Couple of questions...
How are you comparing the amount of training before getting to a "competitive career?" Most of the boxers you watch on TV, started boxing when they were very young. They boxed a lot of years before ever going pro.
For many years, in MMA, you could be a collegiate level athlete in something like football, start your MMA training and be a challenger and or champion with in 5 years or so. When UFC started, all the guys "trained" from a young age. Then, we started getting lots of guys in that their main "skill" was being in shape and willing to take a hit to give one. We are now back to a point, where these guys have trained MMA sense they were young... but that possibility of training for your whole life was not possible until recently. You see guys in MMA with less than 20 total fights as ex-champions, sometimes 2 time champions. In boxing, its rare to even be considered contender until you go 20-0 or 19-1.
Again, my question here is how are you determining that it takes a boxer less training to become pro? I would say that they are at least the same.
good catch, and I had a feeling someone would grab onto that, even as I was typing it.
Perhaps I should rephrase what I said to try and better represent what I had in mind. Maybe the notion of a competitive or "pro" career isn't what I really had in mind, but rather the amount of training needed to get someone into fighting on some circuit level, even if it's an amateur level. If someone young and healthy and fit walked into a boxing gym and said "hey, I want to get into competitive boxing" and he was told that it would take ten years of work on fundamentals before he would be ready for his first match, probably boxing would have far fewer competitors if that was the norm in the industry. So what would it take? i'm guessing here to be honest because I've never had an interest in boxing so have not followed it, but I would imagine that depending on the individual it might be 6 months to 2 years? and then of course people continue to develop as they train beyond that.
In contrast to that, there are methodologies in some other martial systems that seem to take longer than that to reach what might be a comparable level. In my opinion some of those systems, while having a steeper learning curve in the beginning, have greater ultimate potential; but I also realize that most people do not reach that ultimate potential. That is not to say that these people are never effective nor skilled. Having the skill to protect oneself in a street altercation is not the same thing as having the skill to climb into a ring and agree to fight against a highly-trained opponent. One who has sufficient skill to navigate the former may (or may not) have sufficient skill to navigate the latter. But if he has no interest in competition, that is irrelevant.
so getting back to your question, it is my impression that boxing optimizes a training method that enables a determined student to become a "competitive" (a term that may be defined in various ways) boxer in a "reasonably" (again, can be defined in various ways) period of time, with genuine technical skill and ability.
What is wrong with the biomechanics of a boxers punch?
nothing, within the context of a boxing match. A competitor wants to compete before he gets too old to take the physical punishment, so he has used a training method and developed some solid punches that are useful while wearing heavy gloves, and within a ring.
outside of the ring, without gloves, there MAY be some problems, depending on the individual and what they may or may not have done to mitigate the problems.
If all of their heavy-bag training has been done with wrist wraps and protective gloves, and they have never spent time training to hit a solid object (like a heavy bag) without that protective and supportive gear, they may get injuries such as rolling their wrist or striking with the wrong portion of the knuckles and breaking the hand.
i've seen clips of boxers shadow-boxing with their thumb stuck up in the air and the fingers in a loose, open curl. That comes from wearing a boxing glove, it is the position that the glove puts the thumb and fingers into. Again, if the boxer has never spent time training to hit without the gloves, habit may put that thumb into that vulnerable position and result in a break or a sprain, and may put the fingers into that open curl, resulting in further damage.
This is the result of training to punch while wearing supportive wrist wraps and protective heavy boxing gloves. I am simply pointing out the danger a boxer may be in outside of the ring, IF he/she has not spent some time training in ways to overcome the habits ingrained by wearing that protective equipment.
Which art teaches better biomechanics? What are you comparing and why? What would improve a boxers punch from a biomechanics stand point?
The first obvious answer would be to train strikes without the supportive and protective gear of wrist wraps and gloves, IF a boxer wants to have viable technique outside of the ring. If the ring is all he cares about, then that is irrelevant.
However, other improvements would be methods that are better at teaching how to engage the feet and legs to drive the punch and rely less on the shoulders and upper torso.
I know that boxers actually do that as well. They are not ignorant of the importance of using the legs to get power. But from what I've seen, it is my opinion that it can be done better. This is something that Asian methods tend to make a specific focus in training. The method takes longer to develop and requires an instructor who has a well- trained eye to really spot the little errors that can bleed away the power, but in my opinion it has, as I mentioned above, a greater ultimate potential.
I think most (if not all) martial arts intend to use this concept. However, it is my opinion that many of them really are not very good at it. This can be for several reasons. If someone who becomes an instructor never really came to understand the concept and never developed his own skill with it, then he is unlikely to be able to effectively transmit the knowledge to his own students. Then, anyone downstream from that instructor who has not gained the knowledge from a different source, will be lacking in the skill. It is possible that over some generations, if that lineage becomes dominant in that particular style, that the knowledge becomes lost in the context of that style as a whole. Otherwise it could simply be that certain individuals are just not very good at it because it can be a subtle skill that is easy to bungle. The skill may not be lost to entire styles, but may become somewhat rare and limited to those who work harder or are better able to grasp the concepts.
Why haven't boxers figured this out already?
i don't know what boxers have or have not figured out. If they haven't figured it out, it could simply be because time is short, people are busy, and nobody has the time to go out and systematically explore every method in the world and develop a level of real understanding of each of them, to then decide what is best. So we all do what we do and evaluate what we see based on what we have experience with, which will be different from other people.
Perhaps boxers have figured this out and decided that within the context of boxing, it does not matter. As I said above, the methods I prefer do take longer to develop. Maybe that is enough of a deterrent for a gym that wants to get competitors into the ring as quickly as is realistic. In that case, the extra time needed for the methods I describe may not be worth it.
You have some interesting thoughts there, and I just wanted more insight into why you feel that way.
happy to share. And again I will stress that I am not saying that boxers lack in skill or ability. It is simply my opinion that it can be argued that boxers do not have the objectively "best" punching methods. But what methods they do have they can become very very good with, and it certainly works well within the context in which it is typically used.
