Boxing as a Martial Art

[Laplace_demon]

That's called showmanship. Sells tickets.

That's not true. Ali went into great detail, even displayed it to the public. He was right too.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Is that why Ali ridiculed Foremans punching?

Ali ridiculed Foreman as a form of psychological warfare and also to get press attention. Even granting that Ali was better the better fighter (at least on October 30 1974), that doesn't mean Foreman's technical level wasn't high. Ali was a better fighter than 99.99% of the strikers on the planet.

There is nothing wrong with my English. Boxing is very generic in the context of punching proficiency. Some are truyl awful, while others are truly great.

That isn't at all what "generic" means. The phrase you are looking for is "highly variable."

Of course there is a huge range of skill among boxers, just as there is among karateka, judoka, or any other type of martial artist. Your mistake is pointing to boxers at the world champion level and saying that this one or that one is not technically proficient. The least technical world champion boxer ever is much more technical than most martial artists will ever be. You may not have the background to recognize what they are doing technically. but the skill set is there.

 

[Transk53]

Interesting note about boxing is that it's been around for a lot longer than many of the styles of MA we all currently train. Off the top of my head (so forgive a few decades here and there), most MA styles were codified in around the early 20th century. Judo goes back to the late 1800s. And all are preceded by the Marquess of Queensbury rules for boxing, which came around, i think the mid-1800s. There were boxing rules even well before that governing the bareknuckle bouts.

Reputedly the Romans boxed. Some of the stuff I have read would say that roundhouse type punches, or swingers whatever you want call it were used, but with accuracy from the arm. However the Legionary would use dirty tricks like strike the adams apple. Stands to reason to me that a straight punch would be among so many soldiers, thugs and plebs alike.

 

[Laplace_demon]

Ali ridiculed Foreman as a form of psychological warfare and also to get press attention. Even granting that Ali was better the better fighter (at least on October 30 1974), that doesn't mean Foreman's technical level wasn't high. Ali was a better fighter than 99.99% of the strikers on the planet.

Of course there is a huge range of skill among boxers, just as there is among karateka, judoka, or any other type of martial artist. Your mistake is pointing to boxers at the world champion level and saying that this one or that one is not technically proficient. The least technical world champion boxer ever is much more technical than most martial artists will ever be. You may not have the background to recognize what they are doing technically. but the skill set is there.

To say that the worst high level boxer is better than a non boxer, is really not saying much at all. Of course I agree, but that doesn't mean that they are quote "Good".

Ali ridiculed Foreman on a technical level, mind you. And the match showed that Foreman did not land much significant blows.

 

[Orange Lightning]

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.

I totally understand. I misconvey myself all the time. By all means, if you have an opinion of any kind, regardless if you think it's wrong or not, I think it can do one good to post it here. Either get corrected or confirmed. Either way, get information discussed at a higher level than you could have found alone.

Lets ask Wikipedia!

"The earliest known depiction of boxing comes from a Sumerian relief from the 3rd millennium BC.[1] Later depictions from the 2nd millennium BC are found in reliefs from the Mesopotamian nations of Assyria and Babylonia, and in Hittite art from Asia Minor. The earliest evidence for fist fighting with any kind of gloves can be found on Minoan Crete (c. 1500–900 BC), and on Sardinia, if we consider the boxing statues of Prama mountains (c. 2000–1000 BC).[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing#Early_history

 

[Tony Dismukes]

To say that the worst high level boxer is better than a non boxer, is really not saying much at all. Of course I agree, but that doesn't mean that they are quote "Good".

My exact phrasing was: "The least technical world champion boxer ever is much more technical than most martial artists will ever be." That means more technical than most boxers, most karateka, most TKD practitioners, and most Kung Fu exponents. I think that would indeed qualify them as being "good."

Ali ridiculed Foreman on a technical level, mind you. And the match showed that Foreman did not land much significant blows.

Well it's a good thing that Foreman's legacy as a boxer doesn't rest on his match with Ali. Foreman's accomplishments include:

Olympic gold medalist
Professional record of 76-5, with 68 of his wins by knockout.
A KO victory over Ken Norton, who beat Ali once and took him to a split decision on the rematch.
2x world champion
The oldest heavyweight world champion ever. (At the time he was the oldest world champion in any weight class, but Bernard Hopkins has since taken that distinction.)

Trust me - there's a lot of technique that went into those achievements.

 

[Transk53]

I totally understand. I misconvey myself all the time. By all means, if you have an opinion of any kind, regardless if you think it's wrong or not, I think it can do one good to post it here. Either get corrected or confirmed. Either way, get information discussed at a higher level than you could have found alone.

