From: ninjam@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Marty)
Subject: Boxing and Graeme (was Re: Can boxing skills hand kicking?)
Originator: ninjam@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 05:00:01 GMT

cpgrb@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Graeme Bennett) says:


>>>candidate for an oxymoron.  They seem to just randomly place their feet
>>>and appear to dance around as if they have glass up their arses. 
>>
>>Your comment is usually that of a novice to any art.  Many arts seem
>
>No. In fact I have trained for six years, and have done karate, TKD and
>Aikido. I realise this is not a very long time but is not novice level.

You seem to be missunderstanding me.  Let me rephrase that.
Your comment is usually that of a novice to any new art a person
has not studied.  Just because you don't seem to notice any footwork
theory in boxing does not mean it does not exist.  All you are comparing
it against is what you know from your past training.  Differen't arts
do it differently.  Just because it's looks different than what you allready
know to be effective or places emphasis on different criteria does not
make it any less effective.

>I have studied boxers closely.

Oh?  How so?  have you gotten in the ring and sparred with a golden gloves
or a contender?  HAve you intensivly followed a training regimine at a
decent boxing gym?  Or did you just sit there and watch people box
or ask a few has-beens for a few neat tricks?

>>The dancing around is part of a boxing philosophy that a moving target
>>is harder to hit.  While this is true, I personally don't agree with
>>the extent to which they move around.  It tires you out very quick.
>>Even though they train to have alot of stamina to be able to do
>>this, for our purposes it's not necissary or advised.

>While stamina is an asset, fights happen very quickly and correct
>technique and proper mental attitude are more important.  Often, boxers
>train to last the distance, in order to beat a superior opponent with
>less stamina.  This does not usually happen in reality.

Boxers train to last the distance because in a controlled environment
you have rounds, etc.  No different than anyone else in a sport.
In "reality" they will try and end a fight as quick as possible.
Even in the ring sometimes a fight might not go past the
first round because of a knockout.  And the stuff about trying to
win against a superior opponent with stamina is bunk.  Boxing matches
rarely go over a few rounds except in the very lightweight or amateur
matches.  Out on the streets it's a bit differen't.
Boxers have the good stamina because they may have to last a bunch
of rounds in the duration.  But they try to win through technique and
strategy.  You try lasting four 3 minute rounds against a good boxer.
Or did you do that in your "studies" on boxing allready?

>>>They then make some form of stance and randomly fire punches in the air,
>>Another observation typical to that of a novice to the art, or
>>any other for that matter.  Boxing IS a scientific fighting art.

>Boxing may be able to be considered to be an art by some, but it is
>*definately* not a science.

Any art that is continuously developing can be considered a science.
In the last century alone, boxing techniques and strategy have changed
a tenfold.  Sit down with a good established boxer and talk to them
about power strategy, enabled foorwork, and reference point theories.
That's but a few.

>>Punches are not thrown at random.  There's much going on that
>>involves timing (tempo), cadence, choice targets, setups,
>>counterpunching, drawings, fakes, combinations, jabs, crosses,
>>leads, straights, corkscrews, uppercuts, rounds, and many other
>>nuances.  Of course to the novice who sits there and catches
>>a boxing match on TV or something, it looks like they stand there
>>and "randomly fire punches".

>My comment was fairly tongue in cheek.  I realise that boxers do not
>just fire random punches, but their lack of timing makes it appear that
>way.

Maybe you didn't thoroughly read the above statement.  Tempo was listed.
Tempo is defined as that little moment in time when it is advantageous to
land a hit.  Tempo = timing.  Lack of timing means inability to land
a hit.  I suppose all those bruised and bloody faces or broken ribs
happen from the boxers climbing through the ropes to get into the
ring.  Again, to a novice to the art such as yourself, it seems
like they are just flailing away with a disregard to timing.
But in actuality it's a lot more scientific than that.
People use tempo when they counterpunch, when they see
an opening, when the opponent does a movement (his cadence), when
the opponent is in preperation, when the opponent is attacking, when
he is standing there, and the list goes on.  There are techniques
and strategies involved in each, and are expressed in a psychological
and a physical term. 
If boxers did not know how to use tempo to land a hit, then they'd
be flailing away like a bunch of kids in a schoolyard, and no one
would win except in maybe a lucky punch.

All ther terms I've used, (tempo, cadence, broken rhythm, counter time,
moving time, etc) are all basic boxing terms.  Tell me, did you even learn
about any of those when you supposedly studied boxing?  Did you learn
the strategy and use behind each?  And those are just the basics.

