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.
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.