Is Boxing a Martial Art?

Yup! 'nuff said!

 

lol very good point hehe

 

Ancient Olympics
Braughton's Rules (Aug. 16, 1743)
The Pelican Club (England 1814)
The Fair Play Club (England 1828)
London Prize Ring Rules, as revised by the British Pugilistic Association (1838)
Marquis of Queensberry Rules Governing Contests for Endurance (1865)
Amateur Athletic Association (1880, England)
Olympic Club of New Orleans (1883)
American Fair-Play Rules to Govern Glove Contests (1888, proposed)
Amateur Atheletic Union (AAU) Local, State, National Championships (1888, U.S.)
New Orleans City Ord. permits glove fights sponsored by Atheletic Clubs (1890)
National Sporting Club formed (1891, London)
The Horton Law (NY 1896-1900)
Colorado (1899) -- state statute legalizes boxing
French Federation of Boxing Clubs (1903)
Modern Olympic Games add boxing (1904)
National Sporting Club establishes weight classes & awards Lonsdale Belts (1909)
Anti-Prize Fight Film Law (U.S. Federal Law)
The Frawley Law (NY Aug. 29, 1911-1917)
International Boxing Union (IBU, formed 1913)
California Law (1914 - 1924) (limits matches to 4 rounds)
New Jersey -- Hurley Law permits 8 rounders (1918), 12-round, ND bouts permitted starting April 1920
The People v. Packey O'Gatty (Feb. 1918)
The Walker Law (NY 1920)
National Boxing Association formed (1921)
Pennsylvania (1923) -- creates Commission modeled after Walker Law; the law permits ten round bouts to a decision, to be made by two judges and a referee if they disagree.
Chicago News Golden Gloves (1923): Arch Ward coined the term
California permits 10-round fights (1925)
Illinois legalizes boxing (June 1926)
NY Daily News Golden Gloves (1927)
Colorado forms boxing comission, (Apr. 1927, abolished 1977, re-established 1999)
British Board of Boxing Control (1929)
Washington legalizes 10-rounders (6 rds were previous max.) (Apr. 1933)
Texas legalizes boxing (Sep. 1933)
Federation Pugilistic Italiana (Rome April 1938)
European Boxing Union (EBU) replaces IBU (1946)
International Boxing Club formed by Joe Louis with Jim Norris & Arthur Wirtz (1949)
NBA changes name to World Boxing Association (1962)
World Boxing Council formed (1963)
CT bans boxing (1965, repealed 1972)
NABF formed: CA, NV, MO, AZ, IL, Mex (1969)
International Boxing Federation formed (1983)
Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1995 Senate Bill
Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 (1997)
U.S. Government takes control of IBF (Dec. 1999)
Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act (2000)
National Boxing Comission Act of 2001 (senate bill)PDF

What the above imformation shows is that throughout history, boxing has always been considered a sport. It has always been regulated by rules, themes, and ideas to enhance it's popularity. It is plain to see that boxing is a sport, and therefore it is not a martial art. Even though some martial arts have been turned into sporting events, which has damaged them as a real means of defense to a great extend, boxing from its birth has always been intended for sport. Whatever two men did instinctually, while engaging in a bout of fisticuffs before then, well we dont know, perhaps that would have been classified as a martial art. As unpopular as this opinion probably is, I dont consider boxing a martial art, because I don't think it can hold up to real scenarios of violence and attack. It lacks the proper preperation and study to equip a fighter to handle the chaos and mayhem of a real fighting situation. Regardless of all that, history already decided that boxing is a sport, not a martial art.

 

*rubs jaw* Yup - boxers are sure MAists.....

*rubs jaw agin*

|Cain|

 

You have every right to an opinion. But it's clear that it's not a very educated opinion. There's much more to boxing than punching and holding your hands out. You'd know that if you'd ever trained in boxing. Footwork, slipping, bobbing, weaving, conditioning, ring strategy, and 'just' punching. (Nevermind the endless combinations of the four basic boxing punches.)

