ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[drop bear]

I could say that. I didn't and wouldn't, but I could. Do you have a straw factory or something?

Really?

And if boxing were a fighting style rather than a sport it would have some method of coping with grappling attempts or would expand to develop them.

Then boxing would be doing a different style.

 

[drop bear]

Like boxers can hit because their style is boxing. Not at all a circular argument.

Boxers can hit because they are people with arms and legs who spend time practicing the skills needed to land hits.

How do you think style changes this?

Yes it is circular. People are capable of skills because their style equips them.

Boxers spend time learning how to hit properly. How properly you learn how to hit determines how well you hit.

Style.

 

[drop bear]

Yes, but if style determines 2%, training determines 92%. So what's your point?

If.
What is your evidence this is the case?

And 2% is still 2%. Not 0%

 

[Buka]

No, but if you told me you ate a banana and it allowed you to levitate I would reasonably ask you to provide some evidence that bananas help you do so.

All you had to do was ask, bro.

I know it was a small banana, but I'm kinda scared of heights.

 

[DaveB]

There are tactical implications of style. In other words, it impacts your decision making. It impacts your understanding of range and timing. It impacts the attributes that you believe are important to develop and the manner in which you understand physical altercations

This is not to mention the myriad of physical differences which differing styles present.

I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree. I'll try to take each point in turn because your well thought out answer deserves a detailed response.

1. Tactical implications, such as decision making.

Yes, I totally agree. Style does affect decision making. If I am a karate guy I'm almost never going to chose to shoot for a double leg takedown where I might if I'm a jujitsu guy.

But, how do I go from Joe Nevertrained to expert karate fighter?
I train. There's nothing else to it but training.

So stylistically I'm encouraged to go for x technique over y technique.

How do I land technique x? How do I set it up? How do I know when I should go for something different because it's not safe?

Training.

Because even if your style comes with a book of theory explaining when and why to do x, y and z techniques, good training will illuminate any flaws in those theories.

You see, this is how I know guys like drop bear are just clinging to this idea of style relevance in order to have something to bash: in a different conversation my argument is their argument.

Train with hard contact to work out what works and what's b.s..
Well if you do that but keep an analytical mind, your not just going to throw stuff out, you are going to learn what you need to do to hit with a short punch or to take someone's balance with aiki principles etc.

It's a natural progression of their same message.

2. Style impacts the attributes you choose to develop.

Again, completely agree. Style influences your specialisms.
How do you execute a specialism like ground fighting? You train to get into position and deal with obstacles and counters and to develop the attributes you need to pull it off. If your training is lacking you won't be successful.

Training is still the decisive factor.

3. The manner in which you understand physical altercation.

This I disagree with. It may affect how I view my tactical options, because I only have the options I've developed in training. But Understanding is down to experience. Again how much I've been exposed to through my training.

Can you argue that individual styles offer limited training experiences due to having classes filled with people doing the same thing? Sure. But it's up to the teacher to improve the breadth of your training. It's not a weakness of the system of fighting.

4. Physical differences. I'm not sure what exactly your referring to, can you elaborate.

 

[DaveB]

Except that I believe that the combat skills directly influence the style, and are in turn influenced by the style. How does style affect the skill of blocking? I'm pretty sure I already covered this. A boxer trains their blocks to defend against punches, mostly to the head and sometimes the upper torso, whereas an MMA fighter will train their blocks not only for punches, but for kicks as well. The style has therefore influenced the blocking skill.

Don't get me wrong, there are certain basic attributes and skills that are required in all Martial Arts, things like balance, hand-eye coordination, fast reaction times, etc but again, these skills are influenced by the activity or style you are using them for.

You defeated your own point.

A boxer trains their blocks to defend against punches,

So fix the training and you fix the flaw.

The trouble is you are conflating style and training. Yet boxing only trains as you describe because of competition rules, not because of fight philosophy. This is actually the difference between a sport and a martial art, but that's a separate issue.

Even if/especially if boxing was an ma again, there's nothing stopping the boxer from changing up his training to handle a wider range of attacks.

 

[DaveB]

Really?

And if boxing were a fighting style rather than a sport it would have some method of coping with grappling attempts or would expand to develop them.

Then boxing would be doing a different style.

1, not necessarily. The development may just be tactical movement and striking to preemptively disrupt grapple attempts. Not necessarily new techniques.

2. So what? Only historians and the faithful believe in preserving arts without letting them grow or adapt. Look how many variations of wing chun there are.

