Kenpo and Boxing

MattJ

Brown Belt
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
429
Reaction score
11
Location
Pennsylvania
Let's define some terms here then. "Training" means what you are taught, i.e., the techniques and how to do them properly. "Training Methods" means how they are taught.

Yes, we agree.

The how is going to change from teacher to teacher even if the techniques are the same. It may even change with the same teacher depending on the student(s) that are being taught.

Agreed, again.

Athletic young men may be taught differently than children or the elderly etc. Now I didn't say that they would neccessarily be taught different things, but rather a different method would be used to teach the same material. In this sense, it is entirely possible to seperate the two from each other.

Yes, but I didn't say it couldn't be done - I said it wasn't meaningful to do so. The smaller repetoire of boxing can be as much or more effective than kenpo if the kenpo person's training methodology is not as effective as boxing's. This goes back to your point of boxing being "inferior" for the street - it depends on *how* they've trained, as much as *what* they've trained.

As to the rest, I agree that being strong and in good condition are advantages for the most part. However, one thing that we have noticed in our school is that bigger stronger guys tend to be sloppier in their technique. They find that they can cheat material and still make it work for them by simply muscling it rather than using proper leverage etc. For instance, if I'm strong enough to make someone wince and even submit when I grab their hand and squeeze, then I may never learn to do a proper wrist lock.

Fair enough, although that sounds like an issue for the instructor. However, the fact that they can make it work anyway, kind of works to my point..... ;)

Ultimately that is not to my advantage since I may not always be strong enough to pull that off, or else I may run into someone stronger than me and then I'll really wish that I had the proper technique engrained instead of the sloppy way of doing it. Over-reliance on being in top condition can be a detriment. which goes to your next point...

Well, I'm certainly not advocating over-relying on anything, just so we're clear.

If the only way that your training benefits you is by being in such great condition that you scare off any potential attackers, then you need to train in something else IMO.

No idea where you are coming up with that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not intentionally trying to strawman me here.

The martial arts are designed to give the smaller, weaker person a way to defend themselves against a bigger stronger person. They do this with using the element of surprise as well as superior technique. To me, boxing is not the best method of defending oneself. Even in the videos where a boxer fights off people in the street (look on youtube) they rarely end the fight quickly unless the opponents run off.

While I get your point about efficiency, as they say, "a win is a win". The opponent "ran off" for a reason, right?

Boxers will beat on each other for 12 (used to be 15) rounds and not score a knockout. How many rounds could someone stand being kicked in the groin, poked in the eye, chopped in the throat or neck, smashing their collar bone, kicked in the knee joint? etc. How good of condition does one have to be in in order to pull off those techniques?

Heh, that depends on how good your opponent is, yes? It's actually much harder to break collar bones and knees than most people realize, FWIW. Guys kick each other in the knee all the time in the UFC.

Like I said before, I don't want to train in something that tells me I'm "screwed' if I'm sick or injured.

I think you missed my point. Being sick or injured is going to 'screw you', no matter what you train. :)
 

KENPOJOE

Brown Belt
Joined
Apr 10, 2002
Messages
448
Reaction score
18
Location
New Bedford,MA
Hi folks!
This past tuesday I had the opportunity to train w/Mr. Frank Trejo,10th degree black belt in EPAK,who comes from a long line of boxers and was himself a boxer and kickboxer,as well as one of the multiple winners of the IKC.
I specifically asked him about this question and had a wonderful disertation on the topic of boxing within kenpo and boxing attacks and kenpo defensive approaches to said attacks.
some of the interesting comments from Mr. Trejo were that at first,Mr. Trejo didn't beleive that Ed Parker was a boxer because of the "Karate" way he moved! I was surprised by that because when I watched Kenpoists like Dave Hebler,David German and Al Tracy do certain techniques [such as the uppercut in 5 swords] they moved like a boxer!
When Mr. Trejo visited Hawaii, they remembered Ed Parker as a Boxer!
Thx to handsword for mentioning this aspect and MJS for bringing it up in this thread...wish you were there!
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE
 

Danjo

Master Black Belt
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
1,378
Reaction score
60
Location
Fullerton, CA
Yes, but I didn't say it couldn't be done - I said it wasn't meaningful to do so. The smaller repetoire of boxing can be as much or more effective than kenpo if the kenpo person's training methodology is not as effective as boxing's. This goes back to your point of boxing being "inferior" for the street - it depends on *how* they've trained, as much as *what* they've trained.

