Boxing and Kung Fu.

[Merryprankster]

Boxing's power--NOT fundamentally attribute based.

Ok, what I mean by the thread title is this: You read a LOT of stuff about how western boxing and competitive arts in general, rely on physical attributes for performance.

This is, at best, wildly inaccurate, and at worst, utter crap.

I believe the reason that this perception exists is because boxing,
wrestling, etc, are practiced as competitive sports. At high levels of competition, the skill level is high. At this point, physical attributes "make or break." Your technique will only get you so far without honing your physical attributes to complement your personal style. So, physical attributes tend to be emphasized as much as skill. Because this physical conditioning is so vital to competitive success, some people make the incorrect leap that "it's more about physical attributes," forgetting the
long, long hours engaged in repetitive drilling at different speeds to hone technique, timing, flow, etc.

Now, the above is more of an aside, and probably worthy of its own separate thread. But it leads into the next point:

The power in boxing is no more fundamentally attribute based than the power generated in any strike from any art.

I will use as my example, a straight right thrown by an orthodox fighter.

The straight right begins at the rear foot. The foot pivots on the ball of the foot, pushing on the ground, generating torque in the rear leg. This opens up the hip so it is more or less square to your opponent, then the shoulders come around. The spine should be naturally straight, neither bent over at the waist, hunched badly, nor unnaturally stiff. While this is happenning, the right arm is being extended and turned over. At the end of
the movement, the structure created is more or less stiff. That is, a direct push on the fist will be transferred all the way through your body to the rear foot on the ground. I realize that some argue about the palm down or vertical fist. Different argument for a different thread.

I can personally tell when I have executed it really well when, at the moment of contact, I feel a big "push" in the ball of my rear foot.

Now, does the power come from all the massive amounts of strength I'm using? The answer is no. The use of strength (using too much "shoulder") can compensate somewhat for improper structure, but you will rapidly tire (not to mention be slow). Instead, the power of the straight right comes from
two things--speed of execution, and proper structure at the moment of impact.

Proper structure, as outlined above, comes from proper body alignment, which in turn, creates "stiffness" from the floor to the fist. This structure is stable and does not give. If the structure is not stiff, then it gives at the moment of impact, and power is not transfered to the target as efficiently as it might be, depending on the amount of give.

Speed comes from looseness in the body. If you are tight, you move slowly. It's that simple. So, in order to optimize your speed, you have to remain relaxed and loose...until the moment of impact, when everything is nice and stiff.

So, the power in the punch comes from how quickly you can align your body to attain that rigid structure. And that speed comes only from being relaxed until the moment of impact. It's not a matter of muscle strength or just banging away. It's proper body mechanics.

The above was not meant to say that all punching mechanics are fundamentally the same at their core (I happen to think they are, but that's a different topic). It does however, demonstrate that the power generation is NOT due primarily to attributes, and rather on executing the proper technique in a bio-mechanically efficient way.

[red5angel]

MP, the problem might be context as well.
For instance, to compete effectively in a sport you have to be in peak condition.
To defend yourself on the street, you dont necessarily have to be.
The other thing I got from reading your post, and this may be coming from my WC background, is that to be a good boxer, you have to have the power and strength of youth, eventually, with age, your ability decreases.
Some arts use structure to support thier power, boxing does, but not to the same extent that others do.

[mantis108]

Unfortunately, Boxing is a team effort also. If you look at a lot of the matches today, you will realize how many of the athelets are not paying attention to their footwork. Lots of them tred on the heels and shove their punches. That's not entirely their fault but also the coaches and training partners as well. Also the sport mentality demands physical attributes. Who would paid money to see a bout that's going to end within the first 30 sec. You have to make sure the match is a spectacular show! Anyway, you have made some good post. Thanks

Mantis108

[apoweyn]

i'm sure that if i were ever in a match with george foreman, i could take comfort (as i was being mercilessly beaten around the head and ribs) in the fact that his abilities had faded with age.

:)

seriously, PERHAPS competitive boxing is a young person's game. but then, so are competitive athletics of many sorts. but now we're drawing a distinction between professional athletes on one side and noncompetitors on the other.

if the practice of gung fu by hobbyists (sorry, lack of a better term) doesn't inherently rely on physical attributes, i'd argue that the boxing hobbyist is bound by the same standards. no, i'll never be a competitive boxer. but my technique is sound enough to make it viable in sparring, self defense, etc.


stuart b.

[red5angel]

I believe MP is right in that not all the power comes from strength, but I do believe that for some, strength is the hinge that holds the whole thing together, especially in certain circumstances.

[Merryprankster]

R5A,

You've missed the point.

