Boxing is the king of martial arts ! ! !
Hans-Marc Olsen
Sean O.
> Aikido is rubbish, a good boxer will hit you and your teeth will fly into
> space!
Thats the worst troll I've seen in a long time.
Try again, next time make sure you mention Steven Seagal.
si
"Sean O." <se...@deepMUNGEsoup.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:110075293...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
Or Ki bolts - thems my fave...
jsp
> Aikido is rubbish, a good boxer will hit you and your teeth will fly into space!
Ha ha ha . You can tell this guys been hit on the head too many times :-)
--
John
McQz@Work
Judo, Jujitsu (in all its permutations), and rasslin' trump Karate, Kung Fu,
Kickboxing, Savate, and Boxing.
I've never heard of an aikidoka participating...
fran
"Hans-Marc Olsen" <mallet_...@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:e1cc8b8.04111...@posting.google.com...
Ron
of Aikido.
Heck, I must be an advanced student--I don't even WATCH stuff like that...
::grin::
(I'll just wait right here for my trophy...)
Hang in
ron
"McQz@Work" <mc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:10ps8o5...@corp.supernews.com...
DC
Ron wrote:
> By not getting involved in that type of thing, we're practicing the basics
> of Aikido.
--
_______________________________________________
DC
"You can not reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason"
"Don't use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice."
"A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is
never sure." Segal's Law
Daniele Pennese
Olsen) wrote:
>Aikido is rubbish, a good boxer will hit you and your teeth will fly into space!
Funny...oh by the way...boxing is not a martial art...
Sean O.
> Funny...oh by the way...boxing is not a martial art...
How so? Looks a lot like a martial art to me, they don't *have* to be
Japanese y'know.
Storys
This can be argued both ways. Define Martial arts & then you can tell if
boxing is a martial art or not. By my definition it is not. & you are
correct a martial art is not necessarily Japanese or Chinese or Indian.
...........Tom.......................
jsp
> "Sean O." wrote:
>
>>Daniele Pennese wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Funny...oh by the way...boxing is not a martial art...
>>
>>How so? Looks a lot like a martial art to me, they don't *have* to be
>>Japanese y'know.
>
> This can be argued both ways. Define Martial arts & then you can tell if
> boxing is a martial art or not. By my definition it is not.
What *is* your definition?
--
John
Daniele Pennese
<se...@deepMUNGEsoup.freeuk.com> wrote:
>How so? Looks a lot like a martial art to me, they don't *have* to be
>Japanese y'know.
"A martial art is one of the philosophies and techniques of self
defence that come from the far east, for example kung fu, karate or
judo" (Collins)
Anyway...apart from the dictionary I think that boxing is more a
Combat technique than a Martial art because, even though you might say
that also in boxing there is some kind of phylosophy, I think that it
is much more a sport than a martial art.
So...i wouldn't put boxing and aikido in the same classification.
Also i would never compare different techniques/martial art because
that is not the point.
DC
Daniele Pennese wrote:
--
Sean O.
> "A philosophyt is one of the philosophies and techniques of self
> defence that come from the far east, for example kung fu, karate or
> judo" (Collins)
Never liked Collins, I prefer Chambers:
"martial art: any of various combative sports or methods of self-defence
(usu. of oriental origin) including karate and kung fu"
"Usually of oriental origin" (ie: not *necessarily* oriental) hits the nail
on the head, imho.
> Anyway...apart from the dictionary I think that boxing is more a
> Combat technique than a Martial art because, even though you might say
> that also in boxing there is some kind of phylosophy, I think that it
> is much more a sport than a martial art.
I wouldn't say an element of philosophy is necessary to a martial art,
though you could perhaps argue it's the difference between a 'jutsu' and a
'do'. (You'd be wrong, but you could make that argument. :)
There's no question its martial though, and I don't think you can watch a
good boxer and deny there's an art to it. QED, for me, but as ever ymmv.
> Also i would never compare different techniques/martial art because
> that is not the point.
Yep, I'm with you on that one.
