- Joined
- Aug 3, 2015
- Messages
- 14,670
- Reaction score
- 6,334
Totally agree so I'll add my 2 cents. Boxers are limited on the the number of attacks that they can do. Their entire training is based on punching so they are good at punching. What they aren't good at is defending against kicks and grappling. I sparred against a boxer before and I was at a disadvantage as long as the rules were "punch only." However I had the advantage when kicks were allowed. Even if I didn't use a kick, I would move my leg in a way that made my opponent think I was going to kick, so that I could land a punch. Both boxers were good with moving out of the way with a punch, I was better at parrying a punch. The jabs weren't necessary more powerful than mine, they just had a better experience in reading what a punch looks like.What we need more in this forum is the sharing of personal anecdotes or experience. What is the use of discussing CMA vs western boxing from a theoretical perspective?
I think in a real fight I would do well even if punches were the only thing thrown. I say this because I'm good at a technique that is used to break the punching hand, so for me I don't have to hit the boxer's head or body to win. The same can't be said for the boxer since their training only includes punching the face and the body. If I "Play the boxing game" then I'll lose. I have a larger range of attack and defense options so I'm not only stuck with the jab, hook, cross, and upper cup options.
A few months ago I actually posted a video of a boxer jabbing me from the outside with no problem. I also posted a video a few months before that, showing me going against the same person but using my feet this time. It was a huge difference.