How would a boxer fare v a martial artist?

I know that sounds really vague but you guys know the styles,go through them,wing chun,jeet kun do,kickboxing,taekwondoe etc etc.

Where would the boxer have the advantage and where would the martial artist have one?

If it's too difficult then could anyone tell me the strengths and weaknesses of some of these martial arts?

I ask because I see these martial arts tournaments/films and although they all look awesome, alot of it looks superficial. I'm sure a decent boxer could duck their one hit at a time etc etc.

Man this is a well worn topic...You'd have to be a little more specific...For instance: How would a boxer fare vs a TKD w/TKD rules or how would a boxer fare against a Muay Thai fighter in a real world street fight? It is pretty safe presumption that comparing a boxer and a traditional martial artist of equal time training and over all athleticism the boxer is going to have better hand speed, accuracy , technique and power. He is also going to be better at not getting hit. That being said boxers have not faired very well in kickboxing...A good MT leg kick is a great neutralizer to a boxers superior hands...It slows their footwork and by weaking their stance sapps their power....It is also a good setup for high kicks....that being said the best defense to a nasty leg kick is to use one yourself, and its not something that would take an enormous amount of time to get proficient at. Kicks run a certain level of risk though. If you miss or its caught you could easily end up on your ass. If I were to train in just one striking discipline it would be Muay Thai. Its geared towards close in fighting and the utilization of knees and elbows..so IMHO in a street fight a boxer is going to be more succesful against a traditional martial artist due to the simple fact that boxers spar all the time and all be it limited, my experience with traditional martial arts is that they don't "fight". It is hard to implement a technique in the chaos of a real fight if you've never done it at full speed against a live target thats returning the favor.

watch ufc1 where that boxer comes to the ring wearing one glove,thats as far as a boxer would get in mma. (To this day i dont understand why he wore a boxing glove on one hand)

Having studied kenpo for a number of yrs. (around 10 to be exact) I believe boxers have much better punching skills than martial artists. In the style I studied you were taught to punch from a horse stance and were using arm power only, no use of the hips or pivoting of the rear foot. You were also taught many hand strikes that would probably be inneffective (ridgehand is one that comes immediately to mind). Also, while I was taught the eight point blocking system, there was no mention of any head movement like slipping, bobbing, weaving, etc. Kicks, which are highly overrated, were an essential part of the art. Spin kicks, jumping kicks, crescent kicks, reverse crescent kicks, etc. I got a 1st dan and thought I was a real fighter until I got my a** kicked by a thai boxer. I quit and have since dedicated myself to boxing and muay thai.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by themusic

watch ufc1 where that boxer comes to the ring wearing one glove,thats as far as a boxer would get in mma. (To this day i dont understand why he wore a boxing glove on one hand)

---

lol i want to see this, sounds funny

This is an age old question...

Pro vs Pro i don't know BUT for the average Joe :

In England, most martial arts places are very soft and don't have much sparring etc , the students get very good at fighting the air and doing set moves, but they can't "fight",,

i find it annoying when martial arts guys tell me "BUT IF U PUNCHED LIKE THAT, I WOULD DO THIS (some arm breaking move or counter punch)! " but they have never done it before, whereas I a boxer have punched plenty of people in the ring before , and blocked quite a few punches too, but It is all theory with them.

Most boxing clubs will make you spar lots and you get tough and experienced in fight conditions so I think the average Joe boxer beats the average joe martial arts guy in a street fight.

Pro vs Pro, The Martial arts guy prob wins everytime as He can just keep kicking the boxers (who is not trained to block kicks ), the legs are longer than the arms and most the time stronger too.

depends on the boxer and the talent/training the other guy has went thru. Jobber vs Jobber, you gotta go with the boxer. Most mma guys have a poor understand of boxing mechanics and seeing as how the fight starts upright, thats something they need to overcome. A kickboxer beats a boxer most of the time as would a muai thai fighter in mma rules. I'd give vitali klitschko a 100% chance of cleaning out the ifl and he'd atleast be extremely competitive in the more advanced orgs.

The boxing is soooo poor in MMA that a boxer would have a HUGE advantage when it comes to punching and not being punched.

But he'd have zero to say once he was taken to the ground, which is where he'd find himself the majority of the time.

Van, a good post. MT is a good choice. However, imo, id still go with boxing because their hands are beter than a mt'er bUT, you can always pick up leg kicks, elbows and the my clich later. i feel that those things are easier to learn after the fact than a boxer's precision and ability to elude. but still being a boxer myself, i still have a lot of respect of mt guys and especially kickboxers like roufus, williams, etc. they can't outbox hw boxers, but admittedly their kicking is the difference in an open event

Entragian, it's the classic arguement against boxers. people assume they'd go down like little girls. yes, it might go down, but getting them there is far easier said than done... here's why.... it's far easier to teach an effecive sprawl with leverage and strength than it is to teach boxing perfection. how many good hard shots woulfd a mma'er eat trying to get inside? tons. in am mma even, the bjj guy might win via tapout half the time, but he'd likely take the worst of the punishment ALL the time.

Lyle, amen. a few guys are good at it, relatively speaking, ant they've excelled.... mirko crocop, chuck, nick diaz, who's showing to be a prety good puncher himself considering he's a bjj expert, jens pulver, tim sylvia.... etc. but We've still yet to see a truly great boxer make the transition. whn it hapens, we'll surely see how effective they are at hitting and not being hit. Jens pulver, who is really nobody in the whole grand scheme of boxing, and even though he might get tapped out, still picks guys apart like nothing and usually takes the least of the punishment. just imagine a guy like jermaine taylor at 170... scary.

the only guys imo, that have the best chance to take boxers down, are world class wrestlers.... the real olympians. but again, tome come iside, easier said than done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Entragian

But he'd have zero to say once he was taken to the ground, which is where he'd find himself the majority of the time.

---

Well shoot on a boxer who knows how to throw an uppercut and we'll see who does what once they hit the floor.

I only want to offer one thing.

At the very bottom of both thai/kick boxing and boxing- the local amateur circuit, there are more boxers than kickboxers (unless you live in Thailand or something) and even if just because of the general competition being greater- the boxers punch the shit out of the kickboxers. Kickboxers have definitely faggot punching abilities compared to proper boxers, which of course are more important than kicks. I know this from personal experience anyway.

And at the other end of the spectrum- The professional world champions and contenders...

Look at both sets. The kickboxers don't even LOOK like they could ever beat their proper boxing counterparts.

Mike Tyson/Lennox Lewis etc would probably knock the HW kickboxing champ straight out.