You MMA fans seriously think they go toe to toe with boxers?

When then I'll respectfully disagree again.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts[/ame]

The earliest and first definition of martial arts was a fighting style that was used in combat. (Or is currently used). The term now has different and many meanings, but at it's origins that's exactly what it means. And boxing, at no point anywhere ever, has been used primarily in combat. And there was a reason. It simply wasn't effective for the circumstance of combat. It's a very limited form of fighting and when you're fighting life and death you want something that has a bit more scope to it.

 

James,

You are very, very wrong. Boxing was learned frequently in conjunction with fencing or epee by the gentlemen of the day as self defence against being assaulted by staves, clubs and swords. It was taught as a self defence art to enthusiasts right from its inception. Quite clearly it is martial art and always has been - if use on the battlefield is the key qualifier then quite a number of popular martial arts will have to be renamed! You need to learn a lot more about the origins of boxing before you make such a silly statement.

And BTW boxing has been used as recently as WW2 - Easy Company used knuckledusters for close quarters work in the trenches when storming German Machine guns positions.

Forget Wikipedia - do some actual research!

 

James, dude, even your WIKI article cites boxing as a martial art...

Also, boxing is listed under Wiki's "List of Martial Arts."

... [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_martial_arts[/ame]

 

You seemto be missing the point, and I have done research. Years ago.

I said specifically that by it's earliest definition boxing can not be considered a martial art. Then, it was strictly defined as combat used fighting style. Or a system of fighting used in life/death combat (at least on a large scale). Even look at the word. Martial. Like Martial Law. Military. See the correspondence?

Now, under more recent definitions any fighting style is now classified as a martial art and more recently due to the fact that guns have been invented (or projectiles that weren't arrows). And because of that, boxing can by the more recent definition be considered a martial art. However, as I maintained since the beginning, in it's strictest definitions (or earliest) it is not.

 

You have chopped and changed your definition of what a martial art actually encompasses and using your own criteria fairly then several of the most popular martial arts are not martial arts according to yourself. You seem to solely equate combat with a battlefield whilst ignoring or minimising the self defence component.

Judo, Tae Kwon Do, Greco Roman wrestling, Turkish wrestling and boxing just to name a few would not be considered martial arts if we used your criteria. :huh

And case in point the source you quoted directly contradicts you - I would read the "Bible Of Boxing" and focus on the development of boxing teachers and styles in the 18th century which will show why boxing came to be.
Also at no time has the word "martial" solely meant what you are stating - there are numerous meanings and usage accepted throughout the world. The criteria you are using is YOUR criteria and yours solely.


Martial
adjective
1. inclined or disposed to war; warlike: The ancient Romans were a martial people.

2. of, suitable for, or associated with war or the armed forces: martial music.

3. characteristic of or befitting a warrior: a martial stride.

 

Let me break it down for ya'll.

James is one of those guys that has el feather fists, so he's scared to get in the ring and box, and would rather wrap up as soon as possible to avoid gettin hit.

So he gives boxin no credit at all.

It's understandable from his perspective.

 

Very nice post. Mischaracteristic of what my view, but nice regardless. You're fun to debate with because you bring valid points. Unlike that waste of space below you, whom I'll deal with (again) in a minute.

Again, that is not my definition. It was a widely accepted definition of martial art. I've even provided some etomological proof. Martial Arts, Martial Law. Common theme is military. Is it universal? No, of course not. Because the world was not as connected but for a majority of the connected world that was the definition. So, again, I have created no definition to any word anywhere. It is what it is regardless of my opinion.

And you're right, very many of today's martial arts (by modern (and better) definition) would not be considered martial arts in the far more strict sense. Absolutely correct. Wrestling would, because it was widely used, especially back in Roman times (and possibly earlier). Judo would absolutely not. Tae Kwon Do (American style) would absolutely not. It's absolute garbage (the majority of it).

And as for boxing, again, at no point am I saying it's completely ineffective. Actually, I think it's very effective. However, it is also extremely limited. (Especially in it's more modern form, but then again, I'm not sure it's changed a drastic amount or if the rules of boxing have been drastically changed) And when I say extremely limited I mean relative to the variety of situations that other forms of martial arts prepare you for. Boxing is good (and where it's good, it's fantastic) for a very, very select few scenarios.

I like ya P, you're a good debator and bring valid points to the table.

 

First, I'm getting very tired of slapping you down time and time again. Every single time I've been able to make you look like an absolute fool. It was fun at first, but now it's getting more annoying. You're like a child that does the same ******ed thing over and over and over again. Just stop (posting here).

You're not breaking anything down for anyone. So, stop talking yourself up. It's not working.

And absolutely. Because you know my martial arts training background. Right? Because if you did, you'd know that I hold a black belt in a striking based art. And that I started doing Muay Thai and boxing once I reached the age of 18. And it was only after starting those that I started actively doing Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. So, yes, based on that I'm absolutely terrified of getting "in the ring and box."