Sean
x
Daniele Pennese
<se...@deepMUNGEsoup.freeuk.com> wrote:
>There's no question its martial though, and I don't think you can watch a
>good boxer and deny there's an art to it. QED, for me, but as ever ymmv.
Hehe...anyway...anything can be a martial art then...even eating
spaghetti.
Ok put it this way...lets see...if someone asks me what i do for sport
i'd say I practice a martial art right? I bet that the person would
think many martial arts, like aikido, karate, judo, kung fu and so on
but guess what...the person would never think boxing or
wrestling...not because they are less popular...because they are not
martial arts ;)
Think about it...
"hei what do you do?"
"I practice a martial art"
"yes? Which one?"
"boxing"
"...WHAT!?!"
Anyway...
jsp
> Daniele Pennese wrote:
>
>
>>"A philosophyt is one of the philosophies and techniques of self
>>defence that come from the far east, for example kung fu, karate or
>>judo" (Collins)
>
> Never liked Collins, I prefer Chambers:
>
> "martial art: any of various combative sports or methods of self-defence
> (usu. of oriental origin) including karate and kung fu"
>
> "Usually of oriental origin" (ie: not *necessarily* oriental) hits the nail
> on the head, imho.
Precisely.
I would include Fencing of various types, Quaterstaff, Cornish wrestling...
I have one friend who trains in the Sealed Knot and is a dab hand with a
broad sword (which includes fists and knees etc) and another who does
Medieval re-enactment and I wouldn't mess with him and his hand and a
half sword either, not to mention his 2 handed sword.
--
John
Melissa
> No its far more effective than that. :) To me Boxing is a martial sport.
I'm sure it is, in fact it was one of the original martial arts, starting
in Greece thousands of years ago?
But to me it's rather one dimensional, being if I'm attacked I'll be using
any part of my body that comes in handy.
It strikes me as tying one hand behind you back as a fighting sport. Why?
What's the point in limiting yourself and calling it a sport?
And as for professional boxing, like on Pay Per View, I don't consider
something a "sport" if the objective is to cause brain damage to one's
opponent. I won't watch it.
--
Yours In Liberty, Melissa - Colorado, U.S.A.
http://melissasliberty.blogspot.com/
The last best hope for liberty, to give the world its first Bill of
Rights: http://www.UPAlliance.org/billofrights.htm
Sean O.
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:22:29 +0000, "Sean O."
> Hehe...anyway...anything can be a martial art then...even eating
> spaghetti.
If you can explain to me how eating spaghetti is martial (I'm willing to
concede there may be an art to it), then yeah. Otherwise you're just being
silly.
A formalised system of fighting with spaghetti, on the other hand...
> Ok put it this way...lets see...if someone asks me what i do for sport
> i'd say I practice a martial art right? <snip>
So this argument boils down to "a random person, who doesn't know anything
about martial arts probably wouldn't agree with you, so you must be wrong".
Sorry, that just doesn't stand up.
Ok, how about if you said "I practice a martial art, the noble art."
Chambers again (I don't have Collins).
"noble art or noble science (with 'the'): boxing"
Sean
x
Sean O.
> I have one friend who trains in the Sealed Knot and is a dab hand with a
> broad sword (which includes fists and knees etc) and another who does
> Medieval re-enactment and I wouldn't mess with him and his hand and a
> half sword either, not to mention his 2 handed sword.
Yep, I know a few of those guys (not sealed knot, but a similar kind of
thing). Utter lunatics (in the nicest possible way).
Sean
x
jsp
A few years ago ( I posted about it here at the time) we had an event.
The Sealed KNot guy brought his swords and a buckler, the Medieval guy
brought is hand and a half and his two handed sword, and I took a Jo,
and we had a lillt 'skirmish'. Interesting, it was.
I could deal with the Sealed knot chap by using the superior length of
the jo, and even unarmed against him was interesting. The tow handed
swordsman I could not get near. He had more reach and his weapon was
much more weildy than you might expect. When he swung it, I thought I
might be able to blend with the swing and step in (as you might with a
yokomen attack), but by the time I had, he would have completely
redirected his sword and sliced me up the middle. Disconcerting. But fun.