3. How is that quote saying style doesn't matter because people can train other styles? Why after I've repeated my quite simple point so many times is it so hard for you to stick to it and not invent random straw men?

 

[DaveB]

Yes it is circular. People are capable of skills because their style equips them.

Boxers spend time learning how to hit properly. How properly you learn how to hit determines how well you hit.

Style.

And what do boxers call learning how to hit properly???
Training maybe?

How properly you learn is more commonly referred to as...
How well you train?

Training style? Yes. Fighting Style? No.

Peekaboo = a fighting style.
Philly shell = a fighting style.
Hitting focus pads in combination = training.

But this is progress.

 

[DaveB]

If.
What is your evidence this is the case?

And 2% is still 2%. Not 0%

I never said it was 0%, I said it is insignificant in comparison to.

My unbiased analytical assessment of martial arts is my evidence (I'm an analyst by trade). Not to mention that despite your huge desire to style bash you just said so yourself without realising it.

Also if I have to provide evidence so do you.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

You defeated your own point.


So fix the training and you fix the flaw.

The trouble is you are conflating style and training. Yet boxing only trains as you describe because of competition rules, not because of fight philosophy. This is actually the difference between a sport and a martial art, but that's a separate issue.

Even if/especially if boxing was an ma again, there's nothing stopping the boxer from changing up his training to handle a wider range of attacks.

If a boxer starts training to use and defend against kicks is it still boxing? Also it seems logical that the sport rules would come from the fighting philosophy, not the other way round. I haven't looked too deeply into this but don't boxers have the philosophy that kicks are too risky and unnecessary to bother with and therefore train with just punching in mind? The boxing community then made the rules of the sport around this philosophy? Of course, nowadays boxers train based on the sports rules, but I doubt it was always like that.

Surely people have to be practicing a Martial Art before the sport was invented.

 

[DaveB]

If a boxer starts training to use and defend against kicks is it still boxing? Also it seems logical that the sport rules would come from the fighting philosophy, not the other way round. I haven't looked too deeply into this but don't boxers have the philosophy that kicks are too risky and unnecessary to bother with and therefore train with just punching in mind? The boxing community then made the rules of the sport around this philosophy? Of course, nowadays boxers train based on the sports rules, but I doubt it was always like that.

Surely people have to be practicing a Martial Art before the sport was invented.

The rules of boxing exist to make a fair competition and to reinforce safety. Before that boxers punched kicked elbowed and grappled.

Once it became a rule defined sport it ceased to be a martial art as it did what it did for other reasons than preservation from violence.

As to the general point of a style changing, They always have and hopefully always will. As I said earlier, if you can have countless styles within an art all based on variations and additions why should it be a problem to adapt your training.

That being said, I define a fighting style by it's principles. That is rules/guidelines that you adapt into techniques. So as long as my body is obeying the physical rules and my use of a technique is obeying tactical/strategic rules then you are not IMO altering the style.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

The rules of boxing exist to make a fair competition and to reinforce safety. Before that boxers punched kicked elbowed and grappled.

Once it became a rule defined sport it ceased to be a martial art as it did what it did for other reasons than preservation from violence.

As to the general point of a style changing, They always have and hopefully always will. As I said earlier, if you can have countless styles within an art all based on variations and additions why should it be a problem to adapt your training.

That being said, I define a fighting style by it's principles. That is rules/guidelines that you adapt into techniques. So as long as my body is obeying the physical rules and my use of a technique is obeying tactical/strategic rules then you are not IMO altering the style.

Ok, I've done a bit of reading and from what I can tell Boxing has never been used as anything but a sport. Even in Roman times it was only ever done as a sport. There may not have been many rules back then and fights were usually to the death, but it was still a sport. So in your opinion Boxing was never a Martial Art?

I agree with you that a style is defined by the principles and that variations can occur as long as the principles still apply.

 

[DaveB]

Ok, I've done a bit of reading and from what I can tell Boxing has never been used as anything but a sport. Even in Roman times it was only ever done as a sport. There may not have been many rules back then and fights were usually to the death, but it was still a sport. So in your opinion Boxing was never a Martial Art?

I agree with you that a style is defined by the principles and that variations can occur as long as the principles still apply.

I've seen references to boxing and wrestling as martial arts, taught alongside fencing in Europrean martial arts schools hundreds of years ago, but I could be mistaken.

