Most effective striking arts in your opinions

[lklawson]

jr 137 ^^^^^Did you read the title or read the last sentence.My question is what more stand uppish based striking arts are there really beside boxing and karate and tkd

All of them. Every. Damn. One.

Pretty much all martial arts incorporate striking. Everything from Bagua to Silat to pre-Marquis boxing. ALL OF THEM. Even BJJ is often taught with some striking and Judo has Atemi Waza. I think you have to get into certain regional wrestling styles like Lancashire or 19th Century french "flat hand wrestling" before striking isn't "officially" part of the curriculum. And even then it is often taught as an aside of "dirty tricks that if the ref doesn't see it..."

I mean, seriously? What else besides boxing, karate, and tkd has striking? :boggle:

 

[Denoaikido]

I don't want any negativity that is not my goal . I apologize guess I should put list all the striking arts that most might not be aware of that are still being taught and feel are effective I do not type English that well so forgive me if my words carry on and are not specific

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I don't want any negativity that is not my goal . I apologize guess I should put list all the striking arts that most might not be aware of that are still being taught and feel are effective I do not type English that well so forgive me if my words carry on and are not specific

Master List of Martial Arts Styles - Black Belt Wiki
https://martialartsnerd.com/top-10-list-popular-types-martial-arts-styles/
Look through those and you'll find plenty that focus on striking.

 

[wab25]

Couple of questions...

What they do is perhaps the best for the context of a boxing match, which includes wearing bulky protective gloves, and allows for a competitive career within a fairly short period of training and preparation.

How are you comparing the amount of training before getting to a "competitive career?" Most of the boxers you watch on TV, started boxing when they were very young. They boxed a lot of years before ever going pro.

For many years, in MMA, you could be a collegiate level athlete in something like football, start your MMA training and be a challenger and or champion with in 5 years or so. When UFC started, all the guys "trained" from a young age. Then, we started getting lots of guys in that their main "skill" was being in shape and willing to take a hit to give one. We are now back to a point, where these guys have trained MMA sense they were young... but that possibility of training for your whole life was not possible until recently. You see guys in MMA with less than 20 total fights as ex-champions, sometimes 2 time champions. In boxing, its rare to even be considered contender until you go 20-0 or 19-1.

Again, my question here is how are you determining that it takes a boxer less training to become pro? I would say that they are at least the same.

I am not convinced that boxing objectively uses the best methods and best biomechanics.

What is wrong with the biomechanics of a boxers punch? Which art teaches better biomechanics? What are you comparing and why? What would improve a boxers punch from a biomechanics stand point? Why haven't boxers figured this out already?

Note, that how to apply those punches in different situations is different than having the wrong biomechanics.

You have some interesting thoughts there, and I just wanted more insight into why you feel that way.

 

[Bruce7]

I absolutely disagree with this assessment.

You are both right. But in general boxers practice more and spar more, because since they have fewer techniques and don't do forms they have more time. They have more time to practice a few techniques, so it gives the illusion of better quality.
Given the same time a reverse punch will be just as good as a boxer over hand punch.

 

[skribs]

You are both right. But in general boxers practice more and spar more, because since they have fewer techniques and don't do forms they have more time. They have more time to practice a few techniques, so it gives the illusion of better quality.
Given the same time a reverse punch will be just as good as a boxer over hand punch.

To clarify - do you mean if a boxer does 100,000 overhand punches and I do 100,000 reverse punches, that the two will be of similar quality?

 

[Bruce7]

I read the summary and I already want to fight him lol. I'll calm down.

I agree the video was dumb.

Your ability to street fight is determine by your athlete abilities and how many years of hard training you put in your art.
A two year Black Belt in average condition, A street fight with a 250 lb college or pro football player would probably not turn out well.
A two year Black Belt would also probably not do well fighting 2 or more people at same time.

Jack Hwang, fought behind enemy lines during Korean war. His skills were unbelievable, I believe he could take on anyone in a street fight.
If you were a black belt at his school as part of your training the whole class of lower belts spar with you at the same time, better have your cup on. It took 7 years to get a Black Belt back then and they were all top athletes. So yes, I think they could take on multiple attackers.