My jo was never the same again. Fortunately it was a cheap one.
--
John
Storys
"jsp" <jat...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:54tpd.886$wc5...@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> This can be argued both ways. Define Martial arts & then you can tell if
>> boxing is a martial art or not. By my definition it is not.
>
> What *is* your definition?
>
A martial art is a system of combat oriented arts or methods that would be,
or have been used in an actual combative military type of situation with the
total and complete absence of any sport usage whatsoever. This is an
approximation only as I haven't really tried to verbalize this before.
..................Tom.................
Daniele Pennese
<ritb...@dnainternet.net> wrote:
>Funny...oh by the way...boxing is not a martial art...
Ok...I had a look here and boxing is listed as a martial art...always
nice to learn something new ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_martial_arts
I don't know how much reliable is the source but i guess it is
reliable enough for me to understand that i was wrong.
:)
jsp
> "jsp" wrote in message
>>>This can be argued both ways. Define Martial arts & then you can tell if
>>>boxing is a martial art or not. By my definition it is not.
>>
>>What *is* your definition?
>
> A martial art is a system of combat oriented arts or methods that would be,
> or have been used in an actual combative military type of situation with the
> total and complete absence of any sport usage whatsoever. This is an
> approximation only as I haven't really tried to verbalize this before.
So you would discount Judo and Tomiki Aikido?
--
John
Sean O.
> So you would discount Judo and Tomiki Aikido?
Also Yoseikan, Kendo, Shotokan Karate and Muay Thai, among many others?
Melissa
http://www.martialarts.org/boxing.htm
6000 years old, at least on record.
Storys
big determining factor for me is in the word martial.
..............Tom..................
Storys
> jsp wrote:
>
>> So you would discount Judo and Tomiki Aikido?
> Also Yoseikan, Kendo, Shotokan Karate and Muay Thai, among many others?
Muay Thai is a sport and just that.
.......................Tom...............
jsp
> "jsp" wrote
>
>>Storys wrote:
>>
>>>"jsp" wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>This can be argued both ways. Define Martial arts & then you can tell if
>>>>>boxing is a martial art or not. By my definition it is not.
>>>>
>>>>What *is* your definition?
>>>
>>>A martial art is a system of combat oriented arts or methods that would
>>>be, or have been used in an actual combative military type of situation
>>>with the total and complete absence of any sport usage whatsoever. This
>>>is an approximation only as I haven't really tried to verbalize this
>>>before.
>>
>>So you would discount Judo and Tomiki Aikido?
>
> No as what they have at base is both tried and true as a martial art. The
> big determining factor for me is in the word martial.
On what basis do you discount boxing, then?
Sure, it has become highly stylised, and a subset of fighting arts, but
I think you've no more grounds to say boxing has no martial roots than Judo.
As I said in an earlier reply, even the techniques my friend uses for
Sealed knot (Civil war re-enactment) use a fair amount of punches and
knees, even when he still has hold of his sword.
The main difference is that in the West, our separate notion of unarmed
arts appears to have disappeared.
There is a book :English Martial Arts, by Terry Brown which deales with
some, including unarmed. It's quite an interesting read if you ever see
a copy.
http://www.maisters.demon.co.uk/main.htm
--
John
Daniele Pennese
>http://www.martialarts.org/boxing.htm
>6000 years old, at least on record.
Well...the boxing with rules comes from the 18th century...i don't
think that is 6000 years old...
"The word "boxing" first came into use in England in the 18th century
to distinguish between fighting to settle disputes, and fighting under
agreed rules for sport" (Wikipedia, 2004)
If the neanderthal used to give punches to their enemies i don't think
that it is considered boxing...what do u think?
Melissa
> On 27 Nov 2004 17:53:03 -0700, Melissa <mel...@nonospam.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.martialarts.org/boxing.htm
>>6000 years old, at least on record.
