Sorry for the confusion there MP, just needed to make sure we were on the same page. I see a lot of critical statements being made about martial arts, and a lot of it is really just unfounded guess work.
I do box. Not well, but I box.
Now, I agree with what you’ve said.
What I’m SPECIFICALLY trying to avoid is the “comparison of weapons.”
Boxing is far from a complete art. I would never claim that. It IS, however, a complete PUNCHING art. Sure, there are some punches in other styles you don’t see in boxing, but boxing carries with it a complete fight strategy, as long as you are talking about hand strikes. That again, though, is another thread.
And you are right–if somebody thinks strength is what “makes the boxing punch,” they don’t know much about it.
Complete Fighting Strategy
MP, I think you may have made that statement a few days ago and I have never heard a more true statement.
As for Boxing, well I dont know enough to know its strategies. I know it has been a sport for a long long time, and that can sometimes lead to a pretty narrow approach.
If someone were to say that boxing were an incomplete art, I am not sure I would agree. It may not have takedowns and grappling, or how to deal with them but like you stated, it has a complete fighting strategy. this to me makes it as complete as it is meant to be. I t accomplishes exactly what it needs to, if it did not then we would be watching ultimate fighting or whatever.
I would even say that it is street effective. I had a friend who was a boxer by hobby. He had a temper and one time I pushed him too far, I was going to tackle him because I could see he was getting ****ed. Giving him a charlie horse usually settled him down (dont ask). Anyway, he jabbed quick and got me right in the lip, put me down! I think in the street a good fighter has a very strong chance, even against someone trained.
Well, I’m not sure that it has a Complete fight strategy, but it’s got a complete punching strategy, that’s for certain 
Yes… boxers are respectable opponents.
I thought we were talking about boxing. My opinion would be the same with Hung Gar and Wing chun as well, even Hsing-I, becayse that stle is very forcefull.
It begins to chnage with Taichi and Ba Gua though, because you should not oppose the force. Of coarse its hard to stop the force of a large man, just as hard as not to have that force reach you, but this is the focus of those arts. That’s why they maintain a fighting ability to older age, its not built on ability, speed, stremght, though it helps.
Its like guerilla warfare. Numbers does not matter. Now, if you line them up head to head, ala, revolutionary war. Then numbers matter.
But if you are not there, it doesn;t matter. Of coarse, easier said then done, and I am not there. I have felt it through my teacher, who is older and smaller then myself. If I could be that good of a fighter when I am 60, I’d be a very happy man.
evolutionfist,
i see what you mean about ability vs. skill. that was a question of vocabulary.
cheers.
stuart b.
Next time I parry a punch, rather than absorbing the shot, take the angle and counter, I’ll remember it’s force on force.
The reason these guys maintain their fighting ability is because, unlike boxers, they don’t look to compete all the time. Competing is rather hard on the body. I’m not saying a good Tai Chi or Ba Gua man can’t fight, I’m saying that they don’t train for it day in and day out, fighting every few weeks. That’s the reality of MOST good boxers, not the one or two fights a year thing.
Wrestling and Judo work on using leverage, timing and proper body mechanics to attack and counter by redirecting attacks all the time. But they are usually not competitive past their mid 30’s.
It has everything to do with the wear and tear of competition, the degredation of your body’s capabilities from age.
Create a competitive Ba Gua or Tai Chi circuit with the same level of talent and number of competitors, and I guarentee that the same physical problems would surface.
But, to steer this back, are you saying that boxing technique is just as strength based as other “forceful” styles? I’m just trying to clear it up.
“Create a competitive Ba Gua or Tai Chi circuit with the same level of talent and number of competitors, and I guarentee that the same physical problems would surface.”
Merryprankster is correct. This is the key point, I feel.
Translation of MP’s post for CMA’ers
Originally posted by Merryprankster
[B]Boxing’s power–NOT fundamentally attribute based.
Ok, what I mean by the thread title is this: You read a LOT of stuff about how western boxing and competitive arts in general, rely on physical attributes for performance.
This is, at best, wildly inaccurate, and at worst, utter crap.