That is the thing that worries me. These 2 year Black Belts may not realize their MA is not magic, size and strength do matter.

 

[Flying Crane]

Couple of questions...
How are you comparing the amount of training before getting to a "competitive career?" Most of the boxers you watch on TV, started boxing when they were very young. They boxed a lot of years before ever going pro.

For many years, in MMA, you could be a collegiate level athlete in something like football, start your MMA training and be a challenger and or champion with in 5 years or so. When UFC started, all the guys "trained" from a young age. Then, we started getting lots of guys in that their main "skill" was being in shape and willing to take a hit to give one. We are now back to a point, where these guys have trained MMA sense they were young... but that possibility of training for your whole life was not possible until recently. You see guys in MMA with less than 20 total fights as ex-champions, sometimes 2 time champions. In boxing, its rare to even be considered contender until you go 20-0 or 19-1.

Again, my question here is how are you determining that it takes a boxer less training to become pro? I would say that they are at least the same.

good catch, and I had a feeling someone would grab onto that, even as I was typing it.

Perhaps I should rephrase what I said to try and better represent what I had in mind. Maybe the notion of a competitive or "pro" career isn't what I really had in mind, but rather the amount of training needed to get someone into fighting on some circuit level, even if it's an amateur level. If someone young and healthy and fit walked into a boxing gym and said "hey, I want to get into competitive boxing" and he was told that it would take ten years of work on fundamentals before he would be ready for his first match, probably boxing would have far fewer competitors if that was the norm in the industry. So what would it take? i'm guessing here to be honest because I've never had an interest in boxing so have not followed it, but I would imagine that depending on the individual it might be 6 months to 2 years? and then of course people continue to develop as they train beyond that.

In contrast to that, there are methodologies in some other martial systems that seem to take longer than that to reach what might be a comparable level. In my opinion some of those systems, while having a steeper learning curve in the beginning, have greater ultimate potential; but I also realize that most people do not reach that ultimate potential. That is not to say that these people are never effective nor skilled. Having the skill to protect oneself in a street altercation is not the same thing as having the skill to climb into a ring and agree to fight against a highly-trained opponent. One who has sufficient skill to navigate the former may (or may not) have sufficient skill to navigate the latter. But if he has no interest in competition, that is irrelevant.

so getting back to your question, it is my impression that boxing optimizes a training method that enables a determined student to become a "competitive" (a term that may be defined in various ways) boxer in a "reasonably" (again, can be defined in various ways) period of time, with genuine technical skill and ability.

What is wrong with the biomechanics of a boxers punch?

nothing, within the context of a boxing match. A competitor wants to compete before he gets too old to take the physical punishment, so he has used a training method and developed some solid punches that are useful while wearing heavy gloves, and within a ring.

outside of the ring, without gloves, there MAY be some problems, depending on the individual and what they may or may not have done to mitigate the problems.

If all of their heavy-bag training has been done with wrist wraps and protective gloves, and they have never spent time training to hit a solid object (like a heavy bag) without that protective and supportive gear, they may get injuries such as rolling their wrist or striking with the wrong portion of the knuckles and breaking the hand.

i've seen clips of boxers shadow-boxing with their thumb stuck up in the air and the fingers in a loose, open curl. That comes from wearing a boxing glove, it is the position that the glove puts the thumb and fingers into. Again, if the boxer has never spent time training to hit without the gloves, habit may put that thumb into that vulnerable position and result in a break or a sprain, and may put the fingers into that open curl, resulting in further damage.

This is the result of training to punch while wearing supportive wrist wraps and protective heavy boxing gloves. I am simply pointing out the danger a boxer may be in outside of the ring, IF he/she has not spent some time training in ways to overcome the habits ingrained by wearing that protective equipment.

Which art teaches better biomechanics? What are you comparing and why? What would improve a boxers punch from a biomechanics stand point?

The first obvious answer would be to train strikes without the supportive and protective gear of wrist wraps and gloves, IF a boxer wants to have viable technique outside of the ring. If the ring is all he cares about, then that is irrelevant.