From a mechanics perspective, boxing isn't about physical attributes. At no point does "muscling"
the punch come under desired execution.

It does not take the speed and strength of youth to be a good boxer.
It takes the speed and strength of youth to be a COMPETITIVE boxer. It's not the same thing,
and that was my point in the beginning of the post. So there's really no argument.

It doesn't mean your BOXING can't continue to improve, but your competitive days are numbered in a sport which
has, at its core, the goal of beating the crap out of each other.

If you had a competitive Wing Chun circuit, complete with the kind of high-level skill present in olympic
and pro boxing, you'd have a similar situation.

My instructor is 50 and if he hit me, I'd more than feel it. He throws beautifully. He'd be dangerous on the street to an attacker.
Could he last 5 or 6 rounds of full contact sparring with a 25 year old his weight? Well, that's a question of stamina, which isn't about
"boxing the art," THAT'S about "boxing the sport."

All I'm saying is that to say boxing somehow is about, at its core, attributes, is to make a fundamental error.

[Ray Pina]

Great post. But I would say the power generated by a Ba Gua player is not only different, but applied differently then a boxer.

For one, we have no desire to stand toe to toe and exchange blows. I do admire the boxer. Nice and simple: hook, upper cut, cross. Jab is just set up. I like that.

But put a De La Hoya against Tyson. No way. They do not have the same ability, natural attributes. La Hoya could strike Tyson's body all day, one goot uppercut from tyson, no way. Give them weapons, say a sword, know it comes down to skill. I believe La Hoya may be a better fighter poind for pound, but that Tyson is just a beast of a man: powerful.

Skill plays a part, but weight matters. That's why there are weight classes. And that's why it is also a very beaitiful, but rare thing, when you find a smaller man who can beat and match up against a larger, younger, more "able" aponant. That means he has technique.

It is in boxing as well, no doubt. Ali was a style master. Did things considered unorthadox, but they worked. I just believe in boxing and (some external styles) condition and natural power come more into play. When you use force against force, the larger force will win.

[red5angel]

Hey MP, its a good point, and I wouldnt even begin to debate you, I just wanted to understand the context. In MA we often make judgements with context in mind, others may not percieve that same context.
I think any good martial art relies more on structure as a base then strength.

[apoweyn]

evolutionfist,

it's a good point. but against a 'larger, younger, more able' opponent, by definition, any one of us would lose. 'more able' refers to technique. and if they've got that IN ADDITION TO attributes, we're kinda screwed.

now the question is can a more able boxer beat a younger, stronger boxer. and i submit that it's entirely possible.

tyson is not only a monster. he's technically very skilled. can't overlook that. know what i mean?


stuart b.

[red5angel]

Apoweyn, I would go even ****her and say anything is possible. A much older opponent with proper technique could beat a younger, stronger more agile opponent. But like all other factors, if skill is equal and luck is not a factor, younger is much more likely to win due to strength and speed, etc.....

[Merryprankster]

Look, I don't understand your points here.

R5A, E-fist, explain what your points are. Are you saying that physical attributes are more important to the ART of boxing than in other arts? I've already agreed it's important from a SPORT perspective. The two have to be seperated for this particular discussion.

I'm saying that the use of boxing technique does not require great physical attributes to: a. be effective, or b. be mastered.

To COMPETE as a boxer requires a good deal of attribute training, but that's a different issue.

So I'm a bit confused here.

[red5angel]

I guess my point is context. you are right, anyone can master boxing through technique but will you be a good boxer? That depends on what you define as good really. Good technique does not mean you are necessarily good at boxing if you cant win a match, to some anyway.
Like Wing Chun, anyone can master Wing Chun, and a little person may be able to defend themselves with it, especially with good techniques, they may be able to teach it really well too. But then some huge monster of a man comes along, learns a little and can crush them.

[Merryprankster]

So the question is this then R5A,

Are you saying that in both Boxing and Wing Chun, physical attributes contribute to the success of the individual?

If you are, I agree. Obviously, physical attributes come into play in combat, be it sportive or real. I would never say "strength doesn't matter." I would say "proper technique maximizes your potential."

Is that what you are really getting at?

[red5angel]

You hit it right on the nose! thanks for coming through where my inability to express myself did not!

[Merryprankster]

So then, Boxing with proper technique maximizes your potential output. Any problems with that statement?

[red5angel]

I agree, no problems! I thin I follow you now.

[Merryprankster]

So, basically, that's where I was going with this R5A:

Many people degrade boxing as somehow relying on physical attributes for effectiveness. However, I think we're both in agreement that:

1. Physical attributes play a big role in a fight.
2. Maximizing use of those attributes is the name of the game and that is done with proper technique.