>
> Well...the boxing with rules comes from the 18th century...i don't
> think that is 6000 years old...
Who specified rules?
> "The word "boxing" first came into use in England in the 18th century
> to distinguish between fighting to settle disputes, and fighting under
> agreed rules for sport" (Wikipedia, 2004)
>
> If the neanderthal used to give punches to their enemies i don't think
> that it is considered boxing...what do u think?
It looks like boxing with fists only goes back 6000 years and is one of the
earliest martial arts. In war fighting they don't care about sissy english
rules.
Storys
> Storys wrote:
>
>>>> So you would discount Judo and Tomiki Aikido?
>>> Also Yoseikan, Kendo, Shotokan Karate and Muay Thai, among many others?
>>
>> Muay Thai is a sport and just that.
>
Yoseikan, and Kendo definitely are martial arts. Shotokan Karate is a tough
one to call. I've seen some that is most definitely a sport and nothing but.
The teachers have gutted the art for their students. On the other hand I've
also seen examples where the martial aspect is alive & well so I'd have to
say it depends. Judo is one of the very very few ( perhaps the only one )
that has maintained an almost equal footing in both worlds. I'd call this
one a martial art masquerading ( poorly ) as a sport. The upper level
practitioners can turn it from sport to martial art in an eyeblink and they
can do it so consistently that it has to be taught. By upper level
practitioners in this case I mean almost anyone over the level of brown
belt. Tomiki Aikido is much like Judo in it's approach ( wonder why :-) ) so
much the same can be said.
.......Tom........................
Storys
>
> Sure, it has become highly stylised, and a subset of fighting arts,
there you have it. It is a fighting art or sport but not martial.
> I think you've no more grounds to say boxing has no martial roots than
> Judo.
>
Ever hear of Kito ryu? Ever hear of Daito Ryu? Ever here of XXX ryu? These
form the basis of Judo & not street fighting which is a very loonnnggg way
from the streetfighting you mention. Thus by your own standards Boxing has
NO martial art even in it's ancestry.
> As I said in an earlier reply, even the techniques my friend uses for
> Sealed knot (Civil war re-enactment) use a fair amount of punches and
> knees, even when he still has hold of his sword.
>
This is not boxing. Such techiques were born of desperation and the western
readiness to abandon weaponry if it seemed advisable
> The main difference is that in the West, our separate notion of unarmed
> arts appears to have disappeared.
>
Yep no respect for tradition. That's not to say we didn't have our own
martial arts but unlike the East we let ours lapse and fall apart when
better things ( or so we felt ) came along. That's why you find swords
taking on a primarily ceremonial function etc. There was a case on T.V. just
the other day where an old Marine sword came up. This was a second world war
sword. Very nicely etched & everything. Yes it would cut you but it was
obvious from even a casual glance that the weapon's purpose was largely
ceremonial.
> There is a book :English Martial Arts, by Terry Brown which deales with
> some, including unarmed. It's quite an interesting read if you ever see a
> copy.
>
I'll keep my eyes open
.................Tom...............................
Johan Lindquist
Storys was all like, "Dude,
>> Sure, it has become highly stylised, and a subset of fighting arts,
>
> there you have it. It is a fighting art or sport but not martial.
I don't really want to get into this discussion, but I just have to
point out that I don't agree with your distinction of "fighting" from
"martial". The meaning of "martial", to me anyway, is pretty much
something that is used in a fight or a war.
The concept of "sport", however, I might agree is different from
"martial art", not that I'm going to argue which art[1] belong where.
[1] In the most general sense of the word.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
Storys
"Johan Lindquist" <sp...@smilfinken.net> wrote in message
news:1s6r72-...@news.smilfinken.net...
> So anyway, it was like, 01:08 CET Nov 29 2004, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Storys was all like, "Dude,
>> "jsp" <jat...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:jvgqd.12$vV...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
>>> Sure, it has become highly stylised, and a subset of fighting arts,
>>
>> there you have it. It is a fighting art or sport but not martial.
