Boxing,kickboxing and Thai boxing.

Hello everyone.


I would say the variation of punches,direct/range controlling footwork and ability to create angles are the biggest strengths of boxing,imo.

Thai boxing is a bit more static,but of course allows the use of more weapons and involves some clinch and throws,I found it to be a more aggressive style,not wanting to give ground or allow the judges to perceive much impact,but that could just be my interpretation.

I have competed in both styles,boxed since I was about 11 at different levels,so not completely talking out my hoop but I'd be interested to hear any different opinions anyone has.

What would you say are the strengths of full contact kickboxing as a martial art?

I've never done a class,none near here and it doesn't hugely appeal to me as a style (to the point where I'd research a good class and travel to try different ones etc) I may give it a try one day if I hear of a good class nearby.

 

Muay Thai is anything but static.

Disclaimer: I think anything but taekwondo is heresy, to give you perspective here.

 

More static than boxing,in terms of foot work (movement).

Obviously there's no danger being swept or having to check a kick,though perhaps static isn't the right word.maybe that the movement is generally much less explosive.

 

Muay Thai in my head has always been a "power" style. Footwork is minimal but effective, and often force is met or returned with force.

 

I can go with that,I don't know much about the scoring system,but 'perceived impact' is apparently a big criteria,moving away from shots 'taking the pop out of them' as old school boxers would say doesn't really fit in with that.

which explains why the footwork being slower.

 

Kicks are faster than punches. Hands can move faster but pretty much every power punch requires use of the legs so power punches in reality are gated by the speed of the footwork.

You can see how much faster kicks are by the amount of movement they need to use in TKD to evade. Even harder to do that in Muay Thai because the kicks can be to the legs. You basically are going to take a few shots.

 

Power punches do use the legs to rotate the hips,but you don't need to move to throw one.

I don't think even a low kick thrown from being stationary is as fast as any straight punch.

 

You are right that hands can travel faster. However, speed is not measured by how fast the weapon travels. Speed is measured by if you can hit your opponent with something that effects them before they can hit you.

There is a range and speed trade off. The more you have to move to hit the target, the slower your technique will be. The range of the kick is longer, so it can hit before the punch can in any situation where you start at stepping ranges.

There is also a trade off between power and speed. The more power you need, the more one-dimensional or predictable your technique becomes. A normal kick can hit with the same power as a power punch. Since the normal kick requires less over all commitment, this means it is easier to fake someone out with your normal kick than it is to fake someone out with a power punch. Now a power kick would have the same issues as a power punch.

Alternatively, you could use your normal punches and be on par with normal kicks for speed, but that doesn't account for the range difference when you need to step.

Let's also not discount that once you close in, now the hands and legs come into play. So your hands may be busy protecting yourself, while you may be able to land a few knees or low kicks.

----

Time for some Buakaw

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygAguJANjJU"]Buakaw Highlight 2011 Best Kicker - YouTube[/ame]

 

I think it goes without saying you only throw a shot if you're in range for it to land.

but because the kick is longer range doesn't always mean it will land first,you can very often tell a big kick is being set up and by then it's too late for the kicker to defend properly if you throw a something quickly.

e.g you dip into range and throw a stiff jab.

Might sound a bit unrealistic but if you're quick on your feet it can be done.

If you can hit someone once they've committed to setting something up,or they have just committed to the technique (e.g your right hand lands as your opponents back leg is just leaving the floor) they will have no defence.

but boxing is more mobile imo because of the limited targets,they're quite easily covered so you need to constantly try different angles to find an opening.

It's disadvantages are obvious,no clinch to speak of,no kicks or defence against kicks,no elbows,no knees etc

I'm not suggesting a boxer would often beat a thai boxer,just boxing has a lot of different qualities.

 

It massively depends on the style of full contact kickboxing that the club teaches as different clubs compete from different backgrounds.

 

I would say and this will sound cliche'd but it's the Martial artist and how develops attributes. I've done full contact kickboxing, Savate, Oriental Kickboxing and muay Thai
they are all parts of a jigsaw puzzle and fit n accordingly, what you have to do as a fighter is fit the peices. When I faught a Thai boxer i'd change my strategy and repertoire, full contact teaches you to not be lazy as its above the waist and sweeps no low kicks, a faster pace take angles and stay at a longer range also work inside clean (no knees and elbows). what is thinking range for boxing is long range (kicking) in full contact

 

at rebel Wado, sorry pal, punches (generally) generate more velocity
a)closer to opponents head and
b) you are standing on both legs shorter distance to target
c)distance for the kick to reach target is still on one leg so balance is an issue.
but also it depends on the individual as well some can kick faster than others punch and vice versa