However, other improvements would be methods that are better at teaching how to engage the feet and legs to drive the punch and rely less on the shoulders and upper torso.

I know that boxers actually do that as well. They are not ignorant of the importance of using the legs to get power. But from what I've seen, it is my opinion that it can be done better. This is something that Asian methods tend to make a specific focus in training. The method takes longer to develop and requires an instructor who has a well- trained eye to really spot the little errors that can bleed away the power, but in my opinion it has, as I mentioned above, a greater ultimate potential.

I think most (if not all) martial arts intend to use this concept. However, it is my opinion that many of them really are not very good at it. This can be for several reasons. If someone who becomes an instructor never really came to understand the concept and never developed his own skill with it, then he is unlikely to be able to effectively transmit the knowledge to his own students. Then, anyone downstream from that instructor who has not gained the knowledge from a different source, will be lacking in the skill. It is possible that over some generations, if that lineage becomes dominant in that particular style, that the knowledge becomes lost in the context of that style as a whole. Otherwise it could simply be that certain individuals are just not very good at it because it can be a subtle skill that is easy to bungle. The skill may not be lost to entire styles, but may become somewhat rare and limited to those who work harder or are better able to grasp the concepts.

Why haven't boxers figured this out already?

i don't know what boxers have or have not figured out. If they haven't figured it out, it could simply be because time is short, people are busy, and nobody has the time to go out and systematically explore every method in the world and develop a level of real understanding of each of them, to then decide what is best. So we all do what we do and evaluate what we see based on what we have experience with, which will be different from other people.

Perhaps boxers have figured this out and decided that within the context of boxing, it does not matter. As I said above, the methods I prefer do take longer to develop. Maybe that is enough of a deterrent for a gym that wants to get competitors into the ring as quickly as is realistic. In that case, the extra time needed for the methods I describe may not be worth it.

You have some interesting thoughts there, and I just wanted more insight into why you feel that way.

happy to share. And again I will stress that I am not saying that boxers lack in skill or ability. It is simply my opinion that it can be argued that boxers do not have the objectively "best" punching methods. But what methods they do have they can become very very good with, and it certainly works well within the context in which it is typically used.

 

[Flying Crane]

To clarify - do you mean if a boxer does 100,000 overhand punches and I do 100,000 reverse punches, that the two will be of similar quality?

they might. The natural abilities and fitness levels of the individuals is a factor as well, and also the biomechanics methods you are using when throwing your punch.

If your biomechanics suck, then 100,000 will just reinforce sucky biomechanics. If your biomechanics are at least equal to the boxers in quality, then if all other factors are equal, the answer would be "yes."

 

[Bruce7]

good catch, and I had a feeling someone would grab onto that, even as I was typing it.

Perhaps I should rephrase what I said to try and better represent what I had in mind. Maybe the notion of a competitive or "pro" career isn't what I really had in mind, but rather the amount of training needed to get someone into fighting on some circuit level, even if it's an amateur level. If someone young and healthy and fit walked into a boxing gym and said "hey, I want to get into competitive boxing" and he was told that it would take ten years of work on fundamentals before he would be ready for his first match, probably boxing would have far fewer competitors if that was the norm in the industry. So what would it take? i'm guessing here to be honest because I've never had an interest in boxing so have not followed it, but I would imagine that depending on the individual it might be 6 months to 2 years? and then of course people continue to develop as they train beyond that.

In contrast to that, there are methodologies in some other martial systems that seem to take longer than that to reach what might be a comparable level. In my opinion some of those systems, while having a steeper learning curve in the beginning, have greater ultimate potential; but I also realize that most people do not reach that ultimate potential. That is not to say that these people are never effective nor skilled. Having the skill to protect oneself in a street altercation is not the same thing as having the skill to climb into a ring and agree to fight against a highly-trained opponent. One who has sufficient skill to navigate the former may (or may not) have sufficient skill to navigate the latter. But if he has no interest in competition, that is irrelevant.

so getting back to your question, it is my impression that boxing optimizes a training method that enables a determined student to become a "competitive" (a term that may be defined in various ways) boxer in a "reasonably" (again, can be defined in various ways) period of time, with genuine technical skill and ability.


nothing, within the context of a boxing match. A competitor wants to compete before he gets too old to take the physical punishment, so he has used a training method and developed some solid punches that are useful while wearing heavy gloves, and within a ring.

outside of the ring, without gloves, there MAY be some problems, depending on the individual and what they may or may not have done to mitigate the problems.