>
> I don't really want to get into this discussion, but I just have to
> point out that I don't agree with your distinction of "fighting" from
> "martial". The meaning of "martial", to me anyway, is pretty much
> something that is used in a fight or a war.
>
> The concept of "sport", however, I might agree is different from
> "martial art", not that I'm going to argue which art[1] belong where.
>
Didn't ask you to. I was asked to explain why I don't regard boxing as a
martial art. & I did. Martial is not just fighting ( IMHO ) so just because
a given art involves a fight does not automatically make it a martial art.
.................Tom.................
jsp
> "jsp" wrote
>
>>Sure, it has become highly stylised, and a subset of fighting arts,
>
> there you have it. It is a fighting art or sport but not martial.
Like Judo, then.
>>I think you've no more grounds to say boxing has no martial roots than
>>Judo.
>
> Ever hear of Kito ryu? Ever hear of Daito Ryu? Ever here of XXX ryu? These
> form the basis of Judo & not street fighting which is a very loonnnggg way
> from the streetfighting you mention. Thus by your own standards Boxing has
> NO martial art even in it's ancestry.
All you can really claim from that is you can spot the history more easily.
I don't recall that I mentioned streetfighting at all, in any of my posts.
My mention of martial history to boxing is below.
Why do you think that oriental unarmed combat is in some way 'more
authentic' than Western: the only difference being the extent to which
it has been turned into a sport.
>>As I said in an earlier reply, even the techniques my friend uses for
>>Sealed knot (Civil war re-enactment) use a fair amount of punches and
>>knees, even when he still has hold of his sword.
> This is not boxing. Such techiques were born of desperation and the western
> readiness to abandon weaponry if it seemed advisable
No, I agree, it's not boxing, any more than Judo is xxxryu.
Nor were they techniques used in desperation when the sword was
abandoned; they were used in tandem: slash with the sword, punch with
the fist, an elbow goes in, back comes the sword etc.
Also, it would appear that you suggest that Western unarmed fighting was
in desperation, when weaponry was abandoned. For what reason, then were
Eastern unarmed techniques developped? Is it not exaclty the same?
>>The main difference is that in the West, our separate notion of unarmed
>>arts appears to have disappeared.
>
> Yep no respect for tradition. That's not to say we didn't have our own
> martial arts but unlike the East we let ours lapse and fall apart when
> better things ( or so we felt ) came along. That's why you find swords
> taking on a primarily ceremonial function etc.
Are you suggesting that swords are still largely functional in Japan
nowadays?
--
John
Storys
> Storys wrote:
>> "jsp" wrote
>>
>>>Sure, it has become highly stylised, and a subset of fighting arts,
>>
>> there you have it. It is a fighting art or sport but not martial.
>
> Like Judo, then.
>
>>>I think you've no more grounds to say boxing has no martial roots than
>>>Judo.
>>
>> Ever hear of Kito ryu? Ever hear of Daito Ryu? Ever here of XXX ryu?
>> These form the basis of Judo & not street fighting which is a very
>> loonnnggg way from the streetfighting you mention. Thus by your own
>> standards Boxing has NO martial art even in it's ancestry.
>
> All you can really claim from that is you can spot the history more
> easily.
>
Not at all. Boxing has a history & is very easily found. It starts ( & ends
too with street fighting witness the last champion who broke his hand in a
bar fight & bit off an ear )
>
> Why do you think that oriental unarmed combat is in some way 'more
> authentic' than Western: the only difference being the extent to which it
> has been turned into a sport.
>
Straw man argument. I never claimed any such things & I won't waste time
defending something you propose. You can defend it yourself if you want to..
Boxing is & always has been a sport. There are NO weapons associated with it
in any way. Even karate which by name says empty hand has been associated
with Kobudo for years. ( weapons )
>
> No, I agree, it's not boxing, any more than Judo is xxxryu.
Yes it is as a matter of fact. By definition alone you could refer to Judo
as Kano Ryu ( the school of kano ) & be quite correct.
> Nor were they techniques used in desperation when the sword was abandoned;
> they were used in tandem: slash with the sword, punch with the fist, an
> elbow goes in, back comes the sword etc.