>>>occasionally hitting their target with an amount of power proportional
>>>to their muscular strength.
>>
>>NO WAY.  That's one of the biggest misslead statements I have ever read.
>>If that were true, boxers would only be applying a force equal to that
>>of their weight.  But boxers are well known powerfull hitters,
>>often hitting with a force well above their body weight.  Why?  Because
>>they use alot of forward momentum in their punches, often punching

>And in a situation where they have no gloves on, they are going to
>damage their hands and wrists.  e.g Mike Tyson ...

Nope.  In the ring they wear gloves to protect the other person when
they are getting hit.  Out of the ring, strike gloves or even
tape is used to help keep from scraping the knuckles and bloodying them
on the bag.  Perhaps you've never worked with strikegloves on a bag
or even another opponent?  Perhaps you haven't seen that they don't
lend any support when hitting the bag?  Perhaps you've never seen
that you still need proper wrist alignment and conditioned hands
otherwise you can break your knuckles or wrists even on a heavy bag?
Maybe you are also forgeting that gloves are a fairly recent
invention (turn of the century) and that before that all Boxing
matches were bare knuckle?  


>The 'hook' punch for example loses a lot of power and is easy to block.

Hardly.  The hooks are some of the most powerful punches around.
And the only way they'd be easy to block is if they were big
windmill hooks.  That's usually the sign of a novice if he
uses one of those.  Boxing hooks are on a condenced arc and
follow a similar path to a straight lead.  You never see a
pro doing big windmill hooks.  Although I have seen various
oriental ma's using them from time to time.

>Also, 'jabs' are quick and difficult to counter, but lack power and are
>really only diversionary.

Gee, I thought that's what they were supposed to be for?

I was listing a number of punches to show you the variance of techniques
in boxing of which you said there weren't any.  Not about which one's
were strongest.

>
>>Hehehe.  I see.  So like...you have done this against a contender?
>>You have actually gotten into the ring and like....wailed on Evander
>>Hollyfield, or Mike Tyson by dodging their "slow moving" punches?

>No, I don't think that they are slow.  They are easy to block in most
>cases because they are rarely direct, and usually hooks or 'windmill
>punches'.

Never never n e v e r, will a pro or conteder be using windmill punches
like you describe.  Why?  Because they are easy to block as you 
described, and usually wind up involved in crossarm or "sabre" boxing.
This type of boxing was common in the early part of the century
and and got the name because it looked like two sabre's clashing
as one opponent would use his forearm to block the other's cross.
A *true* boxers cross will look like a straight lead with a sudden
change in arc (i.e. a sidwards motion) to add power and speed to
the delivery.
The only people that use those type of windmill punches are novice's
or has-beens such as George Foreman who lack the ability to maneuver
to do a true cross.

>A flurry of punches can be dodged by moving out of arm's
>length and doing a kick or other form of attack.  The key to destroying
>a boxer is to kick low, while remaining out of the range of the boxer's
>punches.

Hardly. As you move back, they follow and quickly I might add.  Once
a boxer is close enough to do a "flury" as you put it, they will
not be taken out of range that easily.  No different than any art
that specializes in a certain range.  Once they are able to maneuver
into the range the art specializes in, it is very hard.
And rather than a "flurry" as you put it, they will be well placed
punches to different areas of your body or setups to be able to hit
that area.  Of course to somone such as your self, an agressive fighter
looks like he's just doing a flury.  And you seem to be thinking about
the ring to much.  In "real" life boxers will not hesitate to grab
your leg when you lean back to kick, or pummel into you taking it
into the ground.

>>Yah, I suppose my grandmother could probably dodge Hector Cumacho's
>>punches. 
>
>Well, I would like to see Hector Cumacho fight the guy in 'Budo the Art
>of Killing' who kicks and punches trains, walls, etc all day long.  That
>guy can punch through bricks and spear finger thrust through 3 hardwood
>boards (not pine boards or brittle roof tiles that break when you drop
>them).

(pictures the scene in Enter the Dragon with Bob Wall breaking a board,
and decideds not to comment because it would be to easy).

>No, obviously I haven't fought these guys or I would be on TV.  I have
>fought a boxer who had a significant height and size advantage and he
>could not punch me and could not dodge my kicks to the lower body. 

I see.  So the stuff you were saying about the individual having alot
to do with it does not apply here?

And your leaving out whether or not your kicks even phased him, and
from the sounds of it, whether or not he was a person that could
be representative of the art of boxing?  I've sparred with people
that said they were boxers too, and that were much bigger than
me, but quite frankly they lacked the stuff that seperates a
wanna-be from the real thing.

> I have often sparred ex-boxers who come into the dojo who use their
>training during the spar. 