Again, then why not merely improve one's Kenpo training, and not worry about adding boxing?



Fair enough, although that sounds like an issue for the instructor. However, the fact that they can make it work anyway, kind of works to my point..... ;)

Only if they are in top form. It's when they are not in top form that they need to have better technique.


Well, I'm certainly not advocating over-relying on anything, just so we're clear.

Okay.



No idea where you are coming up with that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not intentionally trying to strawman me here.

No "straw man" I'm taking what you said litterally: "Heh, that is a good point, but if you're sick or infirmed, then you probabaly ARE screwed in reality, yes? Predators do not pick on those that are in shape and represent a threat, as you noted earlier. Being in shape is something that I regard as the first line of self-defense, not just in being able to withstand an attack, but in discouraging them in the first place. :) "

You're saying that if you are not in good shape or if you're injured or sick then you are screwed, and that if you are in shape, then you will not be attacked. This implies that being in shape is the only thing that matters because if you're in shape then no training is needed since no one will attack you, and if you're not in good shape or are sick etc., then your training won't matter because you're "screwed"



While I get your point about efficiency, as they say, "a win is a win". The opponent "ran off" for a reason, right?

I'll take any win I can get also, however, I would rather be able to end things more decisively than to rely on the other guy running off.



Heh, that depends on how good your opponent is, yes? It's actually much harder to break collar bones and knees than most people realize, FWIW. Guys kick each other in the knee all the time in the UFC.

Well, firstly, I'll disagree about collar bones. I've had mine broken with little effort and I've broke other's without much effort also (not even trying to). As to the knees in the UFC, we're not talking about a Muy Thai roundhouse to the knee on an opponent that knows what to expect, we're talking about a stomping heel kick to the side of the knee to someone that isn't ready for it.


I think you missed my point. Being sick or injured is going to 'screw you', no matter what you train. :)

See my reply above. Also, I disagree. I'd rather not be sick or injured if someone attacks me, but I train to be able to defend myself if I am.
 

MattJ

Brown Belt
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
429
Reaction score
11
Location
Pennsylvania
Again, then why not merely improve one's Kenpo training, and not worry about adding boxing?

Ok, but that's fairly undefined. In the scope of this thread, one might use boxing as a vehicle or method in which to improve one's kenpo. What would you recommend? I personally would (and did) add MMA training methodology to my kenpo, with good results.

Only if they are in top form. It's when they are not in top form that they need to have better technique.
Not disagreeing, but it doesn't sound like that happens very often, from what you're saying.

No "straw man" I'm taking what you said litterally: "Heh, that is a good point, but if you're sick or infirmed, then you probabaly ARE screwed in reality, yes? Predators do not pick on those that are in shape and represent a threat, as you noted earlier. Being in shape is something that I regard as the first line of self-defense, not just in being able to withstand an attack, but in discouraging them in the first place. :) "

You're saying that if you are not in good shape or if you're injured or sick then you are screwed, and that if you are in shape, then you will not be attacked. This implies that being in shape is the only thing that matters because if you're in shape then no training is needed since no one will attack you, and if you're not in good shape or are sick etc., then your training won't matter because you're "screwed"
Off on at least two points. First, I did NOT say that being in good shape alone will prevent you from being screwed if you are sick or injured. Secondly, you wrote "This implies that being in shape is the only thing that matters because if you're in shape then no training is needed"

That is not even close to what I said or implied, and is indeed a strawman. I meant that being in shape is a deterrent. A deterrent does not deny the need for training; it merely reduces the chances you will need it. Please don't confuse the two. Perhaps if you weren't so insecure about your training, you wouldn't feel the need to make inaccurate cheap-shots about other's training.

I'll take any win I can get also, however, I would rather be able to end things more decisively than to rely on the other guy running off.
Fair enough.

Well, firstly, I'll disagree about collar bones. I've had mine broken with little effort and I've broke other's without much effort also (not even trying to).
Only seen it once myself in 25 years of training, but OK.

As to the knees in the UFC, we're not talking about a Muy Thai roundhouse to the knee on an opponent that knows what to expect, we're talking about a stomping heel kick to the side of the knee to someone that isn't ready for it.
Hmmmm.....You're reframing your own question. But luckily, I was actually thinking of Anderson Silva's fight with (?)Thales Leites, where Silva repeatedly sidekicked Leites in the knee, to no effect at all. Been used by a few others as well, with the same result.