Based on that, is it safe to say we are in agreement that a boxing punch does not "rely" on physical strength, just like, a Wing Chun punch does not "rely" on physical strength?

I realize the application/execution of the strike might be different, but that's not really what I'm talking about right now.

[Ray Pina]

Ability: how high are you able to jump, how fast can you run, how much weight are you able to lift. This is detremined by ones God given features. What you start off with.

Now, ones ability can be increased with technique, that is skill.

But a 110 lbs pound guy will not be ABLE enough to compete with a 280lbs guy in a pushing match -- unless he has some technology.

The way of competitive boxing, the rules are sort of set up to keep it fair, which outlowas certain tricks or skills one has developed to overcome that difference in God given ability.

As a side note, boxers, because they tape up, have bad wrists.

I would say the same thing about Hung Gar to a point, at least lower to mid level Hung gar; Earth and Water elements, thrown out by a 120 lbs guy, won't be too affective. A 200 lbs guy puts his weight into bringing that around and look out.

Size does matter no doubt. Now, does that mean that I or you can't beat a bigger guy? No, of coarse. I have and do and I'm sure you have and do and will. But that is techique. Different from ability. The bigger men I have fought had the ABILITY to pick me up and power drive me. I did not have the ABILITY to lift them or topple them. But, by skill or techique, being ABLE to not allow their ABILITY to be a factor, score that chin shot, that;s the difference.

Boxing by nature has a lot of trading. A 110 lbs trading blows with a 210 lbs, noway. Not goiung to happen. Of coarse the sun shines on a dog's a$$ every now and then. But for the most part, the smaller man will have to have a lot more skill.

[Merryprankster]

E-fist.

ok. So your point is that a 110 lb guy is going to need more skill than a 220 lb guy if the 110 lb guy is to win.

Is that different in any other art? I mean, I think that's pretty universal.

I don't understand how that applies to boxing technique not being (or being, if that's your particular viewpoint) reliant on strength for effectiveness.

I mean, let's face it... a 110 lb man is going to have a hard time of it with a 220 lb guy no matter what he studies, unless he is VASTLY more skilled than his opponent.

[red5angel]

MP, are you a boxer?
I for one think Boxing is simple as far as martial arts go, but elegant that way. Its even simpler then WC, and WC is simple!
Now dont get me wrong, its simple like chess, easy to learn, hard to master.
I dont think Strength has anything to do with the technical side of boxing. If you had great skill in boxing that may allow you to hold off a larger stronger opponent. This is true in any art. I think if someone is degrading boxing it is probably because they do not truly understand it.
It is easy to stand on the sidelines and say that sucks or that could be done differently but to do it gives you insight into the hidden complexities of anything.

[red5angel]

Sorry for the confusion there MP, just needed to make sure we were on the same page. I see a lot of critical statements being made about martial arts, and a lot of it is really just unfounded guess work.

[Merryprankster]

I do box. Not well, but I box.

Now, I agree with what you've said.

What I'm SPECIFICALLY trying to avoid is the "comparison of weapons."

Boxing is far from a complete art. I would never claim that. It IS, however, a complete PUNCHING art. Sure, there are some punches in other styles you don't see in boxing, but boxing carries with it a complete fight strategy, as long as you are talking about hand strikes. That again, though, is another thread.

And you are right--if somebody thinks strength is what "makes the boxing punch," they don't know much about it.

[red5angel]

MP, I think you may have made that statement a few days ago and I have never heard a more true statement.
As for Boxing, well I dont know enough to know its strategies. I know it has been a sport for a long long time, and that can sometimes lead to a pretty narrow approach.
If someone were to say that boxing were an incomplete art, I am not sure I would agree. It may not have takedowns and grappling, or how to deal with them but like you stated, it has a complete fighting strategy. this to me makes it as complete as it is meant to be. I t accomplishes exactly what it needs to, if it did not then we would be watching ultimate fighting or whatever.
I would even say that it is street effective. I had a friend who was a boxer by hobby. He had a temper and one time I pushed him too far, I was going to tackle him because I could see he was getting ****ed. Giving him a charlie horse usually settled him down (dont ask). Anyway, he jabbed quick and got me right in the lip, put me down! I think in the street a good fighter has a very strong chance, even against someone trained.

[Merryprankster]

Well, I'm not sure that it has a Complete fight strategy, but it's got a complete punching strategy, that's for certain :)

Yes... boxers are respectable opponents.

[Ray Pina]

I thought we were talking about boxing. My opinion would be the same with Hung Gar and Wing chun as well, even Hsing-I, becayse that stle is very forcefull.