Doesn't the term "ex" mean anything to you?  Since when is someone 
that is an "ex" anything representative of all that "is" in the
art?  Muhamed Ali is an "ex" boxer also.  I wouldn't exactly call
him representative of the art right now.  He may be able to throw
a few techniques, but he's old and a has been.  At one time he
*was* a boxer and a rep of the art.  But no more.
I wouldn't call George Foreman a rep of the art of Boxing either.
In days past he might have been, but now he just stands there
with all of his blubber and sloppily tries to hit away.
I wouldnt call an ex-TKD practionere a rep of TKD either, even if he
studied it for many years.
Tell me, if someone came to me that was an ex martial artist from
your style, and I was able to whip his butt, would that qualify
me to say that your art or style is not as effective because
I was able to do this or that?  If however I was able to whip
someones butt that was still very active and at a master level, than
the comments such as yours might hold some water.



>>Boxing is an INFIGHTING art.  It's used in close range.
>
>Close in, a boxer attempts to clinch or tries uppercuts.  They have few
>options compared to an MA.

That comment alone shows how limited a scope your knowlege of boxing is.
Apparently you've never sparred or worked with a body knockout artist?
They take the infighting of boxing one step further and purposely
try to get in that close in "clinching" range.  And they are able
to knock you out from that inclose range.  That's how they got
the name, and that's their specialty.  They use alot more techniques
than "uppercuts" and they rarely "clinch.  Most people go for
the knockouts with the head.  These people develop a way
of using internal energy to knock the opponent out with a shot to the
body from an in close range.  Similar to the 1 and 3" punches used
by Bruce and various other Wing Chun people.  "Internal energy
and boxing???" you say.  Yes, it does exist.
You can usually tell a body knockout artist by the way he works the
bag.  It'll be very in close, with alot of lower hits, and a wierd
way of twisting the body.  And the bag will barely move an inch
when they are working it, even if someone isn't there holding
it.  All you hear is an extremely loud "thud".  When people hold
the bag sometimes they are known to go flying back from these types
of punches too.

>>Often closer range than your are able to get kicks up.  The
>>only thing remotely close is maybe knee kicks.  Boxers aren't going

>What about chops, throws, takedowns, inside kicks, sweeps, elbows ...

Excuse me, but your comment was about leaning back and doing kicks.
That's what I was replying to.  You want to change the subject, then fine.

Contrary to what you may think, Boxers do use elbows.  Mike Tyson
was notorious for doing hooks and following though with the elbow
and saying it was an accident. :)
Most boxers also have very good balance and know how to use it.
They become light on their feet, and know how to adjust their weight.
Jumping rope is one of the things that train for this.  As for takedowns
and throws, again, they know how to use their weight very well and
their lower center of gravity due to their semi crouched stance puts
them in excellent position to grapple or wrestle.
I'd be at odds whether you'd be able to get in close enough
to apply a throw or takedown to a contender or prizefighter.
About the only things that make sense in that way are
lowline shin kicks etc.  
But then again, you seem to have this problem in dealing with
reality.  You seem to want to compare what you practice to what you
see in the ring.  In reality, a boxer is not going to fight like
that and take the liberties he does in the ring.  On the street
he's going to be more of a streetfighter using the skills, reactions,
and techniques he learned in boxing, but applying it with grappling,
spitting in the eye, and any other "realistic" fighting methods.

>>>In every boxing fight I have seen,
>>>there are long periods where either fighter has an opening that they do
>>>not take, but instead stand there panting and drooling.  They do not
>>>seem to understand the word 'strategy' which is the underlying principle
>>>of a true martial art.
>[stuff deleted]
>>They're "working" the opponent.  It's something that's very hard to
>>do.  Of course to the average couch potato, it looks like he's
>>standing there drooling, not taking advantage of openings.
>
>Their strategies are extremely primitive.

How the heck would you know they are primitive?!?!  You haven't shown
anything in your descriptions so far that even suggest you know a
sufficient amount about boxing to make these judgements, let alone
cut down the theories of it.

I mean, you had to be explained to that the boxer's weren't just
"flailing away", you had to be shown that there is footwork
involved, how the techniques are correctly used, what strategy
is actually going on....

Yet you feel you can say the strategy is primitive by sparring
a couple of has-beens and a person we can't even be sure was
a decent boxer.  Fine.  I say that the theories that barbers 
and hairdressers use to give permanents are lousy.  Why?
Because I've seen a few simply atrocious hairdo's.  Of course
that qualifies me to pass that judgement.

Tell me then, what's the theory behind Philadelphia style boxing?
What's characteristic about Mexican boxers?  Aborigine? (come
on man, you should know that one.  Most of the world champions
from Australia were aborigine).  What about LA Southpaw?
English Bulldog style?  Do you even know the theories behind that
style?  Did you even know there are various styles of boxing, each
with their own little quirks and special theory?
Oh, I get it.  Your judging what you know by sparring a couple
of local lads that happened to come wandering your way.  Makes
sense.

