Arguments for/against defining boxing as a martial art

Prototype · Green Belt

On Google, martial arts is defined as:

noun
various sports, which originated chiefly in Japan, Korea, and China as forms of self-defence or attack, such as judo, karate, and kendo.

This is a poor definition since Karate did not originate as a sport, and martial art and combat sport are distinct(or else this thread wouldn't exist). For the purposes of the discussion, let's define martial arts something along these lines

"Combat arts applicable for self defence."

I will go through a list of points why boxing, as traditionally practised, may or may not be concidered a martial art based on the definition above, based on its training culture. I will of course exclude instructors who are purposely defining boxing as a martial art and teaching it in their home-cooked self defence curriculum.

1.Argument against: "Boxing only teaches punches and dynamic movement. Self defence encompasses significant more elements than this".

Argument For: Limited curriculum is nothing unique to boxing. Traditional Karate styles lacks both learning to do submissions as well as defending against them. Knowing how to defend against a submission might very well be a self defence scenario in todays MMA culture.

2. Argument against: Boxing instructors only teach tactics applicable in the sport, some of which may backfire in a self defence type of a fight.

(Comment): The strongest argument against classifiying boxing gyms as a martial art schools.

Argument for: While some of the boxing tactics (ducking, bobbing and weaving) may be counterproductive in a real fight, they could also work. No boxer is obligated to use those tactics in the ring either. They are simply tools learned. Similarly a Karate stylist may learn to do things in free style kumite that is counterproductive in a real fight. Thus, teaching sport tactic that may be ill-adivice on the streeet is against nothing unique to boxing.

3. Argument against: Boxing does not teach technical self defence, martial arts schools do.

Argument for: Boxing teaches a skill set applicable for self defence. Self defence teachings are highly controversial due to the nature of the beast. It is not possible to realistically reacreate a self defence situation. Matters of psychology which takes presidence over anything else can not be recreated in a training situation, nor can it be "taught" how to respond. Everybody reacts differently, and you will never know how until confronted with the situation.

4. Arguments against: Boxing has no founder(s) and henceforth no philosophy.

Arguments for: Having a founder and philosophy to the art is a questionable critera, since the definition of a martial art should be based in combat applicability.

For the discussion: Do you define boxing among the martial arts or is it simply a sport with effective martial arts element in them?

I am leaning towards classifiying boxing as martial arts. While everything is sport geared, that does not exclude it from being an effective combat art, and as have been already pointed out, traditional martial arts like Karate don't cover all aspects of fighting, even though they cover more than boxing,

TJ-Jitsu · Blue Belt

I care less about what it's called. No other style teaches you to use your hands better. Call it what you will but it knocks "martial artists" out...

sensei8 · KF Sensei

Imh...

Boxing is a MA!! It's a MA because that's what I believe it to be!! Flip it, twist it, bend it, or whatever fits ones fancy, boxing is a form of MA, as I perceive it to be.

Boxing has the elements in it that makes me believe that boxing is a form of a MA!! After all, boxing teaches skills that can be used for someone to defend themselves.

Nonetheless, this debate will live on for an eternity!!

_________________
**Proof is on the floor!!!

bushido_man96 · KF Sensei

Boxing was trained for "civilian combat" many years ago, in ways in which we would consider applicable to self-defense training. It has evolved considerably into the sport of present-day Boxing, but it is still applicable to self-defense. Learning to strike with the hands, defend with the hands and with movement of the feet and body (some might call that tai-sabaki) is all applicable to self-defense.

I call Boxing a Martial Art, as I do with Wrestling.
_________________
www.haysgym.com
http://www.sunyis.com/
www.aikidoofnorthwestkansas.com

Prototype · Green Belt

Spartacus Maximus · Black Belt

Boxing has a lot in common with martial arts, but it is and still been categorized and considered a sport for most of its modern history. Everything in boxing revolves around, and is geared towards one-on-one competition in a ring.

It assumes the opponent will be an even match and that the bouts will follow a clear set of rules. This isn’t to say that boxing techniques or concepts cannot be used effectively outside of the sports context, but sports and competition is the main focus of training.

Very few if any boxers actually train for a purpose other than the ring. Fewer still consider what they do as anything other than a sport. The general view of boxing reflects this because wherever boxing is offered as an activity, it is always listed under “combat/contact sports” or, more commonly just “sports”.

Alan Armstrong · Black Belt

Try to get at least 10 hours a week training in boxing.

My base MA being Wing Chun.

Gotta laugh when Seeing boxing vs Wing Chun videos, I try not to beat myself up about it.

As my father was a pro boxer at one point, there is a something genuinely genetic in me that finds boxing to be something natural, unlike any thing else I've tried.

Boxing feels very contradictory to Wing Chun, perhaps it is the contrast between them, is where the challenge is in connecting them.

I feel that boxing improves my Wing Chun and also Wing Chun improves my boxing.

Spend a lot more time limbering up the shoulders and arms before boxing and warming up with footwork drills, whereas in Wing Chun it is more of stretching tendons, quickness, sensitivity training and silmutanious direct attack and control the opponent techniques.

Whereas in boxing making full use of combination punching which involves Pivoting Torquing Tilting; with an emphasis on palm up, thumb up, palm down and thumb down punching techniques.

Whereas in Wing Chun forward pressure driving or Wedging forward front facing at close range.

In boxing being able to use long range tactics, as well as Incorporating Bruce Lee's five ways of attack principles.

Have never considered giving up boxing for Wing Chun, or the other way around.

Or to think that or to say that one is better than the other.

They are both just ways of moving that feel right in their own respective ways.

There is an efficiency in both that work together for the same cause of landing strikes and defending blows.

Crossing over similarities as in balance and differences between the two arts, with systems that works best in the moment is something I enjoy being able to do at ease.

Difference in Boxing and Wing Chun is not just in punching but also in footwork.

I think the trick in using both is to box and add a little unexpected Wing Chun or do Wing Chun and add a surprise or two with some boxing.

There is also a mental difference between Wing Chun and boxing, where there is a backup paradigm to quickly change to an attitude that meets the situation if the need arises.

For me boxing is a sport with the gloves on and when the gloves come off it is a martial art.

	KarateForums.com Forum Index -> MMA, Muay Thai, Kickboxing, Boxing, and Competitive Fighting	All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1