And you're absolutely wrong. (Which isn't surprising because I haven't seen you right on anything...so it's a recognizable pattern...more of a constant, really) I give boxing a ton of credit. I give credit where credit is due. Boxing is a hugely effective form of fighting. However, what I do say is that it's the most limited of all the forms of fighting that are indeed effective. But I suppose if you could read and had a brain you would have got that from all of my previous posts. Eh, that's just you trying to make yourself look good at my expense from my making you look dumb over and over again. (And I'm not the only one...think there's maybe a reason that everyone here disagrees with you on everything you say?)

So, I've already shown that you know absolutely nothing about my perspective thus making it completely absurd for you to even begin to understand my views.

So, I'll say again. Stop posting here. Go back to GBF. When you get a brain and some logic/common sense, you're welcome back so long as you stop making these stupid nonsensical posts.

Bye.

 

:thumbsup Personally I hate the second word "art" to describe any style.

As we say in our gym "We are not artists, we are athletes, our canvas is our body and our gym, we strive for perfection and sometimes achieve it".

BTW your "pedigree" is damm close to mine. :thumbsup

 

Good times, sir! And yeah, I think it moreso carries over from Sun Tsu's "Art" or War or something of the like, but yeah, the origin of the term is very, very old. Hence why I used the oldest meaning as clearly it has new and a bit more...clear definition today.

 

i've studied other martial arts and boxing is the only one that really teaches range. an understanding of range trumps kicks, elbows, knees...etc. grappling was once a big part of boxing; the clinches, infighting, the way boxers threw their punches, from underneath, holding and hitting, control.

basically boxing in essence is arguably one of the most effective martial arts that human beings have developed. think about it, the weapons are limited to just 2. do we always think the guy with more weapons will automatically win? its how good that person is with those weapons. How much versatility they have.

 

1.So which definition do you agree with then, the old one or the new one?

2.Why?

3.Punches cant kill people?

4.Why does this matter so much?

 

1. If you're thinking etomologically then I'd have to "agree" with the oldest one. Because otherwise it's a misnomer and doesn't really make any sense.

2. Answered in one. But then again, definitions are what they are, I can't really "agree" with it or disagree.

3. Of course punches can kill people. However, the odds of a singular punch killing someone (assuming it was the only punch) is astronomically small. (And I'm aware in some cases it can and does happen, but those are very unique cases and normally there is something odd about the physiology of the person who was struck that caused abnormal amounts of damage to be sustained from a single blow in the first place) Again, because it seems some people have difficult reading, I'm not saying that boxing is not effective. It is. I think it's very effective. However, it's also, by far, the most limited. It prepares you for such a small percentage of possible scenarios. Where it is effective it is exceptional, make no mistake, but again, that's a small window.

4. It's really doesn't. I merely pointed something out, was challenged on it and provided reason and proof. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

What are the odds of surviving for a human if Mas Omaya in his prime punches you in the head(once)?

Or escaping if he decides to?

What do you think of him often reportedly killing ****in' bulls with only one "punch"?

Is their a difference between a karate punch and a boxing punch?

So you agree with the old explanation back when it was a "loose" term rather than when it has evolved and has been refined over time?




:bbb

 

You seem to be drawing somerange conclusions?

I have no idea, but I'd think alot of it has to do with if you're prepared for a punch, where he hits you, how hard he hits you, and the thickness of certain parts of your cranium. (And a bunch of other miscellaneous factors, obviously)

If he decides to what? Punch you? Well, if you're versed in any other martial art you can combat him back. (I must admit I don't know, well, anything about the man whom you're referring) Will you guarantee yourself safety? No, of course not, but if you're adept at wrestling then odds are, if he's something of a traditional boxer (with a bit of wiggle room) with no wrestling experience/knowledge himself, you're going to take him down with relative ease and thus his punching power is drastically reduced. Thus increasing the odds of your survival enormously. But, for your average non-trained person, then boxing is usually more then sufficient.

Reportedly? Sounds like nonsense glorified over time. Often exaggerations exaggerated even more. While I can't be certain that it's false on the same coin you can't be certain that it is (unless you are, in which case I'd require proof (proof...not "reportedly")

Well, they're both done with the fist? Yes, boxing punches are just that. Punches maximally efficient given the restrictions of boxing rules. It's very refined given the set of rules to which it has to conform. Karate on the other hand has very different rule sets (of which there are numerous forms as there are many styles of Karate) thus a greater variety of situations to anticipate thus a punch must be thrown different to maximize effect in conjunction with other techniques of the style. However, if you were to take any striking based martial art and limit it to strictly punching, over time what you'd get is boxing. That's what it is. Simply a limiting of the styles. Boxing is the most limited with the allowing of punches only.

Again, I can't "agree" with anything. And actually the definition has not been refined over time. It's in fact become more convoluded. It was it's simplest at it's earliest. Now, the definition has expanded to include fighting styles that by it's earliest definition wouldn't fit. Hence my use of the word misnomer.