>
You can't seem to keep the two seperated. Boxing is boxing & sword play is
sword play
> Also, it would appear that you suggest that Western unarmed fighting was
> in desperation, when weaponry was abandoned. For what reason, then were
> Eastern unarmed techniques developped? Is it not exaclty the same?
>
No. The Eastern ( Okinawan techniques ) were developed when the Okinawan
kings outlawed all weapons ( prior to the coming of the Japanese ). they
were developed in response to this little bit of lawmaking.
>
> Are you suggesting that swords are still largely functional in Japan
> nowadays?
>
They could be. Many of the Ryus are still up and functioning. No people do
not walk about carrying swords etc. BUT they do have a far greater reverence
for and a regard for their history than we do. Ever hear of the 47 Ronin???
They are still revered to this day & young people still do them honour. We
can't even get young people to pay attention to the last war let alone the
politicians. Can you name even one school of sword fighting & one present
day master & the person who founded said school? I can name a couple of
Eastern ones I'm not too sure of the present day master of the ryu but I can
name the founder. If you happen to own a sword can you say that it is
registered with the appropriate agency ( I don't mean the police ). In
Canada there is no such thing but in Japan there is indeed such a thing and
your sword had better be registered or if it is found it will be destroyed.
It is all to do with attitude. This is one of the things that makes it a
martial art. for example my registry # is 21. This is with a martial
organization. With boxing the registry is with a sporting commission run by
promoters. This is a big difference.
....................Tom......................
jsp
> "jsp" wrote the others
>>
>>>>I think you've no more grounds to say boxing has no martial roots than
>>>>Judo.
>>>
>>>Ever hear of Kito ryu? Ever hear of Daito Ryu? Ever here of XXX ryu?
>>>These form the basis of Judo & not street fighting which is a very
>>>loonnnggg way from the streetfighting you mention. Thus by your own
>>>standards Boxing has NO martial art even in it's ancestry.
>>
>>All you can really claim from that is you can spot the history more
>>easily.
>
> Not at all. Boxing has a history & is very easily found. It starts ( & ends
> too with street fighting witness the last champion who broke his hand in a
> bar fight & bit off an ear )
Given your definition, I expect I would actually agree, and will stop
playing Devil's advocate.
<tries to subdue argument>
Oh, sod it.
>>No, I agree, it's not boxing, any more than Judo is xxxryu.
>
> Yes it is as a matter of fact. By definition alone you could refer to Judo
> as Kano Ryu ( the school of kano ) & be quite correct.
Okay, caught out on semantics. By xxryu, I meant the xxx ryu which you
used above to indicate thr ryu from which Judo evolved.
>
>>Nor were they techniques used in desperation when the sword was abandoned;
>>they were used in tandem: slash with the sword, punch with the fist, an
>>elbow goes in, back comes the sword etc.
>
> You can't seem to keep the two seperated. Boxing is boxing & sword play is
> sword play
Primarily because I have obsevered, with my own eyes, the two married.
Not boxing, but unarmed elemts being utilised by someone weilding a
sword in a 'combat' situation.
>
>>Also, it would appear that you suggest that Western unarmed fighting was
>>in desperation, when weaponry was abandoned. For what reason, then were
>>Eastern unarmed techniques developped? Is it not exaclty the same?
>
> No. The Eastern ( Okinawan techniques ) were developed when the Okinawan
> kings outlawed all weapons ( prior to the coming of the Japanese ). they
> were developed in response to this little bit of lawmaking.
Ah, so to give a means for fighting when weaponry is abandoned. Not so
different, then.
If you only accept as a martial art something with military basis, as
opposed to simply fighting, then there are quite a few arts which woudl
not count.
However, whether that is a useful definition is questionable. Aikido is
a long way from any military art, and is much more about individual
combat. Even looking at it's own history, we can see that it was, in
part, developed in bar fights and common brawls, just as boxing was.
Both are fighting arts, albeit one more sporting in emphasis and history
(we turned our fights into sport before the Japanese did, then).
