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.
Jim, we're pretty much in agreement here. It comes back down to the individual with his skills and intent.
I'm not much interested in buying the Brooklyn Bridge (how many times sold aready?) any more than betting against a boxer on the street vs. a "martial artist." Maybe the martial artist gets in his deadly eye gouge, knee kick, throat jab, etc, before the boxer can land his classic (but less "deadly") left jab, cross, hook and uppercut. If not, well as a late boxing coach (and heavyweight contender) used to say, "It's dreamland time."
david
[This message has been edited by david (edited March 24, 2002).]
Hey all... great thread. While I enjoy pondering the technical aspects of my practice, the bulk of my study is the emotional content of my movement and how to EXPRESS this with the least possible resistance from self. It is for this reason and this reason only that I consider myself a Martial Artist. Suprisingly, the only time I am a Martial Artist is when I am alone, performing my kata. While practicing Bankai and Kumite, I do not feel like a Martial Artist, I feel more like a technician.
An age old debate is what is the difference between an Art and a Craft. It may do well do well to ponder the word "trade" as well.
This doesn't mean that folks are either one or the other, but I like to think of them as modes. In one moment, emphasis can be placed on one of these modes where as the others are squelched somewhat, if not quite a bit. E.G. While performing kata, I become a Martial Artist whereas my Craftsmen mode might not rear its head until im inbetween katas, pondering what went right or wrong (expression-wise) in the previous moment. Tradesmen would be in slumber this whole time (as it usually is with me, i'm not big into $$$ for Karate, paying or getting paid).
So, back to the original question, sure, a boxer can be an Artist, or a crafsmen or a tradesmen or all 3. So can a Baker for that matter or even a junk collector.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tony-San: Hey all... great thread. While I enjoy pondering the technical aspects of my practice, the bulk of my study is the emotional content of my movement and how to EXPRESS this with the least possible resistance from self. It is for this reason and this reason only that I consider myself a Martial Artist. Suprisingly, the only time I am a Martial Artist is when I am alone, performing my kata. While practicing Bankai and Kumite, I do not feel like a Martial Artist, I feel more like a technician.
An age old debate is what is the difference between an Art and a Craft. It may do well do well to ponder the word "trade" as well.
One might be surprised to find that in our practice, the aspect of "Power Generation", that expression is half the battle. The other half of course is the technical aspect (e.g. body mechanics like in the mindset forum). It's interesting because to generate power with efficiency, you must have the elements of both Artist and Craftsmen.
Notice how I paint with a broad brush here.. anyone doing anything can fit into this.
Several decades back, I spent time studying and practicing "the sweet science" because I thought it would help my "martial arts." A peer of mine I used to train with also boxed (won UVa's intramural boxing championship 3 years in a row back when they still had intramural boxing) and it seemed to enhance his martial arts skills. There was much that I learned from the little bit of boxing I did.
So for those that insist boxing isn't a martial art, what does it say when folks like me who practice something that most call a MA find something to learn from it? I am not alone in this. Bruce Lee also found much to like from this western sport.
this was written in the margen of a book i was reading:
"One who works with his hands is a labourer.
one who works with his hands and his head is a professional.
One who works with his hands and his head and his heart is an artist."
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bill Glasheen:
So for those that insist boxing isn't a martial art, what does it say when folks like me who practice something that most call a MA find something to learn from it? I am not alone in this. Bruce Lee also found much to like from this western sport.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey Bill,
I don't think anyone is saying that you can't use Boxing elements in Combat, I certainly wasn't. I believe that the intent of the training is key in determining if something is a 'Martial art' meaning for combat.
While Boxing is good for developing some attributes it is also poor in developing others. Boxing has earned the reputation that it has for a few reasons:
Attributes:
1. It forces 'student' to learn how to take punishment that many MA 'students' are unwilling to endure.
2. It never uses 'fake' distancing and imagined contact, which can hamper one's development.
3. It forces the 'student' to get into better physical condition to perform in the ring.
4. It forces the ‘student’ to develop power.
Another factor in Boxing is that there are no 'half asses' in the gym. In the 'dojo' there are many a 'half ass' - meaning that many people in the dojo are just there for fun, or to make friends or for a 'light workout.' One does not find this in a Boxing gym - the people there are there for one reason - to fight. So grab an average MA guy off the street and he is very likely to be one of the half-asses, just along for the ride - in other words not a fighter. But if you grab a Boxer off the street he is always a fighter, be him a good one or not. This changes the odds around quite a bit in favor of the Boxer.
However IMO Boxing has much going against it for combat. If you believe that you fight the way you train then Boxers do many things in the ring that couldn't be done or shouldn't be done in combat while leaving out many things that should or could be done in combat. The luxury that the rules provide in the ring disappear in the street and many a Boxer is use to relying on the rules of the game to win or to even survive. Some things that Boxers do that don’t help: Resting or leaning on an opponent to rest or issue attacks, grossly overextending in attack and defense, not protecting the groin, not protecting the legs, hopping around and weak or no stance (some will find this a plus but they will tap out later), incomplete attacks not followed up to conclusion (due to point scoring), relying on gloves to protect haphazard fists, et al. All these things are due to the rules of the game. Again IMO the direction that the MAs are taking as far as what is considered ‘to work’ is a direct result of sport in the MA. The fact that a Round kick is a big point generating tool in tournaments is because of the rules of the game and nothing to do with street viability. These rules create abnormal conditions in fighting that do not exist in combat. It is only natural that the methods a fighter develops is a direct result of this artificial environment created by rules. In combat some of the most important targets are:
The groin.
