It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Martial Arts VS. Boxing?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 8 2004 @ 09:55 PM
I know this is general, and stupid. But who do you think would boxing vs. martial arts. I guess that depends on what style of martial arts though (Just to get the topic going). Saying martial arts in general is kinda dumb, because there are many unique martial arts. I mean akido may be able to beat boxing, while karate couldn't. (Not really true, just an example) I think boxing is just easier to learn. I mean put up a 6-month (trained for 6 months I mean) boxing student vs. a 6-month (trained for 6 months) shaolin kung fu student and I think boxing would win. On the other hand put a 15-year boxing student(15 years trained) VS. a 15-year (trained) shaolin kung fu student and I think kung-fu would win. Any thoughts?

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 06:30 PM
a good boxer can beat a good martial arts exspert but it is also the other way around as well
both work on stamina not just physicaly
but boxing is more on takeing and dishing out the pain
arts are more dodge block incapacitate and walk away

posted on May, 29 2004 @ 09:56 AM
I'm an avid fan of both boxing and martial arts in all forms. To take a boxer vs. a martial artist I would say the arts would win. Considering the boxer only punched and the artist could do anything...grabs, kicks, takedowns,etc. Although the mind ultimately decides the winner. I've seen soem pretty brutal underground fights in which a straight up street boxer punished every and any person (mostly martial artists) who got in his way.

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 10:29 PM
Karate would win no problem.

A fight between someone with martial arts and someone without should only last about seven seconds.

Kicks are simply much more powerful than a punch and they have much more range

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 10:42 PM
I dont know who would win but I can tell you flat out that all I need to KNOCK someone the F*CK OUT is one punch.

I've been boxing for a long time so my opinion is biased.

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 10:53 PM
Good point, Ocelot.

I don't agree with MrJingle saying a kick is always more powerfull than a punch. I know my punches are way more powerfull than a kick. How I know? I have a punching-bag, and you can clearly hear and see the difference of strenght lol...

Also, a wrong placed kick, or a too weak/slow kick can put you in a really, realllllly bad position.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:47 AM

Originally posted by m0rbid
Good point, Ocelot.

I don't agree with MrJingle saying a kick is always more powerfull than a punch.

A kick more powerful than a punch? Bull#.

I've KO'd many guys sparring and I've broken a couple of guys ribs. And that's while wearing headgear and gloves!! lol

Whoever says a kick is more powerful than a punch has obviously never been hit in the face with a good shot. And I know since ive been kicked in the face a couple of times.

Nothing Beats a well placed powerful punch right on the kisser.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 05:47 AM
I've been into the martial arts and boxing on and off since the 1970s, have given martial arts lessons, and have developed into a Jeet Kune Do practitioner.

As to whether martial arts or boxing is more effective in a street fight, it really depends on the training and conditioning of the respective fighter. It also depends on endurance, how well one can take a blow and how well one can dodge a strike.

Legs can be TWICE as powerful as arms. BUT, one has to be a very trained, conditioned, and flexible kicker to truly be able to use one's legs well in a fight. Novice kickers are better off not kicking at all in a street fight. Look at Bill "Superfoot" Wallace for example. At his prime as an international martial arts champion, he could knock an opponent out with a hook kick. Not many martial artists can do that. He had unusual flexibility for a man. Most of us are better off keeping our kicks at waist level in a real fight.

The thing is to find out your strengths early in life and emphasize them. If you have a good proficiency toward kicking and flexibility, become a kickboxer. If you have more aptitude towards punching, then emphasize boxing and/or styles of martial arts that emphasize the use of hand techniques.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:21 AM
I think it would depend on the "rules" of the fight. Boxing and martial arts have entirely different purposes.

Martial arts, for the most part, are "combat" fighting forms. By this I mean they were developed as ways to severely hurt, disable or kill the opponent. Boxing however is an intentionally less "deadly" form of fighting, aimed at establishing "dominance" without risking serious injury.

Boxing is much more akin to two rams, fighting over a female. It looks vicious, but you soon realise that these two animals, dispite having sharp horns that the could impale or kill the other, only ever attack each other with the "blunt" parts. i.e.the heavily thickened forehead. They can establish who's boss and still both live to fight another day.

When you watch two guys having a drunken punch up, that's the same thing, only for humans it's fist on face rather than head on head. This is why men have thicker brows, chins and knuckles than women, and why these features are usually attractive to women.

They're not trying to "kill" each other. In fact there is(or was) a very deep strongly held taboo in most male cultures that forbids "breaking the rules" in such confrontations. .You don't hit'em when they're down. You don't bite and scratch them etc.

A knockout, a bloody lip or a broken nose are all the participants are aiming to achieve. (it's also why girl/girl streetfights are particularly ugly to watch.. The inbuilt "rules" usually aren't there)

imagine how differently you would fight if you were fighting for you're life, or defending your family from a genuine threat. "The gloves come off", so to speak.

I guess what I'm saying is a pure boxing vs. pure martial arts fight wouldn't never occur. Instead the "rules of engagement" would dictate the level of fighting, and I suppose the "harder" man would win.

just my thoughts anyway.


[Edited on 3-6-2004 by muppet]

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by muppet]

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 10:21 AM
I think it depends much more on the individual. The level of aggressiveness, and skill. Just take a look at the UFC. Fighters with great boxing skills have knocked more triditional martial artists out. Then again, grapplers have taken strikers down and tapped 'em out. Your best bet is to be a complete fighter incorperating training in everything.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 06:37 PM

Originally posted by DiabolusFireDragon
I think it depends much more on the individual. The level of aggressiveness, and skill.

You're right on that. The original question is a gross generalisation in it-self. You can't say wich style will be stronger in a fight, cuz as you said, it all depends of the 2 fighters.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 08:47 PM
see Pride FC Vs. K1 on dvd if you missed it on directv. That explains everything there.
lots of info and some neat video clips

posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 08:40 PM
Wow, been a while since I checked up on this. I wanted to get some responses, other peoples opinions on this, but really as I mentioned earlier (or thought about) there are hundreds of styles of martials arts. To say "Boxing VS. Martial arts" really is a gross generalization. I'm sure that at least ONE style of martial arts could beat boxing. Alot of people think of martial arts as one style, or group it all into some kind of chinese kung fu. In reality, kick boxing is a martial art. It looks very much like boxing, but with kicks. Then again, Brazilian Jyu Jitsu is a martial art, and it's basically grappling and wrestling. I'm sure that a good boxer could beat a good number of those styles, and vice versa. I never had official training (other than karate when i was...6 or so). I train on my own mostly on my punching bag. I also lift and run in the mountains if that helps at all. I trained martial arts for a little bit (Just what I picked up from other people that had training) and also put in some boxing. I fought someone who had been in a boxing school for a few years (I think 3-4). I actually did quite well. He's I think...18, and I'm 17. I don't know if he was trying his best, but we were about even. Of course he was also a tad out of practice. It had been a year or two since he had boxed. So yeah, thanks and I'd love to hear more feedback on this. Oh yeah, kicks are definately more powerful than punches, unless or course you don't know how to kick. I have a stand up punching bag, and it's pretty hard to knock down with a punch (I have to push a tiny bit) but I can easily knock it down with a side kick. It's a fact, legs are stronger than arms. Think of how much you can leg press, as opposed to how much you can bench press. And keep in mind bench press is including pectorial muscles as well.

new topics

top topics


log in