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.