Perhaps 'fighting art' would be a better trm than 'martial art'. It
doesn't sound as good, though.
--
John
Johan Lindquist
Storys was all like, "Dude,
> [..] so just because a given art involves a fight does not
> automatically make it a martial art.
I guess that's where at least you and I disagree on the meaning of
martial then.
(Some people might consider fighting a marital[1] art tho, but
technically I have no personal experience there.)
[1] For some reason I keep typoing martial as marital.. go figure.
jsp
> [1] For some reason I keep typoing martial as marital.. go figure.
When I was *much* younger, there were two shops quite near each other in
the town. One was a "Martial Arts" shop, and the other was a "Marital
Aids" shop, and thus the shops were called.
It was ages before I could separate the two and understood they were
different.
Heh, makes you wonder what those nunchacs [1] were for ;)
[1] I have no idea how to spell this
--
John
DC
Melissa wrote:
> DC <sws9...@rdg.ac.uk> wrote :
>
>
>>No its far more effective than that. :) To me Boxing is a martial sport.
>
> I'm sure it is, in fact it was one of the original martial arts, starting
> in Greece thousands of years ago?
>
> But to me it's rather one dimensional, being if I'm attacked I'll be using
> any part of my body that comes in handy.
All well and good, boxing makes effective use of the hands, train it in
conjunction with say judo or aikido and youve got an effective all round
set of tools.
> It strikes me as tying one hand behind you back as a fighting sport. Why?
> What's the point in limiting yourself and calling it a sport?
It means they can spar with a defined set of allowed attcaks and thus
get very veruy effecive with that set of tools. Anyone who doubst
boxings effectiveness should try getting in the ring with a boxer for a
few rounds regardless of the rules.
--
_______________________________________________
DC
"You can not reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason"
"Don't use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice."
"A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is
never sure." Segal's Law
Storys
>
> [1] For some reason I keep typoing martial as marital.. go figure.
>
Good think I'm not a Freudian. ( tongue firmly planted in cheek )
....................Tom...........................
Storys
>
> Heh, makes you wonder what those nunchacs [1] were for ;)
>
> [1] I have no idea how to spell this
>
Depends if you want the correct word ( nunchakku ) or what everyone seems to
want to call them nunchucks or even numchucks.
......................Tom...................
jsp
> "jsp" wrote
>
>>Heh, makes you wonder what those nunchacs [1] were for ;)
>>
>>[1] I have no idea how to spell this
>>
>
>
> Depends if you want the correct word ( nunchakku ) or what everyone seems to
> want to call them nunchucks or even numchucks.
Ta.
--
John
SV650
Black it is
and naked
Melissa
>
>
> Melissa wrote:
>
>> DC <sws9...@rdg.ac.uk> wrote :
>>
>>
>>>No its far more effective than that. :) To me Boxing is a martial
>>>sport.
>>
>
>> I'm sure it is, in fact it was one of the original martial arts,
>> starting in Greece thousands of years ago?
>>
>> But to me it's rather one dimensional, being if I'm attacked I'll be
>> using any part of my body that comes in handy.
>
> All well and good, boxing makes effective use of the hands, train it in
> conjunction with say judo or aikido and youve got an effective all round
> set of tools.
>
>> It strikes me as tying one hand behind you back as a fighting sport.
>> Why? What's the point in limiting yourself and calling it a sport?
>
> It means they can spar with a defined set of allowed attcaks and thus
> get very veruy effecive with that set of tools. Anyone who doubst
> boxings effectiveness should try getting in the ring with a boxer for a
> few rounds regardless of the rules.
>
Heh, the first thing I'd do is kick him as hard as I could, in the groin.
DC
Heard this one before, any more realistic suggestions?
jsp
>> Heh, the first thing I'd do is kick him as hard as I could, in the groin.
>
>
> Heard this one before, any more realistic suggestions?
Aye. Let's assume the attacker has a modicum of common sense and
doesn't just stand, all vulnerable, infront of you.
--
John