See my reply above. Also, I disagree. I'd rather not be sick or injured if someone attacks me, but I train to be able to defend myself if I am.
Not sure I understand. You disagree that being sick or injured will impede you effort to defend yourself, no matter what you train? Or you think that a only boxer's skill and abilities vanish completely if they are sick or injured?
 

Danjo

Master Black Belt
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
1,378
Reaction score
60
Location
Fullerton, CA
Ok, but that's fairly undefined. In the scope of this thread, one might use boxing as a vehicle or method in which to improve one's kenpo. What would you recommend? I personally would (and did) add MMA training methodology to my kenpo, with good results.

Well, if you take the aspects of boxing that help one become a better fighter and use them in Kenpo training, i.e., bagwork, conditioning, etc., then you don't need to learn boxing to do it.


Off on at least two points. First, I did NOT say that being in good shape alone will prevent you from being screwed if you are sick or injured. Secondly, you wrote "This implies that being in shape is the only thing that matters because if you're in shape then no training is needed"

That is not even close to what I said or implied, and is indeed a strawman.

I meant that being in shape is a deterrent. A deterrent does not deny the need for training; it merely reduces the chances you will need it. Please don't confuse the two.

Not confused, it's what you said: " Predators do not pick on those that are in shape and represent a threat" You didn't say that they were reluctant to attack those who are in shape, nor did you originally say (as you just did above) that being in shape was a deterrant, you said that they don't do it. If they don't do it, then all one needs is to be in shape and then there's no problem. Don't confuse me taking what you said as ignorance on my part.

Perhaps if you weren't so insecure about your training, you wouldn't feel the need to make inaccurate cheap-shots about other's training.

When did I take a cheap shot at your (or anyone else's) training? What I said was "If the only way that your training benefits you is by being in such great condition that you scare off any potential attackers, then you need to train in something else IMO."

Notice the qualifiers?

If your training benefits you in other ways, then you are probably training in the right martial art. They're called "if/then" statements in logic.

As to your other point: I'm not insecure in the least. I, for instance, don't recall complaining about my training, nor implying that it needed to be bolstered by something outside of the art I train in. It seems that not only are you expecting me to be able to disregard what you actually wrote, but you are also reading into my posts things I never said.



Only seen it once myself in 25 years of training, but OK. Hmmmm.....You're reframing your own question. But luckily, I was actually thinking of Anderson Silva's fight with (?)Thales Leites, where Silva repeatedly sidekicked Leites in the knee, to no effect at all. Been used by a few others as well, with the same result.

Yeah, you're right about reframing my own question. However, I'm also not advocating an over-reliance on any one target or method of attacking it.

Not sure I understand. You disagree that being sick or injured will impede you effort to defend yourself, no matter what you train? Or you think that a only boxer's skill and abilities vanish completely if they are sick or injured?

Well, in common parlance, when someone says "you're screwed" if certain conditions exist, it doesn't mean that you're at a disadvantage; it means "game over". I wasn't trying to say that one isn't impeded by being sick etc., but rather one didn't have to be "screwed" if that were the case provided one had been trained to deal with an attacker in a way that didn't rely on one being healthy or in good shape.

Perhaps we're at another of those points where we are using the same lingo to mean different things.
 

MattJ

Brown Belt
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
429
Reaction score
11
Location
Pennsylvania
Well, if you take the aspects of boxing that help one become a better fighter and use them in Kenpo training, i.e., bagwork, conditioning, etc., then you don't need to learn boxing to do it.

Hmmm. I'm not sure that makes sense. If they've taken aspects of boxing, they would have had to have learned some boxing along the way, yes? I think I actually get what you're saying, but it seems like you're splitting hairs, IMHO.

Not confused, it's what you said: " Predators do not pick on those that are in shape and represent a threat" You didn't say that they were reluctant to attack those who are in shape, nor did you originally say (as you just did above) that being in shape was a deterrant, you said that they don't do it. If they don't do it, then all one needs is to be in shape and then there's no problem. Don't confuse me taking what you said as ignorance on my part.



When did I take a cheap shot at your (or anyone else's) training? What I said was "If the only way that your training benefits you is by being in such great condition that you scare off any potential attackers, then you need to train in something else IMO."

