windwalker wrote:You seem to be suggesting that boxing has skills that "fighting"
does not address.
Steve James wrote:Aw, my point was that it's not the style; it's the man.
Marvin's point was that there were things that western boxing had that could also benefit practitioners of other styles.
I am not suggesting, only clarifiying that the article's premise is: All fighters can benefit from learning boxing. I was not giving my opinion.
Learning boxing develops not only techniques but universal skills that are in every fight. These include timing, controlling distance, strategy, and position which are in every fight. There is also energy and momentum. The question is who will control these in a fight?
marvin8 wrote:You might misunderstood the premise. The premise is: Skills developed in learning boxing can help any fighter become better. The article mentions, "Even if you don’t care for boxing techniques or boxing punches, you could still learn a lot." Learning boxing develops a variety of attributes other than just techniques. It's not about Boxing vs. Hop gar: Who wins? It's about training in boxing can make you a better Hop Gar fighter.
windwalker wrote:That thinking is not typical of how CMA styles developed nor why they developed.
If they trained to the same level as Tyson, most likely they would be able to defeat him due to Tysons limited style "boxing".
Most people know that it is unfair for a boxer to use his hands only and a CMA or MMA person use all methods of attack in a fight. It has already been done in UFC, where Randy Coutre defeated James Toney.
One point of interest in the Mayweather vs McGregor boxing match was: Will McGregor KO Mayweather with his crazy/unique martial art moves (e.g., angles, footwork, range)? The answer/result is no.
