Western Boxing

[M Wallgren]

I agree with Katherine and would like to add Wrestlers to the list of streetworthy MA. I`ve seen very a few effective standing throws in barfights in my hometown. One in particular where a friend of mine took a chesthold with one of the opponents arms locked and did a backwards throw, common in Grecco-Roman style Modern wrestling, only this time the opponent was not a wrestler and there was no matt to fall on but a marble floor. do I need to add that the guy was out cold <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />!!

Martin

[Richard Strey]

Because you like to hit all your friend's. ROFL

Huh? I met my girlfriend that way... It took about a year of hitting (with wasters and padded swords) though, until we were convinced of each others' sturdiness. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Gene Tausk]

Corey:

No, boxing and pankration were two separate arts. Both were included in the Olympic games and their were individuals listed as "champions" in boxing, wrestling and pankration. Greek boxing was a lot more nasty than it exists today, but it was striking only, not striking and grappling. Striking and grappling was pankration. Read your history or check out "Martial Arts of the World" edited by Thomas Green, Ph.D.

Second, speaking as a forum moderator, don't ever use profanity on our forums again or you will be banned.


-------------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - ARMA Houston Southside
Forum Monitor

[Gene Tausk]

No. Mike, respectfully it is not irrelevant and foolish.

You made the statement that boxing is not valid for real fighting. Once again respectfully, that is an asinine statement. Boxers are dangerous people. One of the reasons they are dangerous is because, as you have already pointed out, boxers train and train hard and they take their training seriously because they know, as part of their training that they will be expected to get into a ring and spar full contact. They have no room for error. There is no such thing, from what I have noticed, as a half-assed boxer. Someone who is a boxer, whether amateur or professional, will train hard and will not allow any excuses to slip into their lives so that they skip training. Why? As I have already said - part of their training involves getting into a ring with an opponent who will definitely be hitting back. A boxer, and his trainer, knows that an unprepared or out of shape boxer that does this is asking to get a real "whuppin."

Boxing is one of the few martial disciplines of which I know where there is no nonsense. Boxers do not lie to each other and make statements like, "well, I'm not going to climb into the ring with you, but in a real fight I would win." They go into the ring, period. And, like Mike Tyson said, that is the moment of truth. You either face your fear and the very real possibility that you will get hurt, or you go home.

So, when I invited you to spar with a real boxer, when you make the statement that it is not relevant because boxers train hard, yes, that is my entire point. Boxers train hard. That is, in part, what makes them formidable.

If, however, you are going to make statements that boxing is ineffective, I, or someone else, am going to call you on it. Blanket statements like the one you made are, and once again respectfully, out of place and demonstrate an ignorance of the subject. And, for the record, one of the reasons I am so passionate in defending boxing as a formidable fighting art is because in my ignorant youth when I thought TKD was the greatest, I fought a boxer.

Fortunately I fought him in a ring, not on the street. That is why I only got a "whuppin" instead of a real beating. That is why I invite you to do the same.

That is also when I started to train in boxing as well. These skills have served me well.


-------------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside

[Gene Tausk]

"grappling may be your thing-but-blunt force is king" , Aaron


Now that's funny. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />


-------------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside

[Grant Hall]

Mike the way you assert that Gene's statement is foolish is in of itself foolish.
You say that the reason a boxer would beat you is because they train hard? What about olympic swimmers with NO martial taining, they train VERY Hard but can not fight at all.
NO, the reason a boxer would eat you (OR I for that matter) for breakfast is because they train hard at an EFFECTIVE form of martial arts.
I have been in MANY fights and not very many people have been able to stand up to a SINGLE one of my punches and I have no formal training in punching (unless you consider those first five minuets of my very first TKD class) so whoever stated that it is hard to knocksomeone out????? Reasses your statement and learn how to hit harder(Or rather, Hit Correctly). I personally hit at about 242lbs of pressure, My brother hits at 330 odd lbs of pressure, now imagine a 330lb rock landing on your head and tell me your not going to be knocked out.

