Boxing and stuff

david · Post by **david** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 11:19 am

Boxing is as much or as less as a martial art as any other. Western boxing has a long tradition. Texts going back to 16 or 17 century have details of boxng moves and postures -- BTW, in the old texts they show grappling and low kicks as well.

A lot of folks seem to think that only easterners have the market on "martial arts..."

When it comes to sport boxing, gloves are a pretty recent adoption in the overall scope of time. Matches used to be bareknuckled. More rules these days but even now we see some "cheap shots" (according to the rules) taken, i.e. elbows, throws and an occaisonal bite.

Almost any "art" can be adapted for "sporting" (and relatively safe) purposes. Generally, this happens for the lack of true combative opportunities. It allows the practitioner to test his reflexes, (subset of skills) and will.

The "martial" or "skill" is in the individual man (or woman) regardless of style.

david

candan · Post by **candan** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 2:44 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

A lot of folks seem to think that only easterners have the market on "martial arts...

Very good topic Ribo.
North/South American Natives were Martial Artist for thousands of years, both "hand to hand" and with weapons. Martial basically refers to military so is it not the "art of waging war" regardless of the scope or size of the "war"? There is some study being done on the fighting systems of the North American native cultures ( racking my brain trying to recall any details) but at this time I have no information to pass on, hopefully someone does. I agree that Boxing is an art form but I do not regard it as "martial" in the sense that it was not developed to kill or cause bodily harm. ( yes injuries/deaths occur but other sports or art forms also have as many or more incidents) Boxing to many is the art of NOT being hit i.e. "Sugar Ray" Leonard.

wedgeman · Post by **wedgeman** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 8:23 pm

candan,
I agree with the martial refering to military but once you add the word art to it (martial-arts) you now get a different meaning.
martial:experienced in or inclined to war : WARLIKE

martial art:any of several arts of combat and self-defense (as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sport
#############################################
"I agree that Boxing is an art form but I do not regard it as "martial" in the sense that it was not devI agree that Boxing is an art form but I do not regard it as "martial" in the sense that it was not developed to kill or cause bodily harm. eloped to kill or cause bodily harm.
#############################################
weren't the first boxers bare knuckle and isn't the object to knock out or get your opponent to submit because they can't take the pain you inflicted on them?
you go to any low rent district that has a boxing gym and tell me those kids in there aren't trying to learn to cause bodily harm or to at least defend themselfs from it.

candan · Post by **candan** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 10:01 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> martial art:any of several arts of combat and self-defense (as karate and judo) that are
widely practiced as sport<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Webster did not take into account that many do not practice Karate as sport

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
weren't the first boxers bare knuckle and isn't the object to knock out or get your opponent
to submit because they can't take the pain you inflicted on them?
you go to any low rent district that has a boxing gym and tell me those kids in there aren't
trying to learn to cause bodily harm or to at least defend themselfs from it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Watching any contact sport you can assume bodily harm is the goal, low rent districts or high class gyms..boxers are boxers. When I boxed with my brother, was I trying to cause him bodily harm? Many who watched thought so..Yes knocking out your opponent is often a goal or the outcome but not the objective. It is a very complicated sport (those who oppose it only focus on the hitting) and has evolved much since the bareknuckle days (Boxers were bareknuckled for much the same reasons hockey goalies had no protective mask or others had no helmets). Boxing is not boxing without rules, a Boxer is not boxing if he engages in street fights even though he will likely apply his skills learned.

david · Post by **david** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 10:57 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Watching any contact sport you can assume bodily harm is the goal, low rent districts or high class gyms..boxers are boxers. When I boxed with my brother, was I trying to cause him bodily harm? Many who watched thought so..Yes knocking out your opponent is often a goal or the outcome but not the objective. It is a very complicated sport (those who oppose it only focus on the hitting) and has evolved much since the bareknuckle days (Boxers were bareknuckled for much the same reasons hockey goalies had no protective mask or others had no helmets). Boxing is not boxing without rules, a Boxer is not boxing if he engages in street fights even though he will likely apply his skills learned.