I believe the reason that this perception exists is because boxing,
wrestling, etc, are practiced as competitive sports. At high levels of competition, the skill level is high. At this point, physical attributes “make or break.” Your technique will only get you so far without honing your physical attributes to complement your personal style. So, physical attributes tend to be emphasized as much as skill. Because this physical conditioning is so vital to competitive success, some people make the incorrect leap that “it’s more about physical attributes,” forgetting the
long, long hours engaged in repetitive drilling at different speeds to hone technique, timing, flow, etc.[/b]
All else equals, the big guy wins. I’ve heard this from all my CMA teachers.
[b]Now, the above is more of an aside, and probably worthy of its own separate thread. But it leads into the next point:
The power in boxing is no more fundamentally attribute based than the power generated in any strike from any art.
I will use as my example, a straight right thrown by an orthodox fighter.
The straight right begins at the rear foot. The foot pivots on the ball of the foot, pushing on the ground, generating torque in the rear leg. This opens up the hip so it is more or less square to your opponent, then the shoulders come around. The spine should be naturally straight, neither bent over at the waist, hunched badly, nor unnaturally stiff. While this is happenning, the right arm is being extended and turned over. At the end of
the movement, the structure created is more or less stiff. That is, a direct push on the fist will be transferred all the way through your body to the rear foot on the ground. I realize that some argue about the palm down or vertical fist. Different argument for a different thread.
I can personally tell when I have executed it really well when, at the moment of contact, I feel a big “push” in the ball of my rear foot.[/b]
The strength is rooted in the foot, launched by the legs, directed by the waist, passed through the shoulder, and expressed through the fingers.
Now, does the power come from all the massive amounts of strength I’m using? The answer is no. The use of strength (using too much “shoulder”) can compensate somewhat for improper structure, but you will rapidly tire (not to mention be slow). Instead, the power of the straight right comes from
two things–speed of execution, and proper structure at the moment of impact.
The classics warn us against the use of clumsy strength.
Proper structure, as outlined above, comes from proper body alignment, which in turn, creates “stiffness” from the floor to the fist. This structure is stable and does not give. If the structure is not stiff, then it gives at the moment of impact, and power is not transfered to the target as efficiently as it might be, depending on the amount of give.
Qi passes through the body as a string through the 9 curved pearl
Speed comes from looseness in the body. If you are tight, you move slowly. It’s that simple. So, in order to optimize your speed, you have to remain relaxed and loose…until the moment of impact, when everything is nice and stiff.
The body is soft, like a baby. The power is like the cracking of a whip
So, the power in the punch comes from how quickly you can align your body to attain that rigid structure. And that speed comes only from being relaxed until the moment of impact. It’s not a matter of muscle strength or just banging away. It’s proper body mechanics.
Internally practice the Qi, Externally practice movement
When the internal and the external are united, this is the six directions. When the six harmonies are mastered, thsi is the six ferocities.
The above was not meant to say that all punching mechanics are fundamentally the same at their core (I happen to think they are, but that’s a different topic). It does however, demonstrate that the power generation is NOT due primarily to attributes, and rather on executing the proper technique in a bio-mechanically efficient way.
Oh wow. You mean power generation is analgous. geez.
rofl. That was sweet, WD.
I think claiming weight differences disappear in taiji and bagua is a bit misleading. Both of these arts offer mechanics to directly use your body weight to generate power. Obviously, if you have alot of it - youch. Of course, they offer solutions for us smaller lads too.
I think people calling their art ‘relaxed’ and ‘yielding’ the way taiji or bagua are is similarly misleading. It’s difficult to understand just how relaxed these guys mean by ‘relaxed’ until you’ve trained with them. They really mean relaxed though; REALLY relaxed. No kidding. That said, boxing seems to be reasonably compatible with taiji/bagua goals (granted different strategy and all that), compared to many arts which clearly are not - such as the hard chinese styles which directly cultivate tension, and use it as a training method.
I withdraw my comments about “force on force.”
However, I still stand by my conviction that a competitive circuit would produce injuries, relaxed or not
Ayup. I agree completely. I don’t think the ‘force on force’ stuff was wrong.
Have you heard of William Chen? He is one of the biggest names in taiji in North America, and has adopted alot of boxing. Here’s an article from his site if you’re interested: http://www.williamccchen.com/3nails.htm .
Yup. I’ve heard of him.