Lets ask Wikipedia!

"The earliest known depiction of boxing comes from a Sumerian relief from the 3rd millennium BC.[1] Later depictions from the 2nd millennium BC are found in reliefs from the Mesopotamian nations of Assyria and Babylonia, and in Hittite art from Asia Minor. The earliest evidence for fist fighting with any kind of gloves can be found on Minoan Crete (c. 1500–900 BC), and on Sardinia, if we consider the boxing statues of Prama mountains (c. 2000–1000 BC).[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing#Early_history

Very interesting. Reliefs, yes I thinking of looking for some Roman ones but did not find too much. And of course they tend to be romanticized. I will have a look at that linkage tonight at home

 

[drop bear]

I think it depends on who's boxing. 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. In other martial arts, they at least try to approximate an ideal. But not boxers.

It is judged on function and not form.

 

[Laplace_demon]

It is judged on function and not form.

That's my point. TMA is not like that to the same degree.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

It is judged on function and not form.

That's my point. TMA is not like that to the same degree.

Function is a result of technique.

 

[Laplace_demon]

Function is a result of technique.

Tell that to Rocky Marciano. You can play semantic tricks all you like. If you define what works as great technique, then we aren't talking about technique in the normal sense anymore.

 

[Transk53]

I totally understand. I misconvey myself all the time. By all means, if you have an opinion of any kind, regardless if you think it's wrong or not, I think it can do one good to post it here. Either get corrected or confirmed. Either way, get information discussed at a higher level than you could have found alone.

Lets ask Wikipedia!

"The earliest known depiction of boxing comes from a Sumerian relief from the 3rd millennium BC.[1] Later depictions from the 2nd millennium BC are found in reliefs from the Mesopotamian nations of Assyria and Babylonia, and in Hittite art from Asia Minor. The earliest evidence for fist fighting with any kind of gloves can be found on Minoan Crete (c. 1500–900 BC), and on Sardinia, if we consider the boxing statues of Prama mountains (c. 2000–1000 BC).[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing#Early_history

This Sir, is just brilliant. You know what, I searched Wiki and this never came back. The murals are very compelling. Perhaps now I was right that despite some very good fiction stories, that some Legionaries, would have been hit and miss, just completely lethal killing machines. I have tried to imagine the mind set and feeling of that, but that was just too scary even for me. Anyway pretty sure one of those boxers would have been bird food.

 

[Transk53]

Tell that to Rocky Marciano. You can play semantic tricks all you like. If you define what works as great technique, then we aren't talking about technique in the normal sense anymore.

No, he still had function. If it would have been just technique, he would got have knocked thinking about how they the hell to throw a functional punch

 

[Laplace_demon]

No, he still had function. If it would have been just technique, he would got have knocked thinking about how they the hell to throw a functional punch

And before he was Marciano the world champion, his way of doing it would have most likely been deemed dubious.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Tell that to Rocky Marciano. You can play semantic tricks all you like. If you define what works as great technique, then we aren't talking about technique in the normal sense anymore.

Well, you don't seem to be talking about technique in the normal sense, that's certainly true.

When I talk about technique in this context, I am talking about a functional methodology for landing damaging strikes against a tough, skilled opponent while minimizing the damage one takes in return without relying on superior physical attributes such as size or strength. This includes, but is not limited to: footwork, timing, accuracy, efficiency, body dynamics, and ring savvy.

How are you defining technique?

 

[Transk53]

And before he was Marciano the world champion, his way of doing it would have most likely been deemed dubious.

Why?

 

[elder999]

And before he was Marciano the world champion, his way of doing it would have most likely been deemed dubious.

How does Marciano's style differ from Jack Dempsey's? They were both in fighters, and Marciano's particular type was necessitated by his shorter reach, so.........

 

[Laplace_demon]

The Jack Dempsey fights looked attrocious from my perspective. When did I ever say he was a role model?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The Jack Dempsey fights looked attrocious from my perspective. When did I ever say he was a role model?

You said that Marciano's way of doing things would have been considered dubious before he became world champion. Dempsey was world champion decades prior to Marciano, using the same sort of approach. Who exactly are you saying would have considered the style dubious when it had proven success?

 

[Laplace_demon]

You said that Marciano's way of doing things would have been considered dubious before he became world champion. Dempsey was world champion decades prior to Marciano, using the same sort of approach. Who exactly are you saying would have considered the style dubious when it had proven success?

No, no. Marciano in modern times.