Candan, seems to be a question of the individual's intent and skills. If you were to interchange boxing with a current karate style and competition format, you would end up saying the same. If you take away the rules and put it out on the street, should it be automatically assumed that the "martial artist" would be more lethal than a "boxer" just because he practices insertname-ryu?

Finally, consider if we are truly serious about studying a "martial art" in the sense of being able to inflict death with maximum efficiency, I propose most of us are doing it all wrong. Way too much time on empty hand techniques which are the lowest part of the force continuum. Study the knife, stick, sword and gun. Indeed, the late Donn Draeger would maintain most of us are studying "budo" vs "bujutsu" -- no matter that we likr to call it a "martial art" -- for the very fact of the emphasis of personal unarmed training over weapons training. I tend to agree with him.

Personally, I believe a year of study in knife work will allow the person (with right mental/pyschological attributes) to take out the majority of "empty hand" masters of 30, 40 or 50 plus years of training. I know others will disagree and that's okay.

david

[This message has been edited by david (edited March 23, 2002).]

wedgeman · Post by **wedgeman** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 11:11 pm

thank you david
candan is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable

david · Post by **david** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 11:14 pm

Wedgeman,

I know you're new here. You should know we have spirited and sometimes heated discussions here but we do it respectfully. We avoid personal affronts. This should be part of training.

david

[This message has been edited by david (edited March 23, 2002).]

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 11:20 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by wedgeman:
thank you david
candan is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope Candan is a fine individual who's opinion in this matter may differ with yours.

And I suspect he's no tomato can!

Laird

candan · Post by **candan** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 11:39 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you take
away the rules and put in out on the street, does that make the "martial artist" more
lethal than a "boxer."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, not more lethal as boxers are well conditioned individuals and understand body mechanics well. As Uglyelk indicated Boxers have a lot to offer martial artist. I boxed for a short time and the rules caused me much fustration (as do karate tournament rules) but I did gain some very limited but usefull insight into the art or "sweet science".
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Finally, consider if we are truly serious about studying a "martial art" for "lethality," I propose
most of us are doing it wrong. Way too much time on empty hand techniques which is lowest
part of the force continuum. Study the knife, stick, sword and gun. A year of study in knife
work will allow the person to take out the majority of "empty hand" masters of 30,40 or 50
plus years of training.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agree that weapons are tools to make you more lethal, and that study of empty hand to be lethal can be done "wrong". I selected the style I study and continue to do so because it is "right" for me (seen others that could have suited me well also), and can use it to enhance any other method of delivering force I may choose to study. It is basically something I can build on or and study as is but will always be influenced by other learning experiences such as boxing ,football ect.. to some degree. Some use it in sport or to achieve "enlightenment" or a combination of all the above. As we take from martial arts and make a sport..I guess you can take from the sport of Boxing and make it into a martial art.

candan · Post by **candan** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 12:03 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by wedgeman:
thank you david
candan is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offense taken and thank you Uglyelk and David for the "warning flag" as it prevented a sarcastic response on my part..almost threw that Tomatoe (fruit

). These type of discussions are valuable in allowing us to think openly and "look at the trees as we go down the path"
Leo

Ribo · Post by **Ribo** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:45 am

uhh... has there been a misunderstanding?

'candan is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable'

That wasnt a comment on candan's physique or apperance, but rather a rhetorical question refering to boxing. like:

'Candan; is a tomato a fruit, or a vegetable?'

right?

............................................

"I agree that Boxing is an art form but I do not regard it as "martial" in the sense that it was not developed to kill or cause bodily harm."

well, neither was judo, nor Aikido.

I think I have been guilty of some sort of geographic snobbery here. Maybe its hard to think of boxing as a martial art, because its not exotic and eastern. But it has Kata, it has tradition, it has highly martial objectives, It is unarguably effective...so why wouldent it be classed as a martial art? (certainly not one to my liking...but thats irrelevent.)

david · Post by **david** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 3:09 am

Ribo,

Good clarification of Wedgeman's sentence. If that's the case, my apology for coming down a bit hard on a misperception.