If all of their heavy-bag training has been done with wrist wraps and protective gloves, and they have never spent time training to hit a solid object (like a heavy bag) without that protective and supportive gear, they may get injuries such as rolling their wrist or striking with the wrong portion of the knuckles and breaking the hand.

i've seen clips of boxers shadow-boxing with their thumb stuck up in the air and the fingers in a loose, open curl. That comes from wearing a boxing glove, it is the position that the glove puts the thumb and fingers into. Again, if the boxer has never spent time training to hit without the gloves, habit may put that thumb into that vulnerable position and result in a break or a sprain, and may put the fingers into that open curl, resulting in further damage.

This is the result of training to punch while wearing supportive wrist wraps and protective heavy boxing gloves. I am simply pointing out the danger a boxer may be in outside of the ring, IF he/she has not spent some time training in ways to overcome the habits ingrained by wearing that protective equipment.



The first obvious answer would be to train strikes without the supportive and protective gear of wrist wraps and gloves, IF a boxer wants to have viable technique outside of the ring. If the ring is all he cares about, then that is irrelevant.

However, other improvements would be methods that are better at teaching how to engage the feet and legs to drive the punch and rely less on the shoulders and upper torso.

I know that boxers actually do that as well. They are not ignorant of the importance of using the legs to get power. But from what I've seen, it is my opinion that it can be done better. This is something that Asian methods tend to make a specific focus in training. The method takes longer to develop and requires an instructor who has a well- trained eye to really spot the little errors that can bleed away the power, but in my opinion it has, as I mentioned above, a greater ultimate potential.

I think most (if not all) martial arts intend to use this concept. However, it is my opinion that many of them really are not very good at it. This can be for several reasons. If someone who becomes an instructor never really came to understand the concept and never developed his own skill with it, then he is unlikely to be able to effectively transmit the knowledge to his own students. Then, anyone downstream from that instructor who has not gained the knowledge from a different source, will be lacking in the skill. It is possible that over some generations, if that lineage becomes dominant in that particular style, that the knowledge becomes lost in the context of that style as a whole. Otherwise it could simply be that certain individuals are just not very good at it because it can be a subtle skill that is easy to bungle. The skill may not be lost to entire styles, but may become somewhat rare and limited to those who work harder or are better able to grasp the concepts.



i don't know what boxers have or have not figured out. If they haven't figured it out, it could simply be because time is short, people are busy, and nobody has the time to go out and systematically explore every method in the world and develop a level of real understanding of each of them, to then decide what is best. So we all do what we do and evaluate what we see based on what we have experience with, which will be different from other people.

Perhaps boxers have figured this out and decided that within the context of boxing, it does not matter. As I said above, the methods I prefer do take longer to develop. Maybe that is enough of a deterrent for a gym that wants to get competitors into the ring as quickly as is realistic. In that case, the extra time needed for the methods I describe may not be worth it.




happy to share. And again I will stress that I am not saying that boxers lack in skill or ability. It is simply my opinion that it can be argued that boxers do not have the objectively "best" punching methods. But what methods they do have they can become very very good with, and it certainly works well within the context in which it is typically used.

You made some very good point that I agree with.

On the shadow boxing.
Boxers make a good fist just before impact, just like we do.
They hit with such force if they don't have a good fist, they could brake their hand even throw the glove.
A tight fist while shadow boxing would slow the hand speed.
Think about it if they did not bring the thumb in when punching, they would break there thumb for sure.

 

[skribs]

they might. The natural abilities and fitness levels of the individuals is a factor as well, and also the biomechanics methods you are using when throwing your punch.