It begins to chnage with Taichi and Ba Gua though, because you should not oppose the force. Of coarse its hard to stop the force of a large man, just as hard as not to have that force reach you, but this is the focus of those arts. That's why they maintain a fighting ability to older age, its not built on ability, speed, stremght, though it helps.

Its like guerilla warfare. Numbers does not matter. Now, if you line them up head to head, ala, revolutionary war. Then numbers matter.

But if you are not there, it doesn;t matter. Of coarse, easier said then done, and I am not there. I have felt it through my teacher, who is older and smaller then myself. If I could be that good of a fighter when I am 60, I'd be a very happy man.

[apoweyn]

evolutionfist,

i see what you mean about ability vs. skill. that was a question of vocabulary.

cheers.


stuart b.

[Merryprankster]

Next time I parry a punch, rather than absorbing the shot, take the angle and counter, I'll remember it's force on force.

The reason these guys maintain their fighting ability is because, unlike boxers, they don't look to compete all the time. Competing is rather hard on the body. I'm not saying a good Tai Chi or Ba Gua man can't fight, I'm saying that they don't train for it day in and day out, fighting every few weeks. That's the reality of MOST good boxers, not the one or two fights a year thing.

Wrestling and Judo work on using leverage, timing and proper body mechanics to attack and counter by redirecting attacks all the time. But they are usually not competitive past their mid 30's.

It has everything to do with the wear and tear of competition, the degredation of your body's capabilities from age.

Create a competitive Ba Gua or Tai Chi circuit with the same level of talent and number of competitors, and I guarentee that the same physical problems would surface.

But, to steer this back, are you saying that boxing technique is just as strength based as other "forceful" styles? I'm just trying to clear it up.

[Mr. Nemo]

"Create a competitive Ba Gua or Tai Chi circuit with the same level of talent and number of competitors, and I guarentee that the same physical problems would surface."

Merryprankster is correct. This is the key point, I feel.

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Boxing's power--NOT fundamentally attribute based.

Ok, what I mean by the thread title is this: You read a LOT of stuff about how western boxing and competitive arts in general, rely on physical attributes for performance.

This is, at best, wildly inaccurate, and at worst, utter crap.

I believe the reason that this perception exists is because boxing,
wrestling, etc, are practiced as competitive sports. At high levels of competition, the skill level is high. At this point, physical attributes "make or break." Your technique will only get you so far without honing your physical attributes to complement your personal style. So, physical attributes tend to be emphasized as much as skill. Because this physical conditioning is so vital to competitive success, some people make the incorrect leap that "it's more about physical attributes," forgetting the
long, long hours engaged in repetitive drilling at different speeds to hone technique, timing, flow, etc.

All else equals, the big guy wins. I've heard this from all my CMA teachers.

Now, the above is more of an aside, and probably worthy of its own separate thread. But it leads into the next point:

The power in boxing is no more fundamentally attribute based than the power generated in any strike from any art.

I will use as my example, a straight right thrown by an orthodox fighter.

The straight right begins at the rear foot. The foot pivots on the ball of the foot, pushing on the ground, generating torque in the rear leg. This opens up the hip so it is more or less square to your opponent, then the shoulders come around. The spine should be naturally straight, neither bent over at the waist, hunched badly, nor unnaturally stiff. While this is happenning, the right arm is being extended and turned over. At the end of
the movement, the structure created is more or less stiff. That is, a direct push on the fist will be transferred all the way through your body to the rear foot on the ground. I realize that some argue about the palm down or vertical fist. Different argument for a different thread.

I can personally tell when I have executed it really well when, at the moment of contact, I feel a big "push" in the ball of my rear foot.

The strength is rooted in the foot, launched by the legs, directed by the waist, passed through the shoulder, and expressed through the fingers.

Now, does the power come from all the massive amounts of strength I'm using? The answer is no. The use of strength (using too much "shoulder") can compensate somewhat for improper structure, but you will rapidly tire (not to mention be slow). Instead, the power of the straight right comes from
two things--speed of execution, and proper structure at the moment of impact.

The classics warn us against the use of clumsy strength.

Proper structure, as outlined above, comes from proper body alignment, which in turn, creates "stiffness" from the floor to the fist. This structure is stable and does not give. If the structure is not stiff, then it gives at the moment of impact, and power is not transfered to the target as efficiently as it might be, depending on the amount of give.

Qi passes through the body as a string through the 9 curved pearl

Speed comes from looseness in the body. If you are tight, you move slowly. It's that simple. So, in order to optimize your speed, you have to remain relaxed and loose...until the moment of impact, when everything is nice and stiff.

