# A Question For Any Boxers On The Forum



## MJS (Jun 22, 2010)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=88170

I had a request to link the above thread here, for feedback.  Please feel free to comment here, or in the other thread.  Basically, to give a quick breakdown of what the question is...in the other thread, we were discussing boxing, and whether or not it would be a help or hinderance, to the art of Kenpo.  There are some that feel that its a good thing, and others feel that its not needed.

Anyways, looking forward to any opinions.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 22, 2010)

it would be greatly appreciated! Boxing Vs. "Karate" debates (and fights) back in the day were really exciting! :asian:


----------



## knuckleheader (Jun 23, 2010)

This debate will go on for ever. The few constants I can think of are these..

It's not the art, it's the individual. Train hard of course. But, you will never 

be the toughest person on the street. In a self defense situation, there 

are no rules. The "weaker" one can win.

Train smart and be careful of where you go. Ous!


----------



## Skpotamus (Jul 3, 2010)

I think training boxing can help ANY martial art.  If nothing else, the sparring at every boxing gym I've been too was a LOT harder contact than ANY dojo I've ever been to, plus, it's with guys used to that level of contact who don't flinch when the punches start flying.  This lets you get used to hard contact which will let you do things you otherwise might flinch from for fear of getting hit.  

One thing I did try out when I started kickboxing was to try out things from my styles against my partners.  They knew I was gonna try other stuff and let me try while pounding the snot out of me.  This was after I'd gotten comfortable enough there to do well in sparring with them under their rules.  Found out real quick that lots of the stuff didn't work so well against the kickboxing/boxing foundation.  Most of the blocks didn't work well or at all.  I also had to modify some of the strikes to shorten them up to get them to land.  Anything that involved more of a swinging motion didn't land against the guys that had been there for more than a few months without drastic modification and range change from what I had been taught.  Most of the strikes ended up getting dropped while facing the kb guys under general KB/boxing rules as the risk/reward ratio was too high.  

Others might find that things in their systems work well for them without modification, or not at all.  I think pressure testing like that against an established system that produces good fighters is part of making your art YOURS instead of the traditional, generic form you get taught by your instructor (or worse, having them show you THEIR art and try to make you conform to it). Making the modifications so that it works for your body type with your physical attributes is a very real part of training that is supposed to take place after your black belt test, but something that most people never do.


----------



## Lee Mainprize (Jul 6, 2011)

Did you ever see the old videos of Ali against the Japanese wrestler or the Wrestler against the American Kickboxer?  I wonder if they are still around on youtube.

If you see the wrestling one - he spends most of his time on his back.....I guess they where more exhibition any how - but these topics do get people really interested.

Guess thats why mma really took off!


----------



## Buka (Jul 6, 2011)

*Help or hinderance......hmmm. It depends on a lot of things. Is this a rookie Kenpo student? It could mess him/her up. Could confuse him by contrasting ways things are taught, about principles of motion, about self defense, but most importantly, about honor.*
*
Is this a brown belt with hard training under his belt? One that goes to an &#8220;old school&#8221; Kenpo school? Then it might depend on the boxing gym, for boxing gyms are as different as martial arts schools. *
*
Is this a Kenpo black belt, a true dojo rat who knows his way around a throw down?*

*I just stopped and read what I just wrote. It's all baloney. This question should be left for Kenpo men and Kenpo men only. (or women)*


----------



## Thesemindz (Jul 6, 2011)

At our school we teach our students basic boxing techniques in the beginner class. Jab, cross, hook, uppercut, bob and weave, hi and mid cover positions. We don't pretend to teach Western Boxing itself, but we teach the basic actions as an introduction to mid range hand fighting.

It isn't intended to be comprehensive. But we definitely feel that the basic techniques both compliment and augment our student's approach to spontaneous combat.

I think it largely depends on what the intention of your training is. We practice a kind of "street MMA," where the students learn to fight at all ranges and levels with hands and feet and weapons against single and multiple opponents in a variety of environments. Part of that is learning how to cover and strike with the hands at mid range, hence, the boxing.

I'm a big believer in it. I think kenpo schools should definitely be doing at least a little boxing as a regular part of their training. Partly for their offense, but also for their defense. Basic boxing techniques are common and recognizable attacks the practitioner might encounter during an assault. Understanding how to use them helps the students understand how to defend against them.

It's just one part of a comprehensive curriculum. We also teach ground fighting, and karate style fighting, and street fighting, and weapon work, and a lot of other skills. The boxing is a part of the method, but not the whole of it.


-Rob


----------



## Jenna (Jul 7, 2011)

Thesemindz said:


> It's just one part of a comprehensive curriculum. We also teach ground fighting, and karate style fighting, and street fighting, and weapon work, and a lot of other skills. The boxing is a part of the method, but not the whole of it.



That is a very concise and well worded answer to the question  Thank you.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 7, 2011)

It is interesting too reading through these older threads.