If your biomechanics suck, then 100,000 will just reinforce sucky biomechanics. If your biomechanics are at least equal to the boxers in quality, then if all other factors are equal, the answer would be "yes."

I'll refer back to the disclaimer I put on page 1 of this thread.

 

[Flying Crane]

You made some very good point that I agree with.

On the shadow boxing.
Boxers make a good fist just before impact, just like we do.
They hit with such force if they don't have a good fist, they could brake their hand even throw the glove.
A tight fist while shadow boxing would slow the hand speed.
Think about it if they did not bring the thumb in when punching, they would break there thumb for sure.

of course. But the boxing glove forces the thumb to stick out. At least every boxing glove I ever put on.

The thick glove also creates a barrier in being precise with which portion of the fist you actually strike with. It just is not possible to have much precision with that thickly padded glove on the fist.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'll refer back to the disclaimer I put on page 1 of this thread.

then of course the answer is "yes."

 

[skribs]

of course. But the boxing glove forces the thumb to stick out. At least every boxing glove I ever put on.

The thick glove also creates a barrier in being precise with which portion of the fist you actually strike with. It just is not possible to have much precision with that thickly padded glove on the fist.

I will agree the gloves do give a bad fist technique, unless you also hit the bag without gloves.

I disagree on precision. You still want to center your force on the target.

 

[Flying Crane]

I will agree the gloves do give a bad fist technique, unless you also hit the bag without gloves.

I disagree on precision. You still want to center your force on the target.

except that with the thick glove on your fist you can't tell quite which knuckles you are striking with. And the glove forces a more open fist, the fingers are not tightly wrapped within the glove because there is some material inside that you are gripping. That also contributes to a habit of striking with a part of the fist that could be a problem if done without the glove and without the supporting wrist and hand wraps.

wrapping and protecting the wrists and hands while hitting the bag has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are that the protection allows extended training sessions of striking. This ought to improve things like power.

The disadvantages include never understanding how to properly line up the fist and wrist to land an unprotected punch (as I said before, unless you have undergone some other training to overcome that problem). The strength of the wrist and the hand could be insufficient to support the power that has been developed in the punch itself. The wrist can roll into a sprain, the hand can be injured by the impact.

If you spend time practicing hitting the bag without those protections, you can develop the strength to withstand the impact, and understand the biomechanics to line up the arm and wrist and fist properly to avoid sprains and breaks. Maybe some boxers do this. Maybe some do not.

 

[Buka]

I don't want any negativity that is not my goal . I apologize guess I should put list all the striking arts that most might not be aware of that are still being taught and feel are effective I do not type English that well so forgive me if my words carry on and are not specific

You're doing fine, brother. Just bear with us, we're arguing our way to the Rosetta Stone. We do that from time to time.

Sooner or later the fellas are going to come up with the correct answer.

Which is obviously American Karate!

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I am the most effective striking art.

But now for serious, most tend to do similar things, they just teach them in a different order and differently.

I dislike looking at them separately as i usually want something combined together. However a unusual one is Bartitsu but its not strictly striking. I have also taken a intrest in savate, which is rather annoying as its french.

 

[lklawson]

I am the most effective striking art.

But now for serious, most tend to do similar things, they just teach them in a different order and differently.

I dislike looking at them separately as i usually want something combined together. However a unusual one is Bartitsu but its not strictly striking. I have also taken a intrest in savate, which is rather annoying as its french.

Bartitsu you say?

 

[Robert Agar-Hutton]

I don't understand how anyone here can say 'Karate' can or can't do 'X'. There are dozens (hundreds?) of different styles of Karate and some punch hard and some couldn't knock the skin off of a rice pudding. Some styles of Karate do throws (or locks or ...) and some don't. Some do competitions and some don't and on and on and on - and the same is true (in terms of there being major differences between styles of an art) for many arts (including the one I spend most of my time practicing Tai Chi).

 

[Dirty Dog]

The most effective striking art, bar none, is Chic-Chic-POW. Properly controlled, one strike is all it takes to end a fight.