The body is soft, like a baby. The power is like the cracking of a whip

So, the power in the punch comes from how quickly you can align your body to attain that rigid structure. And that speed comes only from being relaxed until the moment of impact. It's not a matter of muscle strength or just banging away. It's proper body mechanics.

Internally practice the Qi, Externally practice movement

When the internal and the external are united, this is the six directions. When the six harmonies are mastered, thsi is the six ferocities.

The above was not meant to say that all punching mechanics are fundamentally the same at their core (I happen to think they are, but that's a different topic). It does however, demonstrate that the power generation is NOT due primarily to attributes, and rather on executing the proper technique in a bio-mechanically efficient way.

[Merryprankster]

Oh wow. You mean power generation is analgous. geez.

:D

[Braden]

rofl. That was sweet, WD.

I think claiming weight differences disappear in taiji and bagua is a bit misleading. Both of these arts offer mechanics to directly use your body weight to generate power. Obviously, if you have alot of it - youch. Of course, they offer solutions for us smaller lads too.

I think people calling their art 'relaxed' and 'yielding' the way taiji or bagua are is similarly misleading. It's difficult to understand just how relaxed these guys mean by 'relaxed' until you've trained with them. They really mean relaxed though; REALLY relaxed. No kidding. That said, boxing seems to be reasonably compatible with taiji/bagua goals (granted different strategy and all that), compared to many arts which clearly are not - such as the hard chinese styles which directly cultivate tension, and use it as a training method.

[Merryprankster]

I withdraw my comments about "force on force."

However, I still stand by my conviction that a competitive circuit would produce injuries, relaxed or not :)

[Braden]

Ayup. I agree completely. I don't think the 'force on force' stuff was wrong.

Have you heard of William Chen? He is one of the biggest names in taiji in North America, and has adopted alot of boxing. Here's an article from his site if you're interested: http://www.williamccchen.com/3nails.htm .

[Merryprankster]

Yup. I've heard of him.

I really think people underestimate boxing footwork and evasion skills. I mean, the feet don't DO anything else in boxing... so maybe it's not set up for a kick, but they are used to moving and throwing and moving and throwing...

[Braden]

Kicking is for suckers anyway.

[Crimson Phoenix]

I know I mentionned it many times, but here is something coming directly from my bagua sifu: "look at boxers...at high level, they structure their bodies just like we do in bagua, and generate power the same way"
I asked him what was the use of such a long and hard training, why just not do boxing, why didn't he box instead...he said that for him the structure of a boxer's body wasn't as refined as an internal player in the sense that the body is structured in all directions like a baloon, expanding, contracting, with strong body arcs and an open road for power from feet to fingertips.
Boxing for him shares the same mechanism of structuring the body, but stays at a shallower level than chinese internal arts.

[Ray Pina]

I respect boxers.

As for Ba Gua guys. I am training daily for fighting. I do not trade blows everyday tough. I have a few two 18/19 years olds in my neighborhood who box. I'll box with them on Thurs and Sun. for about two hours. Switching off.

I enjoy it. I liek boxing because they keep it simple: hook, upper cut, cross.

I also think there footwork is pretty good because its natural. The head bobbing works, but could be dangerous.

As for kicks being for suckers, you've obviouslyt never had your shin smashed, knee kicked out or even your rib attacked while being distracted with a hand set up. Nit TKD kicking, not body momentum come around the bend roundhouse kicking. Explosive kicking in close.

Don't underestimate that. Hands are for fighting, kicks are for killing. They must work together, like troops and artillary, air support, ect.

Set up. Set up Set up. I'd actually like to do some boxing. I think my teacher would make a greta coach. He fights with the golden gloves in Brooklyn. He's 60. He has some good jaming techniques which were excellent with gloves.

I'm Cuban. Of COarse I love boxing. In fact, I'm getting **** tired of the office politics here and am thinking of trying to find if some paper needs someone to cover boxing. That would be fun.

[apoweyn]

i still can't see much validity in arguments that boxing is less refined or more basic. and i certainly can't agree with the notion that it hinges on force on force (though i think most of us are agreed that this isn't so).

boxing seems to adhere to quite a few ideas on yielding, to my mind. first and foremost, boxing puts at least as much emphasis on evasion (yielding) than blocking. slips consist of taking yourself off of the line of engagement. weaving is a circular pattern made up of a yielding motion and a returning motion. hell, even the boxing practice of constantly being in a low level of motion adheres to daoist theory, to my mind. daoism, to my understanding, suggests that the easiest resolution to a problem can be found before it's a problem at all. worried about being robbed? don't have anything worth taking. problem solved.

