Karate v Boxing

[WorKshoP]

^^ i agree

[Vito]

boxers are trained in punching and moving... and theyre fast and effecient. itd be harder than you thyink to just smash his knee and be done with it on the street.

[SevenStar]

surely if fighting a boxer.any karate-ka could sweep his legs,smash his knee/groin/ankle etc etc the boxer would be knackerd as he is only trained in stance fighting,not grappling ground work etc...

 

by that logic, a boxer could move in, clinch and "dirty box" with him. All styles have their tactics, so you really aren't stating much in the way of advantages. As for ground grappling, there are ALOT of karateka who know nothing about both standing and ground grappling.

[shotochem]

In most cases the edge goes to the boxer.

 

However, consider that boxers are not used to seeing kicks and fighting a little longer range. They are also not used to fighting bare handed and tend to be susceptible to breaking their hands when not taped and gloved.

 

Conditioning-wise a boxer will almost always outlast your average karateka and is used to taking a beating for 12-15 rounds. The only chance for the karateka aside of a lucky well placed shot is to grab, sweep, joint lock, throw or take down and finish him off.

 

Toe to toe is in most cases is suicide against a boxer.

[SevenStar]

boxers don't always wear gloves...

 

I don't think breaking their hands is an issue - no more so than it would be for anyone else. For every boxer you've heard about in the news that broke their hand in a street fight, I can guarantee you there have been double the number of TMA and non trained that have done the same. You will never hear about it though, unless they were as famous as the boxers who were reported on.

 

There is something referred to as "boxer's break", however. it's a broken pinky - but it doesn't stem from lack of conditioning, it comes from throwing an improper hook punch.

[Shorin Ryuu]

I still insist that there are far more dynamics of fighting that a karateka has trained in as opposed to a boxer. Don't get me wrong, there are far more dynamics of fighting in boxing than most people give boxers credit for (as I've mentioned before, I did box in college). All the same, the competent karateka (I mean someone who has trained in a competent karate style) could take on the average boxer toe to toe and win. Before I get the response that "Yeah, but you said 'competent karateka', so that introduces a biased qualification," I don't consider many things "competent karate". This in and of itself may elicit some response, but let me explain by arguing the reverse. Say I pit against a karateka against a boxer who can't ever seem to keep his guard up and couldn't throw a decent hook to save his life. You'd call him an incompetent boxer. But instead, I pick a boxer who has a firm grasp of the fundamentals of boxing (distance, timing, punching, we'll even assume punching bare-handed, moving at angles, that sort of thing). Place him against a karateka who has a firm grasp of the fundamentals of karate (distance, timing, puncking, kicking, striking in general with multiple parts of the body, moving at angles, grappling, decent knowledge of the weaknesses and strengths of human anatomy, energy or whatever you choose to call it, etc.). The point is, there are far more requisites for a person to be a "decent" karateka than there are for a person to be a "decent" boxer. Believe me, this is in no way a put down on boxers. I've boxed, a lot of my friends boxed, and I've trained with and been friends with people who were All American boxers. It's just that training in pure boxing places a lot of limits on a person that training in pure karate does not. I use the term "pure" to represent the concept in abstraction, since that is what this exercise is about: generality. Not every boxer trained only in boxing, and not every karateka trained only in karate. But this is a "boxing" versus "karate" debate at best, so those are the framing conditions of this argument.

[SevenStar]

I still insist that there are far more dynamics of fighting that a karateka has trained in as opposed to a boxer.

 

I don't disagree with that.

 

All the same, the competent karateka (I mean someone who has trained in a competent karate style) could take on the average boxer toe to toe and win. Before I get the response that "Yeah, but you said 'competent karateka', so that introduces a biased qualification," I don't consider many things "competent karate". This in and of itself may elicit some response, but let me explain by arguing the reverse. Say I pit against a karateka against a boxer who can't ever seem to keep his guard up and couldn't throw a decent hook to save his life. You'd call him an incompetent boxer. But instead, I pick a boxer who has a firm grasp of the fundamentals of boxing (distance, timing, punching, we'll even assume punching bare-handed, moving at angles, that sort of thing). Place him against a karateka who has a firm grasp of the fundamentals of karate (distance, timing, puncking, kicking, striking in general with multiple parts of the body, moving at angles, grappling, decent knowledge of the weaknesses and strengths of human anatomy, energy or whatever you choose to call it, etc.). The point is, there are far more requisites for a person to be a "decent" karateka than there are for a person to be a "decent" boxer. Believe me, this is in no way a put down on boxers. I've boxed, a lot of my friends boxed, and I've trained with and been friends with people who were All American boxers. It's just that training in pure boxing places a lot of limits on a person that training in pure karate does not. I use the term "pure" to represent the concept in abstraction, since that is what this exercise is about: generality. Not every boxer trained only in boxing, and not every karateka trained only in karate. But this is a "boxing" versus "karate" debate at best, so those are the framing conditions of this argument.

 

1. considering training types, schools today, etc. is the avg karateka competent?

 

2. of the requisites you listed, the only ones boxers don't have to worry with is kicking. They deal with the others in some shape, form or fashion, but some without the same depth.

 

3. I didn't see contact listed as a requisite. that right there can make all the difference.

 

4. you mentioned limits, but do you think that limits equate to disadvantages?

[shukokai2000]

this debate is getting quite intresting.You have to remember karate has suprise,sneeky moves,for example apponant sees you going high but your really going low.false moves like faking a punch so you can sweep apponant.i'm not excusing boxing as a tough sport, i myself boxed for a number of years,but i think i'm more confident on the street knowing the defence and counter i know from what i study now.

[Vito]

boxing has all that too. the entire idea is to not project a punch, so its fast and it comes from nowhere. between that and feigning, it can be hell trying to defend a boxers offense. its all about getting in your strikes before the other guy on the street, and thats what boxing will do for you.

[SevenStar]

You have to remember karate has suprise,sneeky moves,for example apponant sees you going high but your really going low.false moves like faking a punch so you can sweep apponant.

 

Since you boxed, you know that boxing does that too...