Notice the qualifiers?

If your training benefits you in other ways, then you are probably training in the right martial art. They're called "if/then" statements in logic.
Heh, you are indeed taking my statement totally literally, and I did not properly qualify it. I guess I assumed that both of us had been around long enough to know that there are no absolutes in martial arts. I was hoping that you would address the clear intention of my point without resorting to semantics, but in any case, I guess I'm missing the logic because right here you say:

We incorporate some boxing into Kajukenbo and use some of the bagwork combinations as well. We also train for how to defend against boxing attacks (as well as many other types of attacks). But if I'm going to be attacked in the street, it will likely be when I look like a victim ripe for the picking (though I hopefully don't ever come off that way). I may be sick, drunk, obviously injured (maybe wearing a cast or on crutches) or old etc. In any event, I will not likely be in top condition when someone decides to attack "lil old me".
Hmmm.....I thought that's what I said - predators don't pick on those that look like they can fight back. Are you disagreeing with me or you?

As to your other point: I'm not insecure in the least. I, for instance, don't recall complaining about my training, nor implying that it needed to be bolstered by something outside of the art I train in. It seems that not only are you expecting me to be able to disregard what you actually wrote, but you are also reading into my posts things I never said.
Fair enough, although the whole "my style needs no help" vibe comes across maybe a bit too strongly IMHO. There's no shame if it did. The creators of your style thought enough of boxing to include it, didn't they? ;)

Yeah, you're right about reframing my own question. However, I'm also not advocating an over-reliance on any one target or method of attacking it.
Fair enough.

Well, in common parlance, when someone says "you're screwed" if certain conditions exist, it doesn't mean that you're at a disadvantage; it means "game over". I wasn't trying to say that one isn't impeded by being sick etc., but rather one didn't have to be "screwed" if that were the case provided one had been trained to deal with an attacker in a way that didn't rely on one being healthy or in good shape.

Perhaps we're at another of those points where we are using the same lingo to mean different things.
OK, but I think the characterization that boxers (for example) are relying on their conditioning is inaccurate. They are relying on their skill, just as we are, with their conditioning being an attribute of the type of training that they do.

But maybe we are indeed closer to the same point than it appears. Our training seems to have run in similar lines, for all the disagreement that we have had here, LOL.
 

Danjo

Master Black Belt
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
1,378
Reaction score
60
Location
Fullerton, CA
Hmmm. I'm not sure that makes sense. If they've taken aspects of boxing, they would have had to have learned some boxing along the way, yes? I think I actually get what you're saying, but it seems like you're splitting hairs, IMHO.

Well, increasing the intensity of one's training and improving one;s conditioning doesn't require learning boxing, but I think we do get each other's point.

Heh, you are indeed taking my statement totally literally, and I did not properly qualify it. I guess I assumed that both of us had been around long enough to know that there are no absolutes in martial arts. I was hoping that you would address the clear intention of my point without resorting to semantics, but in any case, I guess I'm missing the logic because right here you say:But if I'm going to be attacked in the street, it will likely be when I look like a victim ripe for the picking (though I hopefully don't ever come off that way).

Hmmm.....I thought that's what I said - predators don't pick on those that look like they can fight back. Are you disagreeing with me or you?

Once again, if you'll notice my qualifier of "likely" then the whole thing becomes clear. From what you wrote in your previous post, that seems to be what you meant also. Chalk it up to miscommunication/misunderstanding.

Fair enough, although the whole "my style needs no help" vibe comes across maybe a bit too strongly IMHO. There's no shame if it did. The creators of your style thought enough of boxing to include it, didn't they? ;)

Yeah, but they blended it into the fabric of the art. We don't train it seperately as a distinct discipline. We have always been a "Mixed Martial Art" since the beginning. The founders got together and formed a martial art based on their various areas of expertise and used Prof. Chow's 5th degree student Adriano Emperado's Kenpo as the framework to build it on. So it wasn't really "added" to Kajukenbo as something seperate.



OK, but I think the characterization that boxers (for example) are relying on their conditioning is inaccurate. They are relying on their skill, just as we are, with their conditioning being an attribute of the type of training that they do.

But maybe we are indeed closer to the same point than it appears. Our training seems to have run in similar lines, for all the disagreement that we have had here, LOL.

