knock any of the well-established arts. Note that there are more ignorant & poorly-trained "practitioners" & "instructors" in all of these popular arts than there are knowledgeable, highly-trained ones; this should never reflect poorly on any art.

If one practices too many things in a short space of time, then one is less likely to become highly proficient in any one area. If you find a [non-boxer] martial artist "equally skilled" to a proficient, western boxer, then chances are that he or she has specialized with a small core of basic movements (like the western boxer, some of the old martial-arts practitioners practiced well only a few moves & were known as proficient fighters).

Just as a proficient western boxer can deal with kicking attacks if necessary & would rarely have need for a high degree of ground-fighting ability, a proficient western wrestler would have little need for a high degree of punching & kicking ability, but would most likely know how to counter such. Each type of proficient fighter attempts to use his or her strengths rather than play another's game. In a serious fight, it often comes down to timing & positioning along with general ability (to execute a few moves skillfully). Only occassionally will general toughness or endurance be a factor that determines the "winner." Many serious fights end quickly (& often by way of weaponry: improvised or not).

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that a western boxer (or any sport fighter) on the street or in combat is bound by Marquis of Queensberry rules (or the like), or that his or her knowledge is limited only to what some set of rules allow (note that some boxers willingly break rules inside the ring; so just imagine what they'd be willing to do outside of it).

End of rant. {:o)


   By chris hein on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 04:55 am: Edit Post

Michael,
and thats why I train at the Shen Wu acadamy of martial arts in garden grove california!


   By Dragonprawn on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 05:02 pm: Edit Post

Chris,

Please refrain from posting promotions for your school without the permission of sysop.


   By Tim on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 01:56 am: Edit Post

I asked the sysop. He said it's ok to say nice things about me and my school. In fact, it's encouraged.


   By european (Unregistered Guest) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 04:59 am: Edit Post

I guess most of the people that write here about boxing, pro or against, never boxed. It's obvious from what they declare.

Boxing is a sport. Go ask serious and famed teachers, they will confirm you. They don't give a damn about using it on the street, even if it's very useful.

Boxers are tough. They train hard( have excellent techniques); same happens for every sport. Most of us wouldn't be lucky to meet an angry top-man of NBA, Rugby, American Football etc.

Boxing is for winners. Is a pro sport where teachers select the few talented students among the bunch. Very very few emerge, the rest is history. Boxing teachers don't care creating men, they seek those who already are to make them win MONEY.

Boxing is taliban-minded, like every sport. If you want to succede you devote yourself to the sport completely, night and day. Your reactions become automatic and yes, of course on the street you do ONLY what your subcontious mind can do. People who worked with serious boxers in nightclubs know it perfectly. Please note that club owners rate n1 boxers for this job.

Since I'm graduating as a boxing coach at the Regional Committee -a branch of the National Olympic Association- I like to add some first hand information for those who like facts.
Our teachers are talibans but really good. They refuse to consider combat sports but a complication appeared anyhow. Since they put down other sports every time (it's their job..) but need combat sport intructors 'cause boxing is decadent, many questions evolved between the FEW pure boxing intructors and the majority of the spurious ones. Finally a 'purist' (27, perfect shape)challenged a 'mixed' -knows ALSO boxing-(38, no shape)colleague student, and we all evolved around the ring to watch.

The boxer asked no elbows, no knees and absolutely no wrestling. The mixed fighter -a decent sort- carefully showed what kind of kicks he was going to use, not wanting to be sneaky.

Fight started and the boxer tried to close the distance but the other guy immediately begun to punish his advanced leg, following with savate high kicks and punches. At the end of the first round the heroic boxer showed a blue leg and had landed no single clear punch, his face purple. He was astonished and declared: "I was so concentrated that I could not see his foot move".

Got it? He knew kicks were coming but there was nothing he could do.

There is not such a thing as a 'better m.art/combat sport' since is the man who fight, not he art itself, we all know.

[BTW, I have had the same experience in the past, people who regularly post here will recall]


   By european (Unregistered Guest) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 05:06 am: Edit Post

Tim,

I discovered Matt Fuery through your web site, thanks much.

Your book 'Effortless combat throws' is beautiful, especially the first part which is really great.

Thanks a lot for everything. Keep going.

e.


   By Backarcher on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 11:08 pm: Edit Post

Great post, Chris!


   By Tim on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 02:11 am: Edit Post

Thanks European. And my gratitude for all of your informative posts.


   By Mike Taylor on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 01:22 am: Edit Post

European,

I did err when I wrote "a proficient western boxer CAN deal with kicking attacks if necessary." For clearer understanding, it should read "a proficient western boxer CAN LEARN TO deal with kicking attacks if necessary." Likewise for the wrestler.

Yes, boxing is usually (and almost, but not quite exclusively) taught as a sport these days. Nevertheless, some do use it as a combat art. So could you. Take the sport of boxing (which you know well): pay close attention to what's "foul;" learn to deliver these foul techniques (in addition to those techniques allowed) while also learning to defend against such. You now have the makings of a combat art (& the same goes for wrestling). Remember, modern boxing was designed for self-defense (not sport); only later was it made into a sport, and eventually into the sport it is today (for the most part) where big bucks are the driving issue.

