Also, just like the other thread about 'Combat proven martial arts......' recently. Everyone wants me to name names. I understand why, since it would clear things up as to what I'm talking about.
Well, just as in the other thread I was stating that not all martial arts are equally effective. And I don't mean in different contexts. I mean that some styles I would naturally assume are actually superior to other styles. I still think a good example of this would be, Modern western boxing. And Thai Boxing.
I think that the style of Western Boxing is an inferior fighting system when compared to Thai Boxing.
Many people in the other thread were disagreeing with me that, of course a boxer is able to defeat a Thai boxer, and that it depends on the person. I agree with this to an extent. However I'm not talking about a bout with Queensbury rules or Muay Thai rules. I mean as a 'fighting system' in general. For ALL circumstances and probabilities. The more tools (techniques, conditioning, methodology) in a style you have, the better. A kick-boxer has an edge over a boxer. I would imagine that if you could run a program where (everything being equal, height, weight, experience, heart) you have a boxer face a Thai boxer in a near infinite amount of scenarios, the Thai boxer would win the majority of the time.
The only issue that I have in what you are saying is that western boxing is a sport and not a 'fighting system.' Like I said in a previous post, nobody cares if football can beat boxing. Nobody cares if boxing can beat judo. The boxer surely doesn't care; he's paid based on beating other boxers and not on whether or not he can beat some guy who trains in a different fighting sport.
As for whether or not a boxer can beat a Muy Thai fighter, it depends on the boxer. It isn't a question of the MT guy having more tools to use or the boxer having less, but how well one can manage a fight and use what he or she does have to the best advantage while keeping their opponent from doing the same.
So, does a kickboxer have an edge over a boxer? Maybe. Depends on the kickboxer. If the boxer is a good infighter, those kicks are far less of a factor. Ring management is a skill that, like awareness and common sense in SD, is separate from the physical tools of the trade.
Then there's the question of style familiarity. If the boxer is familiar with kickboxing or Thai boxing but the kickboxer or Thai boxer is not familiar with Western boxing, then the boxer now has an edge.
To make a long story short, when I watch boxing, I watch boxing and I really don't sit and evaluate whether or not boxing beats other fighting sports or martial arts because ... its boxing. LIke I said, nobody cares if NFL football beats Association football; they're different sports that share a name.
If I want to see a sport breadth of techniques from different styles, I'll watch the UFC. Only then, I evaluate the athletes, not the styles. I don't really care what the athlete has trained in. I care how he or she is able to apply what they've been trained in within the rule set.
But again, we're talkin' sports.
As far as fighting systems for ALL circumstances and probabilities, I don't really think that such a thing exists with any effectiveness (my opinion). There are fighting systems that encompass multiple fighting ranges, but none that will prepare you for ALL circumstances and probabilities. If you search for that, then you are searching for the alchemical means of turning base metals into precious metals.
In the same way that a platoon that uses cover and concealment as there 'style' will have an edge over a platoon that marches forward into battle as a marching unit. Right?
Depends on what the platoon is doing. Not being a military strategist, I'll leave this one for someone else.
And about 'naming styles', any martial art that has overwhelming amounts of supernatural lore ( i've seen it in aikido, systema, combat ki, pressure point styles, etc. ) , or unrealistic movements is kind of 'suspect' to me. I am very critical of many fighting methods, and just trying to look at them all OBJECTIVELY.
About the supernatural styles that involve things like spirit and qi etc., can anyone point me to any scientific testing to their validity. If there is 'something' there, we can likely measure it.
Not familiar with systema or combat ki. Pressure points do exist. Not in some kind of mystical 'interrupt the flow of ki' sort of way, but in terms of points on the body that pressure can be applied to in order to effect pain or incapacitation. Pressure points are not a panacea, however, as those techniques will not work equally on all people. Kind of like the magic groin shot; some guys will be left lying on the floor. Others will just be more annoyed with you than they were before you took the shot.
Aikido techniques are not unique to aikido. Technique wise, you'll find the same techniques that are in aikido in quite a few other arts. You're talking joint locks, throws, sweeps, and takedowns. I think that the major criticisms of aikido center around the level of realism in the training. On the other hand, a lot of aikidoka are in aikido for personal development, self improvement and quality of life with little interest in whether or not they can beat up boxers. So, they benefit from taking aikido. They enjoy aikido. Their quality of life is improved because of aikido. They probably have as good a chance of using what they learned in class against an attacker who is not a trained fighter (the majority of attackers) as most martial arts students of other arts do.
The fact that they may have no competitive attitude may actually aid them in avoiding being placed in a circumstance where they'll be fighting. And they'll get all kind of cool Japanese vocabulary and traditions along with a flowing hakama to boot. If that is what the student is after, then I find no fault.
Keep in mind that for many, going to work the day after class covered in bruises is not an option.
Daniel
(sm
g) [SIZE=-2]KEY[/SIZE]
Sorry, I shouldn't have let that happen. Thnx, I didn't notice. 
... etcetera.