Boxing is a sport that relies on endurance in order to beat down one's opponent in the hopes of out pointing them or else knocking them out. The boxers like Tyson, Foreman, Liston, Shavers etc. that could regularly knock out someone in a few seconds were rare, which is why they garnered such fame and public interest. Even then, When Tyson tried it out on the street against Mitch Green, he broke his hand. All in all, I would rather train in something else for self defense. Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with boxing as such, and we do indeed have elements of it in Kajukenbo, but even though Emperado, Tiwanak and Parker all boxed in the days before their martial arts training, they all went on to study Kenpo and Kajukenbo. That alone can tell you where they thought that boxing fit in terms of it's usefulness as a self defense art.

But then, those guys trained seriously back then. They weren't dilettantes when it came to the martial arts like so many today are. I think that a lot of the reason that boxers are so impressive to martial artists today is because those that box, tend to take it very seriously compared to the average martial artist training at a strip mall and earning their black belt in a year.

But like I said, to me the corrective is to train more seriously in Kenpo etc., rather than to take up boxing.
 
OP
M

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
427
Location
Cromwell,CT
First time I went up against a boxer was a real wake up call.

He was just a beginner student at our Kenpo school, and I was Billy The Brown Belt Badass. And the first time he hit me with a jab to the face sure surprised the hell out of me.

He wasn't even that good a boxer, but it was a different fight then I was used to. Totally different head movement, body movement, stepping, blocking, striking. Strikes coming from angles I wasn't used to. A different mindset towards defense and offense. It was a real challenge.

I was used to a lot more circular striking, and a longer range that allowed for kicking. He came right at me with short jabs and high crosses, which was very unlike the karate style sparring I was used too, and blew up my defense.

I learned later that my instructor had pawned him off on me after jamming his shoulder blocking trying to spar the kid himself.

He was a good dude, with a good attitude. And he took those boxing skills right into kenpo and did well there too. And I learned a lot from that fight and opened up a whole new dimension to my fighting. I started working with other guys in the school who had boxing experience and working their drills into my training.

I've had the same experience fighting BJJ guys, and Muay Thai guys, and Capoeria guys, and Shootfighting guys, and Tae-Kwon-Do guys. That's why I continue to try to train with them when I can.

Because you can get real, real good at beating up the other students at your school, but when you get thrust into a situation you are inexperienced with it can be more of a challenge than you might think.

I think it's very important to share your skills with students of other arts, and learn from what they have to share. It's the best way to improve against their styles, and it helps you to recognize more clearly the mark of a trained fighter or a novice.

I've picked up a lot of great material that way, without having to sacrifice what I've learned about kenpo.


-Rob

Hey Rob,

Yes, I can relate to this. When I started training with my new teacher, he had asked me what my goals were, what I wanted to focus on with him. In addition to learning the material that was taught at his school, I had also mentioned that I wanted to focus on improving my punching skills. Our sparring that we did, was more boxing oriented, and yes, I too, ate some hard shots from him. LOL. Good stuff though, and IMO, it was a wake up call for me, due to the fact that all I had pretty much grown up with in my MA journey, was the typical point sparring stuff.

We would often record our 'fights' and watch them after, to critique them, and I'm happy to say, that my boxing/punching ability has greatly gone up. :)

In addition, we'll also mix it up more MMA like. So in addition to defending against the hard, fast shots coming in, I'm not only working on offense and defense, but also entering in to clinch, work knees, elbows, etc.
 
OP
M

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
427
Location
Cromwell,CT
Hi folks!
Dear MJS{Mike}
As far as the "standing like a statue, while the other guy blasts away with 10+ strikes" comment, My response: You've got to start somewhere. Do the ideal phase to get the understanding of the cheoreograhy of the technique and the understanding of reactionary positioning. Start working with higher levels of intensity only when a thorough understanding and performance of the base techique is acheived.If you cannot perform the technique correctly in the first place how can you fare successfully against a skilled practitioner who thoroughly knows HIS technique!
I am definitely one of those individuals who benefit from learning and teaching multiple arts and how it answers many questions regarding the kenpo/kempo sstyles/systems I study/teach. If we truly do those techniques "'til we are blue in the face" then you are following one of the major terms I teach all of my students..."Learned technique becomes instinctive reflex through repetition!"
in other words, do the technique until you are sick & tired of it...THEN DO IT SOME MORE!
By working with master grapplers like David German, I appreciated grappling more and he had me look at that aspect with a more discerning eye.But the previous statement still held true.
If we do not train these techniques without logical progression & a logical progression of contact and intensity then we will simply dismiss a technique with "that technique sucks" or "that doesn't work" and it will be an inaccurate statement.
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE

Hey Joe,

Yes, I agree, we do need to start somewhere. :) I had a similar discussion over at KT with Doc. I had said that while we should start off slow to get the basics down, it seems like some aren't taking into consideration the fact that it needs to be taken up a notch, ie: add in some resistance/aliveness.
 