They only way to not get knocked out is to not get Hit. By this i mean, A: learn how to block. and B: learn how to roll with the punches.

If you look at those Boxing Knockout clips Katherine supplied earlier your will note that the boxers that drop are looking fighting fit until one blow connects squarely, and then it is all over.

My advice is NEVER Disrespect a thouroughly trained boxer unless you are VERY Quick, VERY tough or VERY well ARMED!!!

Peace.

[Mike Chidester]

You misunderstand me, Gene. My argument was not that they train fighting too hard for me to win. They train unarmed more than I do, just as I train swordsmanship more than they do (6-10 hours a week). It's an unequal comparison. If I callenged them to a swordfight, I have every confidence that I'd "win". Since I rarely specifically train in kampfringen, they would obviously have the advantage in the situation you suggest.

If I were touting the superiority of karate or some such style over boxing, your arguments might be on point. But in this case, it's apples and oranges, and at best tangental to my point. I called boxing an inferior fighting style not on the basis of my superiority in unarmed combat over the average boxer--that would, in fact, be a very weak argument on my part, because my ability to beat a boxer says nothing about my style and everything about my personal unarmed fighting skills. Heck, most good fighters employ a mixed fighting style--as you and Katherine underscored with your comments about a boxer not limiting himself to boxing in a street fight.

No, my argument was based on an analysis of the style itself, independent from the ability of the individual practitioners. Training hard is not an aspect of boxing, it's a characteristic of people who study boxing, and also of people who study any martial art seriously and effectively. In terms of technique, boxing focuses on one thing and one thing only: strikes with the hands. It is therefore inferior to any style that incorporates strikes with the hand but also involves strikes with the elbows, knees, and feet, as well as stand-up grappling (something even most "well-rounded" fighters completely neglect), fighting from the clinch, submissions, throws, and the full range of ground-fighting techniques. (In other words, kampfringen.)

[Gene Tausk]

"It is therefore inferior to any style that incorporates strikes with the hand but also involves strikes with the elbows, knees, and feet, as well as stand-up grappling (something even most "well-rounded" fighters completely neglect), fighting from the clinch, submissions, throws, and the full range of ground-fighting techniques. (In other words, kampfringen.) "

For the first time since I began posting on these boards, I am at a loss. I really don't know how to begin to answer these statements Mike. I really don't.

All I can say is the statement posted above in your quote is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard in my life, and considering what I do for a profession, that is saying a lot.

The only thing I can tell you, Mike, is that if you have this view of boxers and boxing in general, you are very much mistaken. Did you read my post abou the "kuh-roddy" "masters" in the 70's and early 80's who thought that because their systems incorporated knees and kicks and elbows that they would win? And, they were wrong.

I really can't see how this conversation can serve any more of a useful purpose. We clearly are not communicating in the same language. I speak from experience as someone who has fought a boxer and trained in boxing and sparred full-contact. Your, from what I have gathered, have not, but you still "know" that boxing is inferior to other systems.

You need to spar with a qualified boxer. Perhaps then your "knowledge" will be based on a little more real-world experience and less on....well, whatever it is on which you are basing your "knowledge."


----------------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - ARMA Houston Southside

[Mike Chidester]

I think we are communicating on different wavelengths, Gene. Let me try this one more time before I give up, though. I'll go through my reasoning, which is based on a possibly incomplete understanding of boxing but a reasonably complete understanding of general fighting, and you can stop me as soon as I make a mistake. I'm quite willing to be corrected and thereby learn, but you thus far haven't addressed my argument. All of your arguments seem to based on the premise that indicidual boxers have more realistic combat training than specific practitioners of other martial arts. You also failing to take into account how ineffective traditional "martial arts" like 'kuh-rotty' are compared to any form of martial arts actually designed for combat.

Anyway, I'll lay out my argument ste by step. Stop me when I make a mistake. If you want I can draw you some Venn diagrams, too.