Boxing is a chess game at its best. Except that the chess player also has to have the conditioning to stay in the game long enough to outwit his opponent.


Stuart B.

 

Nordic_Blood, that's a interesting POV. Impressive research to back it up as well.

Your definition of MA is apparently based on the classical meaning of MA, as arts designed for battlefield use. I started a thread here recently on that; I hoped it would spark a deeper understanding and appreciation of MA along those same terms i.e. from a historically bloody POV.

I think the problem with identifying boxing as a MA lies in the past and current definition of MA. Yes, based on the classical understanding, it is not an MA because it wasn't designed for battlefield use. But the current understanding of MA, as meant for survival in our present circumstances, makes it more "MAish" than even other MAs. Not to mention that the way modern boxers train now is arguably more "martial" than some MAs.

Still, it's quite an interesting POV and makes more even more interesting discussion.

 

Boxing, fencing(with rapiers etc - not bricks or super six), Greco-Roman wrestling... all Western - all martial arts.....
WWF ? NAAHHHH

I just had a thought --- discus, hammer and javelin throwing ---all derived from Martial activities.....the list of sports that have resulted from War is rather long.........

 

In the respect that a martial art is at it's root an unregulated form of combat, I agree with your point. However...

I completely and totally disagree with this statement. Given the choice of fighting a boxer or a Martial Artist who have trained for the same amount of time, I'll take the Martial Artist 4 out of 5 times (especially if we're talking a short amount of training time for both). While some see the boxer as having a limited capability, due to the small number of techniques. I see it as the have a lot less stuff to master and functionally apply. Which means they become masters of their domains in a rapid amount of time. And that domain is a close range continuous fight. Nasty stuff.

Now one could also argue that as both people progress, the Martial Artist develops aditional skills to overcome the boxer. That's true. But that boxer is still developing their skills. So the Martial Artist needs to figure out how to get the Boxer onto the MA's Playground if you will. Rule 1: never box a boxer.

As for holding up in a self defense scenario, again in most cases I would probably take a unknown boxer backing me in a fight over an unknown martial artist. I actually think boxers are better prepared for self defense scenarios than most traditional trained martial artists. The reason is that boxers constantly work against "modern" hand attacks (jab, cross, hook, uppercut). Those hand attacks are the most common attacks in the street. In traditional Martial Arts we often work against hand attacks that come out of our own systems (straight lead for example, or a chambered punch). Those hand attacks are very rarely going to be used in the street. So if aything the boxer is training in a "more realistic" scenario than we sometimes do.

- Matt

 

Broughton's Rules (1743), were introduced by the then British Boxing Champion, Jack Broughton, because his opponent George Stevenson died after and as a consequence of their fight (1741).

Broughton's Rules banned:
Seizing an opponent by the Ham or Breeches (Leg or Trousers).

Seizing an opponent Anywhere below the waist, be that with a double leg takedown or by the 'nads...

Hitting or Kicking a downed Opponent.

Before these rule changes, pretty much anything goes.

And, again. Well Said Mr Bernius!

 

Yeah I agree with alot of you. Boxing is definitly a martial art. Martial Arts, in my opinion, is the art of testing your body and mind to make them become stronger, to make yourself more powerful, for whatever reasons you have for it. Hell, even football if your open-minded enough could be considered a martial art or martial sport. And you cant really say that the pro boxers are the ones you see on pay per view, there are plenty of powerful practicioners of boxing that do it simply for the same reason we practice our styles. Just cause they box deosn't mean they're in the ring...