 

at Neems, again don't underestimate the boxer i know boxers who have finished Thai boxers because they develop their two weapons that are so close to their opponents knockout targets and have developed such speed, combination and footwork that you don't get a chance at long range or trapping/clinching range the Thai-kickboxers best range cos the boxer takes it to short range and you just wake up trying to remember what just hit you. Historical analysis shows the muay Thai footwork and boxing is/was rudimentary the best Thai-Kickboxers have taken their amateur boxing training very seriously. What I'm trying to say is I've been there and sparred 4th degree Tae kwon do and Kyokushin kai exponents and Thai-Boxers (coz my coach would make me box and kick-box and make me spar, spar, spar all over the place)6 months to a year into my training back in 1992 I was their worst nightmare, I wiped the floor with them, they hated it but some of them (the serious fighters and doormen loved it) none of them liked getting hit in the face. Neither did I until I started boxing. Boxing is the crux where it all fits around like a spider chart, look at Jeet Kune Do and MMA. Even the traditionalists like Korean Japanese and Chinese systems have changed their foundation stance to imitate Boxing. Whatever they say or do when it comes to sparring or a spartan event look at their stance's

 

Your background plays a part in what your style of fighting may be in a specific sport but a clubs background probably plays a bigger part in choosing whether their style is suitable for you and whether they're actually any good for full contact competition today. The sport has massively evolved over the past couple of years and there's several different rules etc and internal styles that matter when it comes to choosing a club for you.

Regardless of what art you learn or compete in, the quality of your training is what's most important, not your style.

 

I dont know any of the different styles,I just think of moonboots,high kicks only and no clinch.

K1 style kickboxing for example I just think of as Thai with limited clinch and no elbows,san shou I gather too is a very different sport to full contact Kickboxing.

 

That's the problem Kickboxing has nowadays. Limited understanding of the full contact side of the sport.

Kickboxing is a ruleset. Many different styles can compete under it much like many styles can compete under K1 Rules or Thai rules. The difference is the effect of the techniques used and how each club modifies their techniques to work within the governed ruleset. Thai Boxing is very strict in terms of style and scoring but you can still work some none Thai techniques in there to catch a fighter off guard. Kickboxing and K1 have a simpler scoring system that allows other styles to compete under the ruleset, though not necessarily with as much efficiency.

A fair few gyms utilise Thai style kicking nowadays in Full Contact as opposed to Japanese or Chinese style kicking of which was vastly more popular until the surge in popularity and show of effect in Thai style kicking in a full contact format.

That's one of many examples of how the sport has evolved and how styles have a big impact on what sort of club you should be joining for Full Contact Kickboxing.

It isn't point scoring.

 

Back in the 70's you had a lot of traditional styles karate tae kwon do kung fu, the world champs, joe lewis (not the boxer), Bill Wallace and chuck Norris, benny the jet, felt it wasn't realistic coz a female boxer Jackie Tonawanda KO'd a karate black belt. Bruce Lee also played a part. these guy's put on boxing gloves and shin and foot pads developed by a guy called Jhoon Rhee (Korean). and in a huge competition fought in rounds like boxing it was called Professional Karate. Kicks above the waist, boot to boot sweeps, spinning back fist, no knees or elbows. It settled the dispute between karate vs Kung Fu vs Tae kwon do. As you know Americans were "to hell with the thousands of years of philosophy" this is action.

You had the first World Full Contact champs, but it was only European and American so how the world champ? Benny Urquidez and Don Wilson and others then went to fight the Japs and Thais to prove their worth. It was a time of renaissance. the kickboxers incorporated Thai techniques. Thats when Kickboxing with low kicks was born as a middle ground to even the odds on both sides as the kickboxers won under their system and the Thais under theirs. K1 was to be a grand prix for all Kickboxing (umbrella term) and full contact like Kyokushinkai to make it exciting who wants to see a whole fight of two peops just clinch knee and elbow, was getting boring cos its easier (less tiring) than long range toe to toe

 

I totally agree. Historically you had the three or four rule systems. kickboxing (full contact Karate) low kick, savate, K1 and Thai.

back in the 80's and 90's you could see a huge difference until fighters started to learn Thai kicking to complement their repertoire. Clubs and instructors tried to keep the disciplines separate even now you'll see those insist theirs isn't Thai-boxing it's Muay Thai and of course then you have the associations. I always maintain it's up to the fighter and not the style to learn and grow, attributes over style and labels.

 

So full contact kickboxing isn't just one sport?

The different clubs will all have different styles and they presumably arrange beforehand what's acceptable in competition?

If it is one rule set surely there would be a general style found to be most effective at it.

 

Hi again Neems,

It will depend on what you want to achieve in your development, To simplify it and as unreal rightly stated you have 1. the Full contact rules system. and 2. The full contact Martial Arts styles/disciplines. Sometimes the participants will move in and out of each. Also you may want to look into Savate a full contact kickboxing system that is also different, if you let me know what town you are in I may be able to help you