During WWII, the Brits had a training facility in Canada where British SOE & American OSS trainees were taught their skills. A former Shanghai police officer named Mr. Fairbairn (sp?) wrote the close-combat curriculum taught there; while quite familiar with several forms of martial arts, he used western Boxing (especially the fouls) as the base for the unarmed combat portion; this instruction focused upon how to kill quickly. Mr. Fairbairn wrote that it's "cruel to take longer than necessary to kill your opponent..." (so not wanting to be thusly cruel, he taught western Boxing fouls -- the very things that were prohibited in order to make this art of self-defense into a sport were re-added to the mix to make it a combat art once again).

I know of two documented accounts were US boxers have killed with their bare hands in combat (in foreign wars), & I have one first-hand hearsay of another boxer knocking out two opponents with as many punches in a street situation.

I once came across a karateka who was quite proficient with a particular move. He claimed that I couldn't stop this move from hitting me, even if I knew it was coming -- & where it was headed. I took him up on the challenge (I was younger, less beat up, & more stupid then); he was right -- I couldn't stop him -- at first; but being stubborn (did I mention stupid?) I had him repeat the challenge over & over. I got beat up pretty good, but to his astonishment I finally figured out how to counter his signature move -- & my counter worked every time he tried thereafter (& he, being stubborn as well, tried a lot).

So, if a boxer knows that he's going to face kickers (say he's going to war or joining the CIA), then he will deem it necessary to know how to deal with such (so he'll learn). If I could learn to counter something in less than an hour of experimentation, then so can a highly-trained athlete, such as a western boxer or wrestler.


   By chris hein on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 02:01 am: Edit Post

Mike you must be the longest winded man this side of the pacos!


   By european (Unregistered Guest) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 07:57 am: Edit Post

Mike,

very nice post. I agree 100% with you: boxing is very efficient, very tough and those who are trained at boxing can be trained to face any sort of attack. This does not mean that they have, they easily can be self-sufficient with what they know. But anyway they can learn, if they want.

Not very easily, however. If someone is a boxer, that means that he involves himself in doing it many hours a day, he trains himself to do that perfectly, authomatically and not thinking.

You have to know that in my hometown everybody I knew did boxing, at least some. The political situation when I was adolescent was so hot that nobody could avoid choosing a side. Fighting was a daily duty, often guns were involved. In that situation boxing (not karate, not judo etc.) was the first option for 99% of the guys. Much the same nowadays with kickboxing.

Many friends of mine -those who are still alive and not in jail- will tell you that boxing is efficient 'cause is EASY: Pow! And it's all there. They will confirm their admiration for other arts but will also tell you that they don't care: boxing is for though guys and they are though.
Hope I explained myself.


   By Anglo Saxon (Unregistered Guest) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 08:51 am: Edit Post

When the 99% of the guys who were boxers met with the guns that often were involved, what happened?


   By european (Unregistered Guest) on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 03:15 am: Edit Post

Anglo Saxon,

answer is: run!

Well, the use of guns was - somewhat- restricted.
We are talking about a situation where the governament was in charge (had weapons) but could not restrict youngsters from polarize in two big tribes. Then, like in a game, guns came out only seldom, I mean talking about bare-handed fights who turned into something different. This does not regulate of course mass clashes in the streets
where police came into play, or executions.

A gun is a gun, if the person who handles it is serious (doesn't take it out just for show) the target is, very often, dead meat. Fortunately enough for me I didn't meet too many.

We can say that, like in an unspoken ritual, if you shot you were going to be shot and sought fanatically by the police. One famous guy that I just met (I was just a teenager) looked very skinny and totally not harmful to me. I did not understand why he was so revered (and feared)by the other 'big' guys. Many years after I got to know from newspapers (he dided in a burglary) he had killed 12 people, 4 police officers.


   By david briggs (Unregistered Guest) on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 05:08 pm: Edit Post

i am hearing alot of discussion about what works here their and everywhere but at the end of the day it is the man who wins the fight not the style. no matter what you are taught it is you heart willpower and cunning that find a way to win not the method of fighting you have been taught.

i recently took park in mixed martail art tournement and i have been boxing for the last five years. I found that it was simple enough to take the kickboxers kicks out of the equation just as it is simple enough to close down the footwork of kung fu, this is done by beating the opponent you are fighting, not his style.

if a fighter is putting all his efforts into throwing high kicks and fast punches you simple use strategic movement and catch him when he makes a mistake, just as with kung fu you use range and sharp straight shots to counter what is basicly a close range fighting style. Their is always a way to win it is just a case of staying relaxed and being smart

briggsy


   By marc daoust on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 01:56 am: Edit Post

thanks dave,
i didn't know it was so easy!but since you put it like that,it changes everything.
so all i have to do is;do what is needed a the exact moment it should be done.


   By david briggs (Unregistered Guest) on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 06:23 am: Edit Post

what i am saying marc is that instead of focusing on the fighting style your opponent is trained, instead try to focus on what he is actually doing, what he is trying to do and what areas of his game are weak. you can only be this aware if you stop thinking and concentrate on fighting instead. It is not good being a master of your style if you cannot see past your own reflection in the mirror.

You should aim to use your personal attributes to the maximum and be as well rounded as possible to allow you to take adavantage of your opponents weakness. This can only be done fighting smart and having varied sparring aswell training in skills and moves that you yourself have confidence and know work effectivley.

it is slightly ignorant to discuss "kung fu vs boxing" as their is so so so much more to a fight than the style you are trained in.


   By marc daoust on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 12:50 am: Edit Post

i agree dude!
sometime in a fight you might be required to do something that you never trained for!
but if the moment demands it,you got to do it!!