 

I completely see your point Matt, but to qualify my statement, I don't think very many MA's at all prepare their students for real street aggression. With boxing, as with anything else, we should never assume that one can make the assimilation from the ring or dojo to the street. This type of readiness must be trained for specifically, and abundantly to ready oneself for the onslaught of street type violence. Speaking as a martial practitioner, I was ill prepared to face what really lies out there waiting. Now as a combat veteran, I feel this type of training is a must within any style if you wish to have a viable streetable self defense. That was the context for which I was writing, and boxing was included in my sentiments on the topic. I meant no disrespect towards boxing or boxers, or anyone else, I just have an engrained philosophy when it comes to this sort of thing, abd it was brought about by seeing it with my own eyes, and feeling it as well.

 

With respect Nordic, I know an awful lot of oxers (pro & Amateur) who would literally punch the crap out of anyone in the street. Many supplement their career with doorwork so you can hardly say they are unprepared for stret aggression.

In any case, what is this "street aggression"? The facts are that a "streetfight" is never tyhe same thing twice and to perform self-defence at a high level you need to be able to act quickly, instinctively and brutally. Boxing will give you that ability in spades.

Have you ever fought a good boxer? I don't mean someoe who "does a bit", I mean a GOOD boxer. They are very tough, fit and fast. Chances arethey will be able to punch holes before you get a chance to do much back. I incorporate boxing into my training for those very reasons, and I am in street confrontations every day I am at work. It is by no means a COMPLETE martial art, but few are.

What is your style then that has prepared you so well for "the street"?

 

I'm so burnt beyond belief that's its not funny

It's more I have a problem with boxers like Mundene (spelling).

I withdraw my comment from before

*Goes to nurse his wounds*

 

What one must not forget is that martial arts can be either a combat system meant for real life, or a development of the first one into a sport. (Actually martial arts is called kampsport in Norway = martial sport)

That have definately happened to professional western boxing. But that has sure as hell happened to many of the popular EMA's as well, hasn't it? How many % of the "katanaschools" teach a complete system that could be applied on a battlefield, or a duel without rules? If you go back a hundred years, there were some 3/4 major katana schools, and all of them taught probably "proper" martial arts. Today you find litterary hundreds of scools subscools, etc.

You don't have to go further back than the 18th century to find boxing (Mendoza's manual) portraying both grapples and kicks as valid tecniqes in boxing.

But it seems we all do agree now, so I guess I'm a bit late for this discussion (Unless I managed to provoke some EMA'ers :Angel:

 

No offense taken Hannibal, I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Still, to answer your question though, its not the art that prepares you for street combat. I dont know some sectret style or anything like that. Nor do I claim some special skill that others cannot attain, all I'm saying is that no style out there regardless of what it is (boxing included) prepares you to deal with real life street violence. That is something that you have to train yourself for, or find a group that are training for that purpose to train with. It's obvious there are many opinions out there, and since I personally don't think I'm getting anywhere, I'm keeping my opinion to myself on this topic, but I've enjoyed the thread.

 

Nordic,

I agree with you in the supisition that most Martial Arts don't prepare people for street situations as well as they claim. I just got into a long discussion with that on a TKD thread.

However, there are martial arts whose training methodologies work better than others. While it is in no way Reality Based Self Defense training, I do feel that boxing falls into the category of MA that better prepare one for street combat (for reasons that I outlined in my previous post).

Would a boxer do better than someone whose trained in Blauer (or another RBSD program) Tactics? Maybe, maybe not. My bet would probably be on the Blauer person first (provided that they have been seriously training). However if I had to bet between an unknown boxer or an unknown TMA, I'd probably take the boxer.

So I think we agree on most points.

- Matt

 

I'll buy that Matt, and say we do agree on most points, it's a interesting debate either way.

 

Agreed. Good discussion both sides!

*clicks fingers* Next question please waiter....

 

My oppinion is that a martial art prepares you for the streets (it might be streets from way back in history), and martial sports train you for a specific situation (the boxingring or the mat)

 

I think we should all take some lessons from the way a boxer trains on a daily basis. Can you imagine the kind of fighter with the fitness, movement and speed of a boxer who also liked to stick his fingers in your eyes and kick your knee caps?

Salute.