The neck.
The head
The legs.
The eyes
If the student is ‘taught’ that he is not allowed to attack these targets in combat then he may hesitate for a brief moment in combat (or sparring) as part of his training stutters when it sees correct targets open but realizes that they are not legal targets – BOOM you just got KOed.
Moreover, Boxers are limited by the HUGE gloves they must use in sparring. In WC we could never use 70% of our hand techniques wearing those huge gloves since they quadruple the size of the hand and also reduce the ability to feel. The gloves also give the wearer the ability to use these big stuffed gloves to block incoming attacks – often taking hits on the gloves and absorbing much energy. Without the gloves the hand must then absorb the energy of an attack – something that doesn’t quite workout as it does with the gloves. Gloves, from what I understand, have changed Boxing quite a bit over the years. This is understandable since much of what worked without the gloves probably won’t work with them on. And so IMO any art that decides to center its training around this type of sparring, while it may be good for some things, limits what can be done in training. IMO because of limitations gloves impose on the users this training turns any ‘art’ that uses this training as its centerpiece into more of an art of HUGE glove fighting rather than just plain hand to hand fighting.
So can you use Boxing on the street? Sure. But IMO that doesn’t mean Boxing in its present form is a martial art.
------------------ 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 27, 2002).]
Does a WC practitioner internalize their art? If so, can you explain it's function?
It seems that you measure art by impact and in my opinion that is somewhat superficial. That is like saying a childs depiction of a flower is not art because it is done in crayon. You seem to think that a practice must contain several groups of techniques (kicks, punches, head buts) for it to cross the threshold from sport to art. What i'm getting from you is that Boxing cannot be an art because it consists of punching techniques. I should remind you ear biting and head butting techniques have recently surfaced in the boxing arsenal. With that thought in mind, if a boxer practiced some low round kicks and a couple of sweeps, would he then be a martial "artist"?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tony-San: Jim,
Does a WC practitioner internalize their art? If so, can you explain it's function?
It seems that you measure art by impact and in my opinion that is somewhat superficial. That is like saying a childs depiction of a flower is not art because it is done in crayon. You seem to think that a practice must contain several groups of techniques (kicks, punches, head buts) for it to cross the threshold from sport to art. What i'm getting from you is that Boxing cannot be an art because it consists of punching techniques. I should remind you ear biting and head butting techniques have recently surfaced in the boxing arsenal. With that thought in mind, if a boxer practiced some low round kicks and a couple of sweeps, would he then be a martial "artist"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Tony-San,
I am not 100% sure what you mean by 'internalize Wing Chun'. If you could possibly elaborate a bit I will try to answer.
As for the Boxing issue, as I said, the reason I personally do not consider Boxing a martial art is not because of the punches, etc but because the objective of the training is the ring and competition, essentially a game and not combat, and in my opinion that can clearly be seen in the training. The methods used in their training, including sparring with the huge gloves on, I think, has some positives and negatives, as do many things.
------------------ 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 26, 2002).]
Quote: "If you believe that you fight the way you train then Boxers do many things in the ring that couldn't be done or shouldn't be done in combat while leaving out many things that should or could be done in combat."
"Right on bro!" I couldn't agree more. One thing I have noticed in the past when watching the pre-fight weigh-ins is how their boxing technique and fighting strategy goes right out the window when all hell breaks loose. It's funny to watch these punching technicians skills deteriorate into sloppy, uncoordinated, shadows of what used to be considered a good hard punch. They look nothing like they do in the ring with the gloves on. Why wouldn't they implement the skill they trained so hard to achieve? I know adrenaline can cause the loss of fine motor skill, but come on, the punches they learn are pretty simple and direct, not requiring much more than gross motor skill at most. That's what I always appreciated about boxing techniques, simple and effective. I remember after one of Tyson’s post prison fights a melee broke out in the ring and this security guard or police officer, approached him head on and began to push Tyson back to stop the fight. Tyson began flailing wildly at the officer, with no technique whatsoever, and managed to get a few shots on him. The smaller officer just took them and continued to push him back. Hmmmmm…
hmm is right. I'll be honest... I would not want to get socked my Iron Mike. That whole scenario could have easily been staged like pro-wrestling or something.
Jim: It's hard to explain internalize so i'll use an analogy. Think of a tree, the branches reach out in a myraid of complex directions and what not. That would be externalize and could represent a factory of techniques in a fighting system. Internalize would be the other side, where the roots reached down into the self.
Folks,
An interesting debate. You've discussed the "Martial" aspect of MA in some depth but have mostly left the depths of the "Arts" part unplumbed. Here's some thoughts.
One definition of "arts" that I like is that art is an expression intended to evoke emotion (emote) Obviously there are limits to this definition because certain acts of violence are intended to evoke emotion, but still, I like this definition within the limits of its equation.
My second thought is this: IN MY OPINION, our USA culture tends to confuse product with process in the realm of art. We tend to consider the (noun) painting art rather than the (verb) act of painting. In other words, the thing you can by is art, but the thing you do is something else. I think defining art as a process is more appropriate. The painting you buy is the product of the art you do (which, by the way, causes the painter to emote).
In either case, to my mind, boxing appears to be one expression of a Western martial art.
Personall I do not concider boxing a martial art... it definitely has the "martial" part but not the "art" .... for a similar reason I do not concider dancing a Martial Art.... It has the "art" but not the "martial" part.