boxing is like that. the first level of defending against a punch is to make yourself harder to punch in the first place. before blocking, before weaving, before rolling with it. look at the stats in a boxing match. look at the percentage that actually land. not very high. and that's not because the other guy can't punch.

part of that first line of defense is the constant movement, making targets harder to acquire. and part of it is the defender's ideally constant use of the jab to break the attacker's momentum and rhythm, keep the attacker on guard himself, etc. these are tactics that would make suntzu himself proud, i think. keep your forces mobile so that enemy forces cannot find and attack them. launch constant small attacks to disrupt the enemy's attempts to mobilize its forces. etc.

there's a well known story in daoism about a butcher who never had to sharpen his knife. asked why, he explained that if you were attuned enough with the cut of meat, you could perfectly follow the spaces inherent in it, cutting along them and never meeting resistance. to my mind, that's akin to high-level boxing defense. move in the spaces where there is no resistance. slip into the space on either side of a punch. weave into the space under a punch and circle back into your stance.

frankly, i think high-level boxing is completely ingenious.

one of the things you'll hear from a boxing coach over and over is to circle the opponent. don't back straight up. you'll get on the ropes, or worse yet, in the corner. circle the opponent. eliminate the advantage that his forward momentum lends him.

boxing looks chaotic and brutal. but the nature of that degree of committed fighting is inherently chaotic and brutal. high-level boxing does a good job of honestly addressing that fact.


stuart b.

[Merryprankster]

Ap,

You forgot the part where going straight backwards gets you knocked out by a guy with a big overhand right... :)

[apoweyn]

i think i may have forgotten that precisely because i spent wednesday night moving straight backward and getting pegged with a big overhand right, ironically enough.

:)

[old jong]

I think that there is no difference in the way to applie a technique in say a wing chun style punch or a boxing punch. The heavy conditionning we see in boxing is necessary in competitions to be able to wistand and give hundreds of gloved punches during a multi-rounds match.
A punch should always be relaxed during the motion if speed and focus is desired. Boxers (good boxers!) are always relaxed when punching and know how to use their whole body to produce power. I think ,we share some common things after all!...And also...Beware of these old out of shape ex-boxers!...They might still have heavy power in their punches,even with the big muscles long gone! ;)

[fmann]

I think there are 2 separate arguments/points being discussed here.

1. The principles of body mechanics are refined and analogous, (but not the same), to the principles of power generation found in other MA's. Only the unskilled and the sloppy rely on the strength of youth.

2. Boxers themselves, however, are not "refined" because they never realize the full potential of their motions. They have a 1-track mind - move and punch. Of course, the best boxers have the best movements, slips, bobs, weaves, punches, etc., but they don't realize that their biomechanic principles can give them so much more more if they would learn to kick, throw, etc..

On the limited scale of pure punching, boxing is superior in terms of simplicity and efficiency compared to the hand sets of most MA's, IMHO.

On a larger scale, boxing may limit one's understanding of one's possible full range of expression in pure combat.

[Merryprankster]

fmann- You are correct in that by your statement you argue that boxing is not a complete system... that's not really at issue.
I don't think anybody disagrees with that statement, so it's kind of moot.

To say that boxers are unrefined is a bit far fetched. Boxers may be unrefined "combatants," in the sense that they do not train to deal with kicks and throws. However, they are VERY refined punchers, as you pointed out. To say they don't reach their full potential, biomechanically isn't necessarily true, IMO. They reach full potential punching, which is what boxing is all about. They certainly don't pay attention to the other stuff, unless they cross train, because they aren't doing it for self-defense (at least, I hope not!). I'm trying to avoid the apples/oranges comparison--kicking mechanics are different than throwing mechanics, so to say their mechanics aren't refined depends entirely on what you're talking about. VERY refined punches... not so refined throws...

To say that studying boxing gives you a narrow view... well, that's true of any art. A boxer might say--I'll just knock him out before (x), a TKD guy would say, oh, he'll never get past my kicks, a BJJer might say, hey, I'm not worried, I'll just take him down. That's why, if you are interested in the "self-defense" aspect of boxing, you have to go play with other people to evolve strategies to deal with attacks other than punches.

But as far as the original topic--Boxing mechanics/technique is FANTASTIC--for punching :)

[NafAnal]

This be the third time i've posted it but it's quite relevant; Tim Cartmell's thoughts on boxing lifted from his discussion forum:

"Western boxing is probably the best choice of all the martial arts when it comes to developing practical hand skills in a relatively short amount of time.

