Boxing vs. Asian Martial Arts

[Great Sage]

Boxing surpasses most Oriental Martial Arts in the use of hands, footwork and philosophy. Boxing is straight forward, simple and effective. It's common for lamen to dismiss boxing as a legitimate fighting art, because they're thinking in terms of sports. However, as many FIGHTERS will tell you, boxing is lethal if you're good. The toughest people you'll ever encounter will have some sort of boxing training. Rather than rely on fancy blocks or forms, boxing provides a sound strategy — make them miss and strike.

On another note, some Oriental arts should not be dismissed, e.g. Judo, Jiu jitsu etc... Some of the toughest fighters have come from these disciplines. A good grappler will tie you in knots if you get too close.

[swan104]

Originally posted by TheSod_88
Oriental arts r a damn joke!

How about Thai boxing or Bando?

[ryanhall]

I do.

[TheSod_88]

If you say so.

[ryanhall]

Like it or not, it does work to some extent. It's almost western wrestling with some armbars and chokes.

[TheSod_88]

I personally dislike judo. olympic or any other style.

[ryanhall]

Judo, Wing Chun, Muay Thai, Arnis/Kali/Escrima, Jeet Kune Do ("the only non-traditional Chinese style"--Bruce Lee), Ju Jitsu (not in and of itself, but because Brazilian Jiu Jitsu was spawned from it and Judo). These are all arts of the "Orient" if you want to be technical. Traditional mumbo jumbo is worthless for reality, but don't think that an Olpymic Judo player won't drop you on your ass.

[TheSod_88]

Oriental arts r a damn joke!

[L175]

Thank you for your replies. I think I know what you are saying--that every martial art shows strengths in different situations and that you should train in one that fits your own style...however, when that style is shown to be weak in one area, you may want to use cross training to make up for that weakness.

Also, knowing a plethora of complex techniques is no substitute for simply being strong, tough, and able to hit hard and take hard hits.

In short, boxing is a good, fundamental sport to train in, but it is also worth the time and effort to train in fast kicks, ground grappling, pressure point manipulation etc. as taught by oriental martial arts. In this way you can become an adaptable fighter.

[terry]

Boxing has a lot of truth in it. They train hard, they hit hard, they adjust and control distance well, they use angulation well, they spar hard and they don't get caught up into too much oriental mumbo jumbo.

It is, however, difficult to answer whether boxing is better than another, Asian in this case, art. I suppose you could go through examples of where knowing only boxing would put you at a disadvantage, such as when you find yourself on the ground or facing a knife wielding opponent. But I would rather steer you in the direction of thinking about when, where and why boxing is most efficient and when, where and why another art, such as BJJ is efficient. To put it another way, it is not so much in focusing on the weaknesses of an art that you will grow but in its strengths. The right place to focus on weaknesses is in yourself.

Respectfully,

Terry

[Bri Thai]

Boxing has many strengths for the streets. It is basic (which is good, too many techniques means none come to mind when they are needed) and Boxers are very fit. They can give and take hard blows.

But there are drawbacks. There is no grappling, so if they hit the deck in a rumble they are out of their league. There is not kicking and, therefore, no defence against kicking.

You can't really compare it to other martial arts, because there are so many different arts. In short, boxers are hard men, but they could do with cross training in other areas.

[L175]

Could someone give me a basic rundown of the strengths/weaknesses of boxing as opposed to traditional Asian martial arts such as jujitzu and karate? Which form would be better for a no-rulz street fight?

Thanks