Boxing is exclusively focused on strikes with the hand, specifically the closed fist. Hand strikes are one of many components of unarmed combat.

--Therefore, boxing employs only one of many components of unarmed combat.

Components of unarmed combat can be likened to tools. A person with more than one tool is more versatile than a person with one tool.

--Therefore, a system focusing on more than one component of unarmed combat is more versatile than a system focusing on one component of unarmed combat.

Let the universe of discourse be an unpredictable environment like combat.

Effectiveness is directly related to versatility of technique. A system focusing on more than one component of unarmed combat is more versatile than a system focusing on one component of unarmed combat.

--Therefore, a system focusing on more than one component of unarmed combat is more effective than a system focusing on one component of unarmed combat.

A system focusing on more than one component of unarmed combat is more effective than a system focusing on one component of unarmed combat. Boxing employs only one of many components of unarmed combat.

--Therefore, a system focusing on more than one component of unarmed combat is more effective than boxing.

That concludes the core of my argument, but as an extension, the following can be said (maintaining the previously stated universe of discourse):

The most effective system of unarmed combat would be one that focuses on all components of unarmed combat. Kampfrigen focuses on all components of unarmed combat.

--Therefore, Kampfringen is a member of the class of most effective systems of unarmed combat.

That was a secondary point I raised, in answer to the poster's original question (how would knights on the battlefield fight unarmed).

Now dispel my ignorance, please.

[Corey Roberts]

Sorry, my mistake, thought they were one in the same (Pankration?Boxing), I apologize sincerely if I offended anyone

[JeffGentry]

Hey Kat

I'm weeding out the weak ones, now all the friends I have left are professional and amateur boxers, kickboxers, and MMA fighters

That sound's like a plan to me.


Jeff

[ChrisThies]

Hello Katherine,
I have no MA training or experience of mention - which is why my 'profile' is blank on this matter - so please forgive any ?'s that would have obvious answers. I just hit the heavy bag for about 1/2 hour once a week (2 minutes 'at it', 1 minute pauses between with my hands up to rest) as an occasional aerobic alternative to running. No time for anymore, or structured training. I wrap my hands &amp; use gloves to avoid injury (as suggested to me by some of my boxing experienced co-workers), and I usually just throw in elbow, knee, and hand-heel blows when I fatigue.

Anyway, my question is about your reference to 'catching' a kick to your knee -

When people try and kick me in the thigh I actually make it a point to try and catch it on my knee because usually it hurts them and they stop throwing that kick.

- do you mean turning your leg (&amp;/or body) so that your knee cap is directly (or as much as is situationally possible) in opposition to the incoming kick? Or do you greet it more with the side of your knee? I ask because, assuming a direct frontal kick from your opponent, I'm wondering in what orientation to your opponent you land, following the block and dropping your blocking foot back to the ground.

[KatherineJohnson]

Like that, though usually done lower, and I try and catch it on the front of my knee by turning my leg outward slightly.

Usually this will hurt your opponent and make them disinclined to throw more kicks, that is if they can even walk after hard shin to knee contact.

After checking the kick I just set my foot back down in standard orthodox boxing position. Or Step slightly to the side and return with a counter kick, or a staight right.

I wouldnt want to catch it on the side because it knocks you off balance, though I've never had it do any damage beyond that despite countless kicks to the knee.

[Joachim Nilsson]

I am aware that I enter this discussion at a very late state, and that a lot of good points have already been brought up by various members.

Inevitably the discussion has entered kampfringen territory, and that's very my interest peaked. I have read through the entire thread now and thought I would share some points I have encountered in my training and study of kampfringen.

1)The blows in kampfringen are usually straight fist blows (bare knuckle boxing style), hammerhand blows, open hand blows and blows with the heel (exp?)of the hand.

The blows are not intended to be fight-ending. Instead they are a means to open up the opponant/enemy for further ventures into grappling, breaking and throwing. Just like in longsword fencing: You initiate an attack to injury or just stun/confuse the opponant before immediately following up with something else. That is probably also why the strikes are aimed at certain "weak" spots: solar plexus, heart, collarbone, throat, teeth, nose, ears, eyes, the neck and the sides of the head.