 

[jobo]

Ok, I've done a bit of reading and from what I can tell Boxing has never been used as anything but a sport. Even in Roman times it was only ever done as a sport. There may not have been many rules back then and fights were usually to the death, but it was still a sport. So in your opinion Boxing was never a Martial Art?

I agree with you that a style is defined by the principles and that variations can occur as long as the principles still apply.

this discussion is turning quite bizarre, not only have you not defined boxing you haven't defined sport

any system that can only be apples according to rules is a sport, so all boxing that has a referee( or even a gentleman agreement) is a,sport, however the boxing skill set can be used anywhere, to attack others to defend ones self, at that point it isn't being used as a sporting contest, so isn't by defintion a sport?

 

[Midnight-shadow]

this discussion is turning quite bizarre, not only have you not defined boxing you haven't defined sport

any system that can only be apples according to rules is a sport, so all boxing that has a referee( or even a gentleman agreement) is a,sport, however the boxing skill set can be used anywhere, to attack others to defend ones self, at that point it isn't being used as a sporting contest, so isn't by defintion a sport?

I'm with you there, it's DaveB that is under the impression that something can't be both a sport and a Martial Art at the same time. If you believe that then Boxing (which has only ever been used as a sport) isn't a Martial Art.

 

[jobo]

I'm with you there, it's DaveB that is under the impression that something can't be both a sport and a Martial Art at the same time. If you believe that then Boxing (which has only ever been used as a sport) isn't a Martial Art.

boxing under a rule set has only ever been a sport, but much the same is true of all ma, unless it getting on to the silly discussion that only battlefield fighting is martial

 

[DaveB]

The point about boxing being a sport is just to explain why boxers don't train to defend kicks or takedowns.

Of course you can use boxing to fight, but that is not the purpose of the game of boxing.

As fighting is not the purpose, there's no reason to expect a boxer to have a takedown defence etc. So trying to justify the idea of the "boxing fighting style" being a relevant factor in fighting because of what it is lacking is a red herring.

 

[DaveB]

boxing under a rule set has only ever been a sport, but much the same is true of all ma, unless it getting on to the silly discussion that only battlefield fighting is martial

I define martial arts as systems or methods of fighting for the purpose of preservation against violence. Purpose is key.

Boxing is a competition with the aim of winning either by points or knockout where points are scored by landing blows with the front part of a gloved fist.
Everything else about boxing is based on those limitations. The "style" is shaped by the rules and objectives of the competition.

If points were scored only when blows hit the tummy and head shots got you penalised, boxers would not guard the head ever. But head shots are entertaining and so far not too lethal for public consumption so for now boxing happens to be useful for fighting because there is enough overlap between it and most real life situations.

Just like 400m sprinting. Arguably the best self defence skill one can learn, but not a martial art.

 

[jobo]

I define martial arts as systems or methods of fighting for the purpose of preservation against violence. Purpose is key.

Boxing is a competition with the aim of winning either by points or knockout where points are scored by landing blows with the front part of a gloved fist.
Everything else about boxing is based on those limitations. The "style" is shaped by the rules and objectives of the competition.

If points were scored only when blows hit the tummy and head shots got you penalised, boxers would not guard the head ever. But head shots are entertaining and so far not too lethal for public consumption so for now boxing happens to be useful for fighting because there is enough overlap between it and most real life situations.

Just like 400m sprinting. Arguably the best self defence skill one can learn, but not a martial art.

a couple of points, there are people who learn and practise boxing for self defence purposes or to preserve against violence if you wish. Therefore by your own defintion it then becomes a ma.
second, I had a fighting method long before I took up ma, the purpose was to preserve against violence, your defintion would include my clumsy fighting as a ma,as that was its purpose and purpose is key

 

[Steve]

I define martial arts as systems or methods of fighting for the purpose of preservation against violence. Purpose is key.

Boxing is a competition with the aim of winning either by points or knockout where points are scored by landing blows with the front part of a gloved fist.
Everything else about boxing is based on those limitations. The "style" is shaped by the rules and objectives of the competition.

If points were scored only when blows hit the tummy and head shots got you penalised, boxers would not guard the head ever. But head shots are entertaining and so far not too lethal for public consumption so for now boxing happens to be useful for fighting because there is enough overlap between it and most real life situations.

Just like 400m sprinting. Arguably the best self defence skill one can learn, but not a martial art.

Wait. You don't think boxing is a martial art? Just trying to keep up here.