There comes a point where how hard you hit someone stops mattering. Because you're hitting him plenty hard. Does the hit land?

IIRC, the only issue where strike force really matters is the ability to kill your opponent accidentally. I bet people are killed in competitive karate almost never, whereas the history of boxing, even rule-bound, giant-gloves, legitimate-contention boxing, is littered with skull fractures, brain damage, and death. Of course, in boxing, you can win if you induce unconsciousness in your opponent; whereas competitive karate and tae kwon doe ar strictly points and knockdowns, right? So there's no incentive to cause serious injury.

Have you hit them somewhere effective? What did you do before the strike? After? Did they get a chance to hit you?

My only knowledge of not-rule-bound fighting systems comes from Bruce Lee movies, but I figure that, given intent to kill, karate and tae kwon do can do the job about on par with floating like a butterfly and throwing haymakers. Probably more efficiently, because boxing is such a stand-up game, and other fighting systems endorse things like flipping your opponent on his head, and dipping your toes in his intestines.

What with all the unpacking I did from the weekend, somehow my comb has left my pocketbook. I'm going to have Hermione Hair all day.

the only issue where strike force really matters is the ability to kill your opponent accidentally

I don't get this. You're talking competition, right?

Of course, in boxing, you can win if you induce unconsciousness in your opponent; whereas competitive karate and tae kwon doe ar strictly points and knockdowns, right? So there's no incentive to cause serious injury.

There's a lot of competitive fighting beyond those three categories. Take MMA, for instance. Not that there's anything inherent in TKD and karate that means competitions have to be point-fighting, but if you follow the money, you're talking boxing and mixed martial arts, where the ability to hit hard is certainly important.

However, that post wasn't about competition, so I'm not sure how much that matters.

My only knowledge of not-rule-bound fighting systems comes from Bruce Lee movies

TKD and karate are not rule-bound fighting systems. Boxing is.

I figure that, given intent to kill, karate and tae kwon do can do the job about on par with floating like a butterfly and throwing haymakers

Why? Also, throwing haymakers is a terrible way to try and kill people--I'm not sure if that was your point, though.

Probably more efficiently, because boxing is such a stand-up game, and other fighting systems endorse things like flipping your opponent on his head, and dipping your toes in his intestines.

Not really TKD or karate, though, for the record. Many martial arts have no significant grappling or throwing component, not just boxing.

This morning so far:

My cat ran off with my alarm clock (you know how batteried stuff often has a bit of ribbon sticking out to aid in battery removal? It was sticking out. She picked it up and ran across the room.)

The server is dead like a dead thing. Alarmingly dead. Going to be a long day.

There was this incredibly hip guy out running. Like, full on stylish to the point of impractical running gear. He was pushing a denim blue pram. Not a stroller. Not a jogging cart. And honest-to-goodness, white-tired, olf fashioned pram. Nothing wrong with that, it just was an unusual sight.

I hope at least there was a baby in the pram.

I'd hope so too!

I had a friend who had a couple of pugs. One of them got too old to go on long walks, so my friend got an old pram and put the pug in there for them. People in the neighborhood would be all, "Awwww, whose a cutiewiddleGAH!"

Fun.

Ha! That's really funny.

Oh, that's great.

Help. I have a brainstorming session in half an hour. I have no brain.

the only issue where strike force really matters is the ability to kill your opponent accidentally

I don't get this. You're talking competition, right?

Yes. I was trying to normalize among the three stated categories, to make them comparable. I examined a situation where all three categories are rule-bound competition, and then a situation where they are not. (I presume that the traditions of TKD and karate vary considerably from the stated rules of formal competition.)

There's a lot of competitive fighting beyond those three categories.

But those were the three categories stated in the quoted section. I'm sure it gets even more complicated the more categories you add in to the discussion, but I'm working with what I got.

However, that post wasn't about competition, so I'm not sure how much that matters.

Boxing is primarily a competitive sport; in a street fight, a "boxer" is probably throwing punches and wrestling and throwing objects and biting. (Harder to say he is boxing, when he's pulling all those non-boxing moves.) So I normalized the comparison, to say "What are these three systems like as competition? What are they like outside of competition?" To make a fair apples-to-apples comparison.

TKD and karate are not rule-bound fighting systems. Boxing is.

I bet there are rules for TKD and karate in formalized competition. Similarly, I bet boxers occasionally get into street fights, and use the skills they learned in the ring (plus, as noted above, other skills). And if I'm going to compare them at all, as noted, I got to turn apples into oranges, or vice versa.

I figure that, given intent to kill, karate and tae kwon do can do the job about on par with floating like a butterfly and throwing haymakers

Why? Also, throwing haymakers is a terrible way to try and kill people--I'm not sure if that was your point, though.

That wasn't my point. My point was, absent a formal system of rules, karate and TKD can both hold their own against boxing, and moreso. The phrases "float like a butterfly" and "throwing haymakers" were metaphorical allusions to boxing, rather than literal descriptors of what the boxer is doing.

Probably more efficiently, because boxing is such a stand-up game, and other fighting systems endorse things like flipping your opponent on his head, and dipping your toes in his intestines.

Not really TKD or karate, though, for the record. Many martial arts have no significant grappling or throwing component, not just boxing.

As I note above, those are the only three systems described in the quote. I could talk all day long about kung fu, but I don't even know whether kung fu was included in the study which sparked this discussion. My point was, karate and TKD provide a larger breadth of techniques than boxing does.

You know, ita, not to jump down your throat, but why can't I begin a general riff/discussion without your asking me to turn it into a formal logic proof? I feel like I'm on the defensive, here. It's kind of tiring.