I think this is a question of two parts: would boxing endurance training  benefit another striking art? and would boxing techniques benefit  another art?

I would say definitely yes to the former since boxing training will  without any doubt increase your cardio endurance, your stamina, your  lightness and speed of foot and your striking speed.

As to the latter, I would say a very guarded yes.  I think the teaching  of boxing strikes might counteract normal Kenpo mechanics (though I am  not knowledgeable in kenpo matters so excuse me if this is not right).   For example a straight front strike / jab.  I believe in Kenpo, in  common with many other arts, this strike derives power up from the hips,  and then proceeds at constant velocity to the target yes?  And whilst a  punch is a punch in many cases, in boxing, we try to bring power right  up through the toes and calves (which will be extremely well developed  through jump rope drills etc.) to a point at the fist where it has to  snap out.  If the punch does not snap out then the max power will not be  there for the delivery.  

Use of gloves facilitates omni-directional punching whereas I have seen  (in order to reduce injury) kenpoists would rotate the fist palm up for a  high strike eg. head.

Anyway what I mean is that it would require a trainer who would  understand the differences before just slinging in boxing techniques and  ruining smooth Kenpo training progression.  

Boxing endurance training methods on the other hand will benefit any  martial artist.  Boxing training tools are so simple and yet produce  such quick and effective results. I have been an advocate of jump rope  for many years. 

Thank you.


----------



## ryan007 (Jul 7, 2011)

I have just started Kickboxing, having previously trained in Aikido. Simply i love it, if i could i would be training 7 nights a week. Its getting me fit, something that Aikido doesnt really do and ive discovered that it is possible for me to get my legs higher than my waist. Its just technique! are there any other kickboxers out there?

Regards


Ryan


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 7, 2011)

In my expeience (and mine alone) most boxers I know would absolutely trash any trad MAist I know. Thats because when boxers train they are actually hitting people and getting hit in return. That experience alone trumps most "mechanical" debates I have ever seen.

Sure some boxers may break their hands when punching someone w/o wraps, but they probably wouldn't notice it till the other guy was packed up in the ambulance.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 7, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> In my expeience (and mine alone) most boxers I know would absolutely trash any trad MAist I know. Thats because when boxers train they are actually hitting people and getting hit in return. That experience alone trumps most "mechanical" debates I have ever seen.



But this is really a separate issue, is it not? Is it because the boxing methods/techniques are superior, or is it because the training habits of the boxers are held to a higher standard and/or are trained more realistically than the particular traditional folks you know?

If it is the former, then it's a clear win (hypothetically). If it is the latter, then the real answer is simply that the traditional folks need to change their approach to how they train, and not their system's technical methods.

It's easy to jump to the conclusion that boxing/kickboxing are somehow superior systems because of their ability to use their stuff. But that may not be the truth of it. It might simply be a matter of training intensity. Anybody from any system can ramp up the training intensity and develop a similar ability to use their stuff, assuming that their system and their understanding of their system, is well designed and is not somehow fundamentally flawed.

Boxing/kickboxing does have an inherent advantage in that I believe they have a smaller curriculum of techniques than many of the traditional systems. The ability to spend more time honing a more streamlined curriculum does have a certain advantage. But the streamlined curriculum can be a disadvantage in other cases. Seems that boxing and kick boxing, being that they are focused on sporting type encounters, lack controlling and joint locking type techniques (assuming boxing and kick boxing alone, not as part of a curriculum in an MMA school that would probably include grappling of some type). In a civilian self defense situation, these kinds of techniques may be useful and more appropriate under certain circumstances. A traditional art that includes these kinds of skills would have the advantage under those circumstances. 

Calling one art better than another is problematic in other ways. It assumes that the traditional martial artist, in a street self defense situation, is going to square off against the boxer or kick boxer. This kind of assumes that one of these highly trained martial artists is going to be the aggressor and "troublemaker" on the street. It's a possibility, but honestly I don't believe that Mike Tyson is the guy I am going to need to defend myself against; he's not the guy who's going to try and jump me for my lunch money when I'm on my way to work in the morning. As to the guy who MAY try to jump me, I don't believe it's likely that he's going to be a highly trained boxer or kick boxer. He could be, but I think the odds are highly against it. So getting concerned over this kind of matchup is something that maybe doesn't make a lot of sense in the big picture. It just isn't a reason to compare the styles.

There's another issue at play here that my student and I were discussing just the other day. He recently had opportunity to travel in China, and took a number of classes with some very high level Bagua people. These people are the top of their game, extremely skilled in their art, and very formidable no matter how you look at it. After a couple weeks of daily classes with them, my student's assessment was that for him, he felt the system is too complicated, the techniques require a high deal of precision and setup that may not be realistic in a chaotic fighting encounter on the street. As a method, he didn't feel he could ever develop the necessary skill to use bagua, even if he diligently studied it over a long period of time.