OP
M

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
427
Location
Cromwell,CT
Dan and Matt...you guys have a good debate going as well. I had started this thread a while ago, to address the very topic you're both discussing.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87719

Anyways, since its being talked about here, I'll toss in my 2 cents. :) Regarding fitness...chances are, we're all working a 40 or more hr. work week, thus, we probably dont have all the time in the world to train, such as the guys in the UFC do, or pro boxers, etc. Those guys go to 'work' in the gym, whereas we go to an office, a school to teach, a LEO, etc.

I do think that fitness is important, we're probably never going to reach that peak performance, so as Dan said, instead of relying on that superior strength/conditioning, we should take into consideration that not everyone is going to be the energizer bunny. LOL. I need to be able to function if I just got done working 16hrs, am totally exhausted, and some jerk decides he wants my car, I need to function if I have the flu and so on.

I dont think that we, as martial artists need to be capable of running 10mi. but we shouldn't be gasping for air when we walk across the room either. :)
 

Hand Sword

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
6,545
Reaction score
58
Location
In the Void (Where still, this merciless GOD torme
Something to note about the "all encompassing" arguments, Boxing also shows up as "dirty Boxing"m now a days, and looking at that and what is implemented (along with once used, and now illegal moves), it looks very similar to martial arts' movements (Very similar). A comparison of methods of use would be interesting, especially in this debate.
 

Danjo

Master Black Belt
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
1,378
Reaction score
60
Location
Fullerton, CA
Something to note about the "all encompassing" arguments, Boxing also shows up as "dirty Boxing"m now a days, and looking at that and what is implemented (along with once used, and now illegal moves), it looks very similar to martial arts' movements (Very similar). A comparison of methods of use would be interesting, especially in this debate.

It is interesting to look at the differences between modern boxing and the old bare knuckle variety. I have dvds on both "Irish Bare Knuckle Boxing" and "Dirty Boxing/Extreme Boxing" and both are informative and pretty good. It is a lot different than the gloved sport. The area of the hand that one hits with, the chopping motions and elbows, the use of the forehand for chopping, back fisting and marking rather than jabbing for the most part, etc. etc.

It was also a more precision fighting form than the modern variety due to not having the hands wrapped and gloved. Boxers tended to pick their openings more carefully etc. than they do now (at least the good ones who didn't just flail away).
 

Thesemindz

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Messages
2,168
Reaction score
101
Location
Springfield, Missouri
It is interesting to look at the differences between modern boxing and the old bare knuckle variety. I have dvds on both "Irish Bare Knuckle Boxing" and "Dirty Boxing/Extreme Boxing" and both are informative and pretty good. It is a lot different than the gloved sport. The area of the hand that one hits with, the chopping motions and elbows, the use of the forehand for chopping, back fisting and marking rather than jabbing for the most part, etc. etc.

It was also a more precision fighting form than the modern variety due to not having the hands wrapped and gloved. Boxers tended to pick their openings more carefully etc. than they do now (at least the good ones who didn't just flail away).

On a related note if you haven't recently I recommend everyone go back and watch Far and Away with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. For the fights. The bareknuckle boxing scenes are pretty interesting.

Tom Cruise also punches a horse.


-Rob
 

Danjo

Master Black Belt
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
1,378
Reaction score
60
Location
Fullerton, CA
Of course, there's always "Foxy Boxing" to consider adding to your training. I'm constantly studying it for ideas.
 

Blindside

Senior Master
Founding Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2001
Messages
4,996
Reaction score
623
Location
Kennewick, WA
Something to note about the "all encompassing" arguments, Boxing also shows up as "dirty Boxing"m now a days, and looking at that and what is implemented (along with once used, and now illegal moves), it looks very similar to martial arts' movements (Very similar). A comparison of methods of use would be interesting, especially in this debate.