Western boxing doesn't need to be 'driven' by anything else, it works just fine as it is. When the Chinese army was researching and developing their hand to hand combat (which later evolved into the modern San Shou/San Da tournament fighting popular today), they researched all the popular forms of martial arts (including their own). The conclusion was that Western boxing hand techniques (when it came to developing practical striking and defensive abilities in a reasonable amount of time) were superior to all others (including their own). Other (Chinese) hand techniques were included to round out the training, but the foundation of San Shou hand techniques is Western boxing. The striking techniques of the IMA (especially Xing Yi Quan) are, in my opinion, on par with Western boxing, but for shear speed of skill development (and practical ability), you can't beat boxing (an interesting side note, the descriptions of generating force described in Jack Dempsy's book, "Championship Fighting," are virtually identical to those in Xing Yi Quan).

A few months of boxing lessons with a good coach will almost certainly be of great value to your training."

And an article on the connection between boxing and CMA:

http://metal-tiger.com/Wu_Tang_PCA/FastLoose.html

[Merryprankster]

Naf,

Preaching to the choir bud!!! :)

[NafAnal]

Another thing slightly OT but why are backfists illegal in boxing?

and why are spinning backfists expressly banned in some kickboxing matches? ch5 kickboxing viewers in the uk will probably know what i'm talking about

[Braden]

EF - I was being a little prolix when I said kicking was for suckers. Of course being a bagua man, or at least trying to be one on a good day, my feet have a habit of seeking out nearby legs all on their own accord. That said, I think moving constantly is still the #1 priority, and I personally like the feel of leg jamming and trapping better than kicking. I'm not sure why you'd say kicks are for killing though... you must have meant elbows. ;)

[NafAnal]

braden plays down his abilities too much

[Ray Pina]

I liek elbows but not in the traditonal sense. Try to elbow my face. Yo can't if I elbow your ribs: the ribs are closer, ****her out then the head which rest in the center of the torso.

Try it with a friend. Have him elbow your head and extend your elbow to his rib cage. Who get's who. Howver, power generated though extending the lbow from shoulder power and hittign with elbow, bridge and palm, now I like that.

As for boxing, I agree 100% its the quickest way to kicking a$$.
As for it not being basic. I can't agree to that, being the art has a total number of blows to choose from that I could count on one had.

Doesn;t mean its bad, in fact that's the reason I like it.

I think we all agree in our own way, but are just being argumentative.


As for why kicks do kill.

Think of the power generated from a kick. You study Ba GUa right?

Think of when you have already broken a person's "horse", structure, whaver you want to call it, if you'r not incorporating your legs at that point, either deystroying the frame, tripping, or breaking them over a trip -- well, that's not complete.

In fact, every step is kick that did not land. Every kick is a step.

[Water Dragon]

E-Fist,
A vertical elbow to the face or upper chest beats a horizontal elbow to the ribs. Go try it.

[Black Jack]

What Water Dragon said,

A arching elbow to the head or upper chest is the prime elbow, on most occasions it will catch something, the same can not be stated for a shot to the ribs, where if the attacker "hollows" you are left with air or at the most a glancing blow.

Not to mention, why would anybody aim for the ribs? There is nothing really going on down in that sector worth the elbows time, if I find myself in the area I may take a shot at the floater, but the head is a much more applicable target in terms high percentage and trauma.

Just my two yen.

[Sharky]

Boxing is great. And Water Dragon is correct.

[Ray Pina]

A vertical elbow is affective. Not arguing that. My point lies a little deeper. Why not: palm/bridge/elbow. Elbow and palm hitting two targets at once. Elbow and bridge stopping incomping hook or strike (which is an attack, not a block) and palm of fist hitting the face or torso. The entire thing continuing through.

This is just a discussion. We can share our experinces. Me, I fight with a WC guy who throws elbows a lot. When he pulls them off they are devestating and rock me to me core. The end the fight. Not that they drop me, but rattle me so much it breaks my flow and he can apply follow up moves which he thankfully doesn't.

But the other times, and these do out weight those, and becomijg more more frequent as I have studied this closely, the elbow gets flipped, and from there, forget the break, but kicks to the now hangng upper torso and head come into play, strikes to the back. When that elbow gets flipped the other can get behind you, and from there its over.

Just something to think about. Elbows are good. Basic elbow, throw the short weapon out, I think, not bad, elementary. And elemnatry my dear Watson won't cut it against someone who fights expecting elbows: ie, as soon as your technique receives a barrier you go to flip the elbow. Raised elbows are bad in general, they break your strong structure (no leverage) and open up your floating rip.

Just my two cents

[Black Jack]

Evolution Fist, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Elementary tools are the best tools around.