This sparked our discussion and it occured to us that in the past, there were "professional" martial artists in old China, people who acted as bodyguards, caravan guards, local political muscle, etc. These people's lives and livlihoods depended on their martial skills, so they trained constantly, day-in and day-out, with a brutal level of realism. These people had risen to a level of competency with these traditional martial arts that people today will never reach. Practicing even two hours a day every day which is probably on the high end of what most lay people today can accomplish, just isn't enough to really develop the skill with some of these traditional methods. Those Bagua people that my student took classes with, they are in a unique position to actually train all day, every day. The head teacher has teaching duties in Chinese law enforcement, so he spends all day long honing his application skills on police officers of all shapes and sizes and skill levels, under the premise that he is teaching them. He is in a rare position to actually approach the kind of skill level that those in the past possessed. 

So it boils down to the fact that there is a level of skill that is simply missing in many traditional schools, because the realities and demands of modern society prevent people from training the way one needs to, in order to develop the true potential that those systems have. In short, the problems lie not in the traditional systems, rather it's the shortcomings of how people train in those systems.

Does this mean that the traditional method should be discarded? I dunno. I do know that it means that for many people, depending on what their needs and motivations and natural inclinations may be with regards to training in martial arts, these methods may not be appropriate for them. But I think for others, they are a good matchup and are appropriate, but the problems and shortcomings inherent in these realities ought to be recognized and clearly understood. It drives me crazy to see people talk about their very brief experience with XYZ style that has a historical reputation for being extremely effective, and they now believe that having spent a little time training in that style, by default they must have formidable skills. They do not, and I can tell by watching them for about 10 seconds that just about anybody could flatten them in a moment. People like to fool themselves.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 7, 2011)

I think it's a mixture of both. IMO (and mine alone)..when it comes to real "self defense", the gross motor movements of straight up punching and kicking (and even wrestling) is what people are going to revert to. Trad trained or not.

I'll break out this video again as an example:

[yt]qgHTJ760GBQ[/yt]

Some movements/techniques are more likely to be reverted to under stress. Boxers/MMA guys have the added benefit of training techniques likely used under stress in the actual environment of stress. Joint locks? While handy when trying to cuff those "maybe" people. They are all but useless in a full blown brawl (IMO).

I'd wager that if I put any MA'ist into the ring you would see more in common with boxing/wrestling than you would with trad arts. Loyoto Machida is an interesting example of Trad Karate in a real "shooting war" type of example. Someone watching it with no training may not see the Karate in what he does...those who do can. But it still doesn't look like the tratitional stuff some people have been conditioned to believe in.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 7, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I think it's a mixture of both. IMO (and mine alone)..when it comes to real "self defense", the gross motor movements of straight up punching and kicking (and even wrestling) is what people are going to revert to. Trad trained or not.
> 
> I'll break out this video again as an example:
> 
> ...



I'm at work and video is blocked here so I cannot see it, but you make some good points here.  

One thing that has become clear to me about traditional arts is that when it comes to actually using them, they are NOT stylized.  My art is a great example of this.  I train Tibetan White Crane system.  Our training methodology is inspired in some ways from observations of cranes in the wild, but when it comes to actually using it, we DO NOT intend to "fight like a bird".  

That bird-inspired training methodology is designed to teach is a specific way of engaging the full body to power all of our techniques.  That is really it, that is the main point.  Those training methods are somewhat "stylized", but they are just a training tool used to develop and engrain a method in the body.  When it comes to using it, it looks like anything else.  The difference, what cannot be seen by the untrained eye, is that even tho it may LOOK like what everyone else is doing, that full body engagement is still going on underneath it all, that is where the power comes from.

So when you say that someone like Machida has traditional karate in the competition ring, for those who are educated properly to see it, I am not at all surprise.


----------



## teekin (Jul 20, 2011)

This is a timely discussion for me. I am having problems with karate striking. It just seems counter-intuative to me. The meachanics of theowing a western style boxing strike where the momentum starts from your feet and you use your hips and shoulder to really drive the punch through make sense to me. Not only in a cognitive sense but it "feels" correct. When it all comes together and you connect with the target the kinetik feedback will tell you that "yes, this was a correct strike, all the power sinks into 1 spot". With a karate strike, at least as I am taught them, the power generation is much less intuative and in all honesty when I seem to be doing it "correctly" I can forsee shoulder joint and elbow joint problems down the road. I would need to build up the muscles surrounding those joints if I expect to continue striking in that fashion. In Boxing the reppetition, even when not striking hard, builds up the correct striking muscles but doesn't seem to impact the joints. 
 The blocks seem to work to some degree but I worry about how effective they would be against a much stronger striker or someone determine to hit me. I think this is because I am misguided in my Karate technique but cutting down effective range but getting inside or outside range seems smarter that blocking over and over with the same spot ( I really learned to dislike bone on bone blocks, I allmost allways come out on the losing end:vu: ).

Rebutal???

Lori


----------

