Quote:
Originally posted by chris davis 200
I honestly think that if we look at the current MA picture vs the current Boxing picture - the obvious choice is Boxing for the reasons stated by Tom yum.
But if we look at the 'real' Martial arts, with good lineage and look at their training methods it is a different story.
I would say that an expert in MA of many styles would defeat a straight boxer in an out and out situation.
Reason: more moves.
If a boxer had his arm broken in a fight he would have one weapon left, if he injured that wrist he would have none. Not a nice situation!
I spar regularly with a very good boxer, he always says its a sport. He recognises that it gives you a good punch, and VERY good fitness but it gives you little else. He now trains in tradtitional JuJutsu as well.
cheers
chris
|
If you compare the real traditionalists who have spent a lifetime perfecting their art, maybe 5-10% of total practicioners in that art with lineage to authentic systems, they would be able to defeat decent boxers.
For ex. Master He Il Cho (TKD) regularly breaks open heavy bags with his kicking power. Not only is he lightning fast, but is probably technically proficient enough to keep someone in his kicking range. Others can do the same in their respective arts - Bill Wallace, Gene Labell, Kenpo Master James Mitose, olympic wrestler Alexander Karelin etc.
However, a decent amateur boxer could probably best quite a few traditional martial artist even at 1-3rd dan BB levels.
Other attributes that boxers show include holding focus under contact (which takes time to learn), good reflexes and mobility which makes them frustrating to hit because they work the angles, set you up to be cut off, feint and keep themselves a moving target.