Passchen's Das Vollstandiges Ringbuch also features some very quick and nasty elbows to the face/chin are of your opponant/enemy once you get close enough.

2) The kicks existing in kampfringen -especially the knee-breakers- are of the stomping (thrust kick) variety. These types of kicks are also aimed at the groin, stomach and lower back. They are usually done by making a passing step with the back leg to close the distance and stomp/kick (with the same leg).

In the ringen section of his 1467 Fechtbuch Talhoffer shows a stomping kick to be utilized in the clinch. It's aimed at the inside of the opponants lead leg, starts at the knee and then pushes downwards. If done with enough force this will, in all probablility, break the opponants ankle.

My good friend Martin Wallgren forgets himself somewhat though. Last summer, while dabbling with Codex Wallerstein we found a technique comprised of a series of kicks and strikes, where the kicks could be interpreted as more of the roundhouse variety -just to make the opponant lose his foothold and balance. I am not saying they are proper round house kicks though. I have a distinct remembrance of a later re-evaluation of that specific technique being done, and I am not yet fully satisfied with any of our interpretations on that. But that is another matter best left out of this thread. I don't want to bore you people. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

3) As for going to the ground: There are techniques that makes both you and your opponant end up on the ground. Likewise there is also techniques on how to deal with a situation like that. They are not in abundance, but they are there.

My take on the whole matter of going to the ground or not is simply: It depends on the circustances. If it is just you and your opponant/enemy (for instance in a duel of judicical combat), then by all means go to the ground if you feel like it. If there are more than one enemy present (for instance in a bar brawl etc etc), then it propably would not be the wisest thing in the world to aim for a ground/unterhalten situation. But again: it depends. And it does happen, so either way one better be prepared for it no matter what. Which it seems like they liked to be judging by the fechtbücher.

I am sure some of these have been mentioned in passing already, so I urge any readers to consider my bringing them up again as me being in agrement with whomever who brought them up in the first place.

As for Robert's initial question:

I was just wondering if they taught some type of early western boxing during the Rennasance period...or the Medieval?

According to the exiled Swedish archbishop Olaus Magnus they certainly seemed to dabble in some kind of fist fights very early on. In his History of the Nordic Peoples from 1555 he writes:

Fighting with boxing-gloves were among the Nordic peoples considered to be quite a test of strength and power, but such are seldom used, since the man’s hands are so heavy and strong, that those who clash do not have to make the punches, they throw, more forceful by leather-straps or by lead sewn into these, when they with their mere fist, which is a hammer good as any, are able to bash their opponents head or body to bits. For it is known, that with the fist-fighters of ancient times he weapon, known as boxer-strap, have not been anything but a strap of ox-hide, which has been wrapped around the hands, so that the fighters themselves would feel less of the punch as well as hit their opponent more forcefully. Furthermore, when they sew lumps of lead into the leather-straps, there was a great danger that, they could pound each other on the shoulders until death.

--5th book, 26th chapter, page 253. [Translated from Swedish into English by me.]

Best regards,
Joachim

[TimSheetz]

Gene,

I have to go with you on this one. I am not a huge advocate for boxing as a core self defense method... but those that have the time and commitment to learn this are armed and dangerous. If you only look at the speed with which they can land blows.

The first thing In noticed when discussing techniqes and such with a boxer about 12 years ago was that when he threw the punch towards my face (and stopped it short for my safety) I DID NOT SEE IT MOVING. And it was only the first in what surely would have been a series that would have left me in serious need of some stitches at a minimum.

I had a study group at West Point and we had a number of cadets who liked and were good at boxing come to a few sessions and they were very quick to adapt and were very good at grasping the ranges of the new system. They also had a good mentality for conflict, i.e. timidity was NOT an issue.

Gotta run.

Tim