These are some of the versions of Filipino boxing. This is what my kenpo has sort of morphed into as I got deeper into Kali.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LawDog

Master Black Belt
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
1,324
Reaction score
52
Location
Massachusetts, USA
I live in an area thats considered a long time boxing area so I know and have also trained in both boxing and kickboxing.
Agreed, boxing is not the best all around martial art however in the street a boxer can stand his own.
There is no martial art that is best suited for the street. Every art has it's strong points and weak points.
Boxers, much like the MMA boys, can take serious punishment. I have seen many boxers train well into their 50's and 60's. These older boxers do not fight in the ring anymore but they still do "club house" light matches.
Boxing is an art, they just don't stand there and trade strikes. They use,
*various types of blocks including "bob and weaves",
*utilize various types of footwork,
*apply tactics,
*use modern training techniques
*each school has their own "battle tested" presets,
*practice live drills,
*use all types of striking equipment.
If you stand across from an equally skilled boxer you will get hurt, badly.
:ubercool:
 
OP
M

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
427
Location
Cromwell,CT
I live in an area thats considered a long time boxing area so I know and have also trained in both boxing and kickboxing.
Agreed, boxing is not the best all around martial art however in the street a boxer can stand his own.
There is no martial art that is best suited for the street. Every art has it's strong points and weak points.
Boxers, much like the MMA boys, can take serious punishment. I have seen many boxers train well into their 50's and 60's. These older boxers do not fight in the ring anymore but they still do "club house" light matches.
Boxing is an art, they just don't stand there and trade strikes. They use,
*various types of blocks including "bob and weaves",
*utilize various types of footwork,
*apply tactics,
*use modern training techniques
*each school has their own "battle tested" presets,
*practice live drills,
*use all types of striking equipment.
If you stand across from an equally skilled boxer you will get hurt, badly.
:ubercool:

This is kinda the point I was trying to get at with this thread. :)
 

Hand Sword

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
6,545
Reaction score
58
Location
In the Void (Where still, this merciless GOD torme
1. A martial artists ability to control the movements and attacks by an adversary.

2. Having a developed sense of timing. (when to attack, how to attack, etc..)

3. Developed patterns of attack and defense.

4. Defensive tactics such as ducking, bobbing, weaving, and rolling with strikes.

5. Takedowns: throws, trips, sweeps, pins, pushes, pulling, proper grips/grabs/holds, turning, twisting, grappling and choking. The use of mat work and offensive and defensive ground work (Which I have noticed. Many grapplers I know focus on the offensive side and not so much defensive. This is evident when watching MMA stuff. They grapple, if not applying, they seem clueless and basic. Also noted was off balancing techniques.

6. Using the opponent's attack against them.

7. Using different strikes and executing them properly (This ties in to training the basics properly)

8. Sense development. (awareness training for immediate response)

9. Proper footwork and patterns, like staying on the balls of the feet instead of flat footed. (Karate vs Boxing)

10. Physical Body development--to withstand punishment. (I've seen this debate on these forums many times-lol) (goes to commercialization debates too)

11. Utilizing SPECIFIC hand and foot combinations (Karate vs. Boxing training methods)

12. Use of feints, deflections, parries, leading and misleading tactics. The claim is also that many styles were too strict in systemized sequences, making them predictable, and leaving no room for Tailoring to one's specifics (This was a good debate to!)

13. Development of proper breathing.

14. Getting familiar with the major and lesser know vital areas.

15. Using both hands to block and strike at the same time.

16. Chi development as it increases inner strength.

This all came out of Count Dante's Book "World's Deadliest Fighting Secrets" (1968) in the things lacking in the arts section. In spite of the man and book, I think there are some valid points here which have been debates, so I'm interested on any thoughts? Discussions? Opinions? It fits right into this debate too.
 
OP
M

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
427
Location
Cromwell,CT
I'd say alot of that can already be found in Kenpo, although a few things may not be focused on as much, ie: the grappling and staying on the balls of your feet for better movement and some stuff isn't, from what I've seen, focused on at all in Kenpo, ie: bobbing/weaving.
 

Entryteam

Yellow Belt
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
2
Location
Arkansas
Anyone who says that a kenpo person would NOT benefit from some boxing training has lost his mind.
 

Latest Discussions

Top