I really think people underestimate boxing footwork and evasion skills. I mean, the feet don’t DO anything else in boxing… so maybe it’s not set up for a kick, but they are used to moving and throwing and moving and throwing…
Kicking is for suckers anyway.
I know I mentionned it many times, but here is something coming directly from my bagua sifu: “look at boxers…at high level, they structure their bodies just like we do in bagua, and generate power the same way”
I asked him what was the use of such a long and hard training, why just not do boxing, why didn’t he box instead…he said that for him the structure of a boxer’s body wasn’t as refined as an internal player in the sense that the body is structured in all directions like a baloon, expanding, contracting, with strong body arcs and an open road for power from feet to fingertips.
Boxing for him shares the same mechanism of structuring the body, but stays at a shallower level than chinese internal arts.
I respect boxers.
As for Ba Gua guys. I am training daily for fighting. I do not trade blows everyday tough. I have a few two 18/19 years olds in my neighborhood who box. I’ll box with them on Thurs and Sun. for about two hours. Switching off.
I enjoy it. I liek boxing because they keep it simple: hook, upper cut, cross.
I also think there footwork is pretty good because its natural. The head bobbing works, but could be dangerous.
As for kicks being for suckers, you’ve obviouslyt never had your shin smashed, knee kicked out or even your rib attacked while being distracted with a hand set up. Nit TKD kicking, not body momentum come around the bend roundhouse kicking. Explosive kicking in close.
Don’t underestimate that. Hands are for fighting, kicks are for killing. They must work together, like troops and artillary, air support, ect.
Set up. Set up Set up. I’d actually like to do some boxing. I think my teacher would make a greta coach. He fights with the golden gloves in Brooklyn. He’s 60. He has some good jaming techniques which were excellent with gloves.
I’m Cuban. Of COarse I love boxing. In fact, I’m getting **** tired of the office politics here and am thinking of trying to find if some paper needs someone to cover boxing. That would be fun.
i still can’t see much validity in arguments that boxing is less refined or more basic. and i certainly can’t agree with the notion that it hinges on force on force (though i think most of us are agreed that this isn’t so).
boxing seems to adhere to quite a few ideas on yielding, to my mind. first and foremost, boxing puts at least as much emphasis on evasion (yielding) than blocking. slips consist of taking yourself off of the line of engagement. weaving is a circular pattern made up of a yielding motion and a returning motion. hell, even the boxing practice of constantly being in a low level of motion adheres to daoist theory, to my mind. daoism, to my understanding, suggests that the easiest resolution to a problem can be found before it’s a problem at all. worried about being robbed? don’t have anything worth taking. problem solved.
boxing is like that. the first level of defending against a punch is to make yourself harder to punch in the first place. before blocking, before weaving, before rolling with it. look at the stats in a boxing match. look at the percentage that actually land. not very high. and that’s not because the other guy can’t punch.
part of that first line of defense is the constant movement, making targets harder to acquire. and part of it is the defender’s ideally constant use of the jab to break the attacker’s momentum and rhythm, keep the attacker on guard himself, etc. these are tactics that would make suntzu himself proud, i think. keep your forces mobile so that enemy forces cannot find and attack them. launch constant small attacks to disrupt the enemy’s attempts to mobilize its forces. etc.
there’s a well known story in daoism about a butcher who never had to sharpen his knife. asked why, he explained that if you were attuned enough with the cut of meat, you could perfectly follow the spaces inherent in it, cutting along them and never meeting resistance. to my mind, that’s akin to high-level boxing defense. move in the spaces where there is no resistance. slip into the space on either side of a punch. weave into the space under a punch and circle back into your stance.
frankly, i think high-level boxing is completely ingenious.
one of the things you’ll hear from a boxing coach over and over is to circle the opponent. don’t back straight up. you’ll get on the ropes, or worse yet, in the corner. circle the opponent. eliminate the advantage that his forward momentum lends him.
boxing looks chaotic and brutal. but the nature of that degree of committed fighting is inherently chaotic and brutal. high-level boxing does a good job of honestly addressing that fact.
stuart b.
Ap,
You forgot the part where going straight backwards gets you knocked out by a guy with a big overhand right…
i think i may have forgotten that precisely because i spent wednesday night moving straight backward and getting pegged with a big overhand right, ironically enough.