Trying to flip an elbow sounds good in theory but in a heated reality it does not work that way, elbows are very fast and they deliver a lot of blunt trauma and forward pressure to whatever they connect, not to mention the fact that no one is going to leave the extended elbow out there for a person to manipulate, they will be working on nailing you with other elbows and strikes.

I would like to see somebody try to flip one of my elbows, elbows are a close quater weapon, used in a clinch they are even more viscous, try being pushed, pulled, slammed, kneed, all the while elbow strikes are raining down on you, either you start hitting back or you get put down.

By the way, how do you allow "devasting" elbow strikes in your sparring?????

Muay Thai and Lethawae fighters don't even do this?

I think that I spar pretty hard and yet we do not allow head contact elbows due to their very serious ability to deliver damage, the only time we do that is when we are using serious protective gear, i.e. motorcycle helmet, and even then to use your words, you get rocked.

A elbow does not require a lot of force to do a lot of damage, I once witness a training partners nose get smashed/broken by just a graze in a elbow/cqc/clinching drills.

[Merryprankster]

I have trained with Khun Kao on elbows, and I have no idea what kind of elbow strikes other people train with, but the elbows I learned from him (however poorly), involve a tight rigid structure like a boxer's hook. I really don't know how you would simply move the elbow around if you were on the receiving end.

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
I have trained with Khun Kao on elbows, and I have no idea what kind of elbow strikes other people train with, but the elbows I learned from him (however poorly), involve a tight rigid structure like a boxer's hook. I really don't know how you would simply move the elbow around if you were on the receiving end.

Rephrase the ????. I think I have an answer, but I want to make sure I understand what you're asking about first.

[Merryprankster]

WD,

It's not really a question, it's more of a statement. The elbows that I have trained in seem to be more like a battering ram than something that can be moved around easily. I don't see how they could be manipulated. Avoided or blocked perhaps, but not parried/redirected.

[Water Dragon]

OK, Sure.
To make this a nice theoretical example, lets assume you and I are faced off and your fire a vertical elbow at my chest, you're aiming at the middle of my sternum. By vertical, I'm referring to an elbow that works mechanically like an uppercut.

Point 1. If you can fire this off, I can work from the clinch. Since you wrestle, I'm sure you know that when we are in physical contact, if you are going to attack, I'm going to feel that.

Point 2. I'm not going to avoid or move your elbow around. I'm going to trap it (so I can throw you) and try toavoid as much of the power as possible.

So, as you fire off, the first thing I'm going to do is try and get out of the way. I might take a step back, I might try to hollow out the chest so I don't take the full force, probably I'll do a combination.

While I'm doing that, I'm going to try and get my hand in the crook of your elbow and squeeze it to my chest. If I can get that, then I CAN move your elbow around. I can move it around by moving my whole torso around. What I want to do is move it so that I break you're structure so I can throw you.

As far as parry, redirect, I agree. That's not what I want to do. But, I can parry or redirct by evading, not being there when you throw it. Of course, my ability to sense you move has to be higher than your ability to fire that thing off. Again, it comes down to who's better and who can make the other guy play their game.

[Merryprankster]

Ok, that I can envision.

Me, I'd avoid, or block, then close the gap. Screw hooking the elbow :) I'd use tight chest to chest pressure to avoid the space to create the shot.

Different terminology--I don't consider evasion/hollowing to be redirection.... just avoidance. But that's all semantics :)

[Braden]

Naf - Man you can never please everyone, can you. ;)

EvFist - I think it's easy to get carried away with 'every step is a kick' and dedicating yourself to 'complete attacks.' It's easy to get 'goal-oriented' when you think like that.

If I'm picturing what you're calling palm-bridge-elbow right, it's what alot of bagua people call piercing. It's certainly a good technique; actually it's the staple, most basic offense/defense in every bagua system I've seen, that I can recall off-hand. But it's far from infallible! When I say elbows, I'm not talking about standing at range and launching elbows for you to pierce through, that would be silly!

Simple = good. Piercing = simple. If only simple = easy, we'd all be set.

[CannonFist]

About Tyson being a beast. Often people don't realise that Tyson is not merely a brawler relying on brute strength. Watch the fights of his younger days, his bobbing and weaving skills are textbook style. I regard him as one of the top 'peak a boo' technicians in the history of boxing. So it would be a mistake to think that boxers only exchange blows toe to toe, they are experts at evasion. Also who can forget Ali whose evasive footwork was described as floating like a butterfly.

Internal arts talk about looseness. However many boxers that I have trained with are much looser than some taiji exponents. For some taiji exponents, just because they are moving slowly and their technics are soft they think that they have achieved 'sung'.

[Mutant]

MP i agree with your thesis. Good thread.