I don't care about him.
That says it all.
Actually he might have been a blue belt! Anyway, doesn't matter. Belt indications are about as indicative as Astrology signs. Silly system.
In their context, Kup and Dan grades are fine.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't care about him.
Actually he might have been a blue belt! Anyway, doesn't matter. Belt indications are about as indicative as Astrology signs. Silly system.
That says it all.
In their context, Kup and Dan grades are fine.
No. There are 3rd Dans who can't kick. Bas Rutten is one who happens to agree with me. He even commented on it in a broadcast.
Bas Rutten is one who happens to agree with me. He even commented on it in a broadcast.
No to all belts. You said it yourself, every person is unique and that includes natural ability.
There are incompetent but qualified people in every field you might care to name. Doesn't make qualifications invalid.
Agree, but I have met way more competent Kukkiwon certified than I have incompetent ones.There would have to be a percentage that makes them suspect.
I just see boxing as a intrinsic core ability. In the playing ground, a kid naturally strikes out with his fist, he will not go through a routine of forms. Just my personal take in simplistic terms.
I can't rightly explain it, but I understand where you're coming from on this subject. But I agree with the rest here that it is no lesser or easier to learn than anything else. The sentiment that boxing is overly simplistic would be to misunderstand boxing.
I do have to wonder though, to what degree it could be instinctive or easier to learn for some people. Particularly from a certain region or heritage. Boxing has been around since....well, history.
This is why I have to be very careful with how I convey myself, I still usually get it wrong. Anyway, I did not mean boxing is simplistic, that's me trying to put a point across that a majority may understand. Obviously I cannot tell someone with a high degree of experience with martial arts what I mean, when I don't have that myself. Obviously I am still resolute with my belief and opinions thereafter, and so I should be. Obviously to another reader there will be times where something that I post seems contradictory, of course though that would be reading the diverse collection of thoughts and information on these forums, a good majority being that I don't have a bloody clue about a lot of it, but I still try to convert that into what I can understand. No doubt a lot of the time I am wrong. There are styles of martial arts written about around here that I have never even heard of like many novices. But it is what it is. I am what I am. I believe what I believe.
Got no issues at all with boxing a martial art, or not being a martial art. I suppose to really know how far boxing as a whole goes back through known history, would be to compare with a martial art that goes back through known history. I had an argument with someone once regarding what the Romans did. A form of boxing, or just street fighting kind of thing. I still mean to delve deeper at some point.
Mike Tyson fought technically and fast. George Foreman only clubbed, hammered and threw everything but the kitchen sink
Unlike martial arts in general, Western Boxing tends to be very generic as to technical skill level.
If you don't recognize that George Foreman had a level of technical skill far beyond that of most martial artists you will ever encounter, then you are definitely missing a lot.
I think your English is letting you down here - that sentence doesn't convey a comprehensible meaning. Could you rephrase to explain the point you are trying to make?
Is that why Ali ridiculed Foremans punching? The guy rarely landed anything on him and was slow. There is nothing wrong with my English. Boxing is very generic in the context of punching proficiency. while others are truly great. People always want to mention the very best in favour of Boxing, when it's far from how it looks overall.
Unlike martial arts in general, Western Boxing tends to be very generic as to technical skill level.
Do you mean that is why some boxers learn combinations with a very good jab philosophy, and the punchers go for the power?
Surely that would apply to others as well generally. You have so many punches in boxing, so many strikes in karate, so many grapples in jiu jitsu. Is it all not generic after being formulated?
Has nothing to do with style. Tysons technical level was very high.
Successful Karate/TKD fighters and high technical level correlate heavily. The same is not true for Boxing. Marciano was labelled a complete amateur in technical terms by Joe Lous, ahead of their fight, yet was a warrior and could still pack it in. Louis swore to give up boxing, or something to that effect if he didn't beat him.
Is that why Ali ridiculed Foremans punching?