One thing that occurred to me in this discussion, from which I'm learning a lot, is that there seems to be a lot of respect for people trained as boxers, due to the way they train; lots of footwork drills, strong punching, used to taking hits and pain.
I guess my question is, does anyone train their MA like that? Why or why not?
I try to train this way, Jay, but it's very difficult to find people willing to do it, and it's probably dicey for an MA school to do this systematically. I've been thinking about why this is and this is my undocumented, impressionistic
hunch about the answer.
I suspect that historically, people who have gone into boxing seriously have come from hardscrabble, tough backgrounds where the main form of `conflict resolution', as Meadow Soprano delicately puts in a comment about a nasty physical attack by one mafia footsoldier on another one, involves smashing something breakable in someone else's face and kicking their ribs in while they're on the ground clutching their heads. I've known a couple of boxers and both of them came from New York City neighborhoods that were
extremely rough. For these guys, there was never a question about what the really important combat range was: toe-to-toe, and may the hardest puncher win. Most of the people I've known in the MAs, on the contrary, come from fairly comfortable middle class households or in some cases from upwardly mobile blue-collar areas, places where violence, though not completely unknown, isn't an always-present fact of life.
This difference in class origins is reflected in media treament of boxing vs. karate/gung fu/etc. Movies tend not to glorify or mystify boxing; on the contrary, it's typically presented as gritty and exploitive at best and corrupt and self-destructive at worst (not sure about the
Rocky series, and there are exceptions—
Here Comes Mr. Jordan, but that wasn't exactly a typical boxing (or typical
anything) movie). Asian MAs on the contrary are romanticized and depicted in an essentially legendary light in just about every example (good or bad) of the genre that I can think of. You don't get boxing trainers and coaches uttering cryptic koan-like pieces of wisdom in the ears of their fighters between rounds; they're much more likely to be reminding their battered charges that the opponent is supposed to have a glass jaw.
I think that this difference in the expectations of participants (in
general; there are bound to be exceptions in both directions, I know) expresses itself in differences in the default fighting ranges of boxing on the one hand and, say, karate/TKD on the other. Boxers expect to fight at close range because they expect to hit each other hard and fast, which is unpleasant, but if you box, that's what you have to learn to take. But most of the people who go into TMAs do not want to take those kinds of blows and don't come from backgrounds where they expect to have to take them. Any combat they engage in, they would prefer take place at nice safe distances. Hence the sparring ranges of sport karate and Olympic TKD, where the combatants stand 8-10' apart and throw high kicks, moving in but then backing out and to the side to evade the other's strikes. It's a very different mindset, and it corresponds to the fact that professionals are probably much more likely to be ferrying their kids to and from TKD or gung fu classes than boxing clubs.
This is just a kind of thinking aloud on my part about the difference between boxing and TMAs and why boxers are (rightly!) feared by everyone except, maybe, other boxers. It's only a very rough guess that would take a lot of refinement and documentation to defend in detail. But it might get at the roots of what Jay is asking about...