Back to my point which is that if we are to equate "martial art" with "lethality" than any empty hand practice -- be it a western or eastern tradition -- falls short. If we are to equate eastern empty hand training as a martial art so should we do the same for a western deriative.

Looking back on old eastern styles, the main thrust (pun intended) had been about edge or sharp weapons. The same with western martial arts (check out [url=http://www.haca.com)]www.haca.com)[/url] Empty hand engagement took a back seat when the primary consideration was to slay one's enemy. Nevertheless, unarmed combat was studied as well. This was true in both eastern and western martial arts, albeit a minor part of the curricula.

It was and is in times of relative peace that empty hand training can take preeminence. It is in times of war that it quickly recedes into the background vis a vis training with arms. Yet, we who study empty hand techniques and styles like to view ourselves in a "warrior tradition." We can afford this fantasy/fallacy that our empty hand training makes as "death dealing machines." The fantasy evaporates quickly and sadly in face of an opponent wielding a weapon...

Anyway, here are some links of the unarmed western traditions.

http://www.thehaca.com/spotlight/unarmedcombat.htm
http://www.thehaca.com/Manuals/Passchen/Passchen.htm
http://www.alliancemartialarts.com/fiore.html
http://hema.freehomepage.com/cgi-bin/b/726/64/dXNlcmJhbm5lcg==/is/120/?ns_7753

david

[This message has been edited by david (edited March 23, 2002).]

f.Channell · Post by **f.Channell** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 3:35 am

This is a good topic. I often thought of starting one about sports from martial arts.
who can deny the following:
Javelin
Football
Soccer
The biathlon (where they ski and shoot)
Archery
Some are armed, some not, some are individual and some are group. And I'm sure there are more I couldn't think of.
Judo has kata which have lots of self defense moves which show it's martial side.
Not to mention the undeniable skill which results from throwing, pinning, choking your opponent who's not letting you do it. The Judo of 100 years ago was more jujitsu like, but it's all there under the surface.
f.

wedgeman · Post by **wedgeman** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 4:49 am

Sorry about the miss understanding
I was not calling anyone anything it was
ment as our discusion was taking a big
circle
it was bad puncuation and improper spelling
on my part

Shaolin · Post by **Shaolin** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 5:56 am

A martial art is a martial art because the stated objective of the training is in effect for war or combat. In the case of a 'sport' it is quite clear, if one looks at the training, that it is not meant for war. For arts in the gray area the training is still targeted at self-defense and not a for a game. In sports, no matter how leathal the player may be in a fight he is still training in and for a sport even if it is a martial sport.

In my book the fact that many a boxer could destroy many a martial artist in a fight says more about the training, or lack thereof, of the martial artist than the boxer. There are many ways to destroy an enemy in combat and a martial artist or a soldier should be familiar with these 'quick and dirty' methods of taking out the enemy, e.g. eye gouges, groin attacks, leg attacks, throat attacks, biting and any other 'dirty' moves. A streetwise predator will be using these moves on you, if he has the chance, and this type of training is, or should be, found in the training of soldiers and martial artists though it is often missing because of the 'modern' focus on sport.

Note that even in the UFC there are a TON of rules. In the last UFC here are the things you can't do

NO

Butting with the head.
Eye gouging of any kind.
Biting.
Hair pulling.
Fish hooking.
Groin attacks of any kind.
Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
Small joint manipulation.
Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
Grabbing the clavicle.
Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
Stomping a grounded opponent.
Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
Spitting at an opponent.
Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
Holding the ropes or the fence.
Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
Interference by the corner.
Throwing in the towel during competition.

If you think that this doesn't change the way people will fight and 'what works' then I have a bridge I've been trying to sell. In the street there are no rules and that is the reality of combat.

------------------
Moy Yat Ving Tsun
Rest in peace dear teacher, dear friend, dear brother, and dear father: Moy Yat Sifu

[This message has been edited by Shaolin (edited March 24, 2002).]