From: cpgrb@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Graeme Bennett)
Subject: Re: Can boxing skills handle kicking?
Organization: James Cook University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 04:30:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.004654.7355@uwm.edu> ninjam@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Marty) writes:
>
>
>Graeme Bennett writes:
>>Competitive karateka are often weak.  They train to spar and not to
>>kill.  People who follow the way do not subject themselves to debasing
>>events such as tournaments where the individual is only after fame or
>>money.
>
>And what way is that?  Did you ever hear of someone doing competition
>because they enjoy it?  I know plenty of people that make $40,000
>and up and do competitions because they enjoy them.
>
>The one point I do agree on though is that many times people in
>competition worry to much about "scoring" in a competition area
>rather than training for a regular "streetfight".

My point.

>>I am absolutely appalled by 'Boxing Footwork' which is actually a good
>>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.

>to be just doing something easy and stupid to a novice, while something
>else entirely different is happening.  There is actually alot
>of footwork involved in boxing, and much of it get's engrained to the
>boxer's mind.  There's a certain shuffling involved, certain footpatterns,
>certain ways of moving right/left/forwards/backwards.  The footwork
>must let the boxer maintain a certain center of ballance that is needed.
>Of course to someone that hasn't taken the time to have been there
>in that boxers training, it looks like he's just stepping around
>randomly.

I have studied boxers closely.

>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.

>>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.

>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.

>>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 ...

[stuff about the physics of boxing deleted]

The 'hook' punch for example loses a lot of power and is easy to block.
Also, 'jabs' are quick and difficult to counter, but lack power and are
really only diversionary.

>>These punches are easy to block by
>>themselves, and when in rapid succession can be dodged or you can lean
>>back and smash their ribcage with a kick. 
>
>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'.  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.

>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).

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

>My friend, ANY punch looks slow from a distance or on TV.  That's
>why you have about 50 guys sitting in a bar going "Oh, do this,
>or oh come on you could have dodged that."  When you're actually there fighting
>the person, it's a totally differen't beast.

Well yes, I realise this.

>As for kicking, I take it you don't know much about distancing?

Sure.

>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.

>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 ...

>to just sit there and flail away blindly as you seem to suggest.
>It's a thinking art.  I've seen martial artists fight boxers on
>a martial artsts terms, and sure the ma's get a few could kicks
>in when the boxer is closing the distance.  But once the boxer
>get's in, the ma's loose it.  They can't deal with that inclose

Some MA's perhaps.

>fighting.  Boxer's are also VERY good at distancing.  Many are
>able to go in and out and hit at will.
>>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.

>>They either attack or block punches with their faces.
>Hehe.  Why of course.  Why didn't I ever come up with that realization.
>
>>You cannot clinch in the real world.  When a boxer clinches with a martial
>>artist (a good one) they are open to a multitude of attacks, to
>>which they have no defence (except for, perhaps their thick skulls :)
>>They are worse at close range.
>ROFL!!!!!
>
>My friend, you seem to be doing the novice mistake of comparing Boxing
>the sport with boxing the art.  What you see in the ring is guided
>by rules and regulations as is any sport.  No hit's below the belt,
>no sweeping, no eye gouging or using elbows, no traps, etc.
>If you think that a boxing artist is going to play by those rules out
>of the ring, you are sadly mistaken.
>
>And if anything is an oxymoron, it's that last statement.
>BOXING IS CLASSIFIED AS AN INFIGHTING ART.  Look it up.

Oh, gee and I will be pleasantly surprised.

>
>
>>Todd, you seem to be comparing sparring forms of martial-arts (probably
>>karate, TKD) where target areas are limited, and only certain techniques
>>can be used to boxing because of restrictive rules.
>
>Graeme, you seem to be comparing sporting forms of boxing to that
>of the fighting arts, where target areas are limited, and only certain
>strategies can be used because of the restictive rules of the SPORT.
>
>>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 :-)

>
>>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.

>>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.

>Boxers train to perfect their techniques without any rules.
>The rules come about later in play.  I can gaurantee you
>that they can just as easily apply their techniques and
>skill without the rules.
>
>>It also depends very much on individuals. The perfect individual will be
>>many times more lethal doing martial arts than doing boxing. There is no
>>comparison.
>
[stuff about MA's not being able to fight in an area smaller than a
boxing ring deleted]
>
>You also seem to be lopping all martial arts together.  There are plenty
>of martial arts that specialize in only one area.

Really?  This is a surprise.

>My advice to you is to go to a REAL boxing gym.  The type where 
>prizefighters train at.  Ask to step into the ring with one of them
>and tell them that you are superior because you study asian martial
>arts.  See what happens.

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.

>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.

>
>Marty
>
>Do
?

Hoping not to cause offence to you, Marty. 
 
-- 
Graeme Bennett, Honours Student.     >>> graeme@coral.cs.jcu.edu.au <<<
James Cook University of North Queensland. 
--