>>>You *cannot* compare
>>>boxing to a true martial art. 
>>
>>Boxing is a martial art.  Get with the program.  It's been around
>>as a fighting form for over a 1000 years, since the days of the early
>>greeks even.  Boxing as a sport evolved along side it as the need
>>to prove who was best without killing one another developed.
>
>Pissing in the bushes has been around for millions of years and is not
>classified as an art :-)

So has making smartass comments, but I wouldn't classify you as 
a master of that art form either.  Your comment shows nothing to
disprove the original statement, only to confirm your noviceness
on the subject and lack of sincerity to sufficiently research it.

>>
>>>Boxers train always within the rules.
>>
>>Boxers train to do their techniques to the best of their abilities.
>>The rules are added later.
>>I can gaurentee that if you take Mike Tyson and put him in a street fight,
>>that he will not be standing there saying "Hey!  You hit me below the
>>belt!".  He will also be using the techniques he does best, 
>>only with a "non-sport" strategy and application.
>
>And when it is all over,  Tyson will hop along to the hospital to get a
>cast on his wrist.

Hardly.  Oh yah I forgot...your the one that doesn't realize that
when a boxer trains they use strike gloves or tape on the knuckles
that don't align the wrist at all.  So they train to actually be
able to hit hard without something supporting the wrist.  But of
course you must know this from your "studies".

>>>Marital artist train without rules and restrict themselves in a competition.
>>
>>Oh really?  I see....that's must be why they cary martial artists
>>out of the dojo or kwoon everyweek with missing eyes, punctured
>>intestines, or even dead as a doorknob.
>>ANY training is restricted in some way.
>
>Obviously I do not mean that MA's employ these techniques in free sparring.

Hmmm...now that the shoe is on the other foot aren't we being a little
double standard?  You just got done saying how boxing trains with
rules and martial arts don't, so martial arts are better.  Yet when
it's pointed out by myself and many other people on the net that martial
arts train with rules to, you say "Well of course, it's expected".
So all of a sudden it's ok for you but not for Boxers.

>I am not saying all martial artists are superior to any boxer.  I am
>saying that an individual has more to gain by studying an MA such as
>Karate, TKD, Kung Fu, Aikido etc, etc than by training with boxing
>because there is much more depth of study.  I am not comparing Mr/Ms.
>Average MA person who goes along to training once a week and
>complains when they get a busted lip or a split nail in training  with
>boxers in general.  I am comparing a dedicated individual with natural
>ability in MA with the same type of person in boxing.

And I am saying that any serious martial artist would also supplement
their training with boxing.  And I am also comparing two serious
individuals.  I've seen plenty of "masters" get taken down by good
boxers.  Todd can even tell you about boxers in his area that go around
to various Dojo's and Kwoons in the area just to challenge and whip
the owner's butts because they feel they got gipped in past martial
arts training.  Many martial arts don't teach a realistic contact
level or timing skills.  There are many areas of boxing that go
into this far more than most oriental martial arts.
It's been said by many people, including those high up in the
martial arts world that the best thing Boxing has to offer is
it's training.
A complete and serious martial artist will look to all that there
is available to enhance their skills.  Boxing fills in some of the
void left by many eastern martial arts.  Together they become a
whole.  The yin and the yang.

>>Don't judge by what you see looking at the television.  There are
>>those that sit there and say they could do this this and that, and
>>then there are those that actually do it.
>
>I am not one of these.

So if your not one that sits there and says they could do that, and
your not one that actually does it (according to your above statement),
then what are you?  I wasn't aware there was an inbetween.

>>
>>Marty
>>
>>Do
>?
>
>Hoping not to cause offence to you, Marty. 

You don't cause me offense personally.  It does get me upset when you
seem to be passing these judgements with little or no experience
in the art of boxing.  When I make a statement such as "TKD hand
techniques seem to be very little or ineffective", it's going
to be once I've worked with a fair amount of well established people
and continuous practioneres in the area.  I'm not going to pass
a judgement by working with a couple people who used to do TKD,
or who are not sufficiently trained to fully represent their art.

Personally, I don't feel Boxing alone is the answer, or that eastern
martial arts alone are the answer.  There's gaps in both.  It's
what you do with yourself to cover the gaps that counts.  Sitting
there pointing at one art and saying that your art is better because
it goes more in depth in one area than the other does, yet not realizing
the gaps in your own art is kind of foolish.  Especially when elements
in the other art are able to take advantage of those gaps as much as
you are of theirs.


Marty

Do


Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts