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.

Happy Birthday, Debet!

The researchers were surprised to find that boxing is the fighting style capable of delivering the most force in a single punch.

I'm not surprised by this. A boxer's entire style is about punching. Of course he's going to have the hardest punch. Other styles aren't going to have the focus on punching a boxer has, so the boxer can hone his punches more than someone who has a wider variety of techniques to practice.

Also, have you seen the pecs and upper arms boxing builds after years of practice? Considers whether ceiling rafters in apartment can support a punching bag...

I gather that speed and accuracy are more important in a fight than piling on extra force, once you cross the threshold of being able to hurt your opponent.

Considers whether ceiling rafters in apartment can support a punching bag...

Depends on how big and heavy the bag is. I had a small, 50lb bag that I used for some light punching--really to just get some of my frustration out so it wasn't like I was using it for really heavy workouts.

Thanks, everyone.

Today, I am going out for lunch, which shall include pie. This evening, I shall be shopping for school supplies. Hooray spending not-my-money!

those were the three categories stated in the quoted section

You forgot Muay Thai. That's why I didn't realise what you were doing.

absent a formal system of rules, karate and TKD can both hold their own against boxing, and moreso

Based on what evidence? I need to step up and say I hate martial arts efficacy discussions, because martial artists fight, not martial arts.

There's little use in trying to normalise inside and outside competition. Boxing is competition. How do you normalise for outside the ring? What happens in TKD and karate competition depends entirely on whose rules you're using in which federation. How do you normalise that?

why can't I begin a general riff/discussion without your asking me to turn it into a formal logic proof?

I didn't understand your point. I like understanding the points. But if you're not talking to me (I didn't figure you weren't, since I was the only person who'd commented on the post so far) I can let it slide. If you are, what else am I supposed to do? I apologise for tiring you, and will ignore you at your request.

I gather that speed and accuracy are more important in a fight than piling on extra force, once you cross the threshold of being able to hurt your opponent.

That's precisely what it seems I failed to get across.

Matt, you can also buy punching bags that stand up, like this one.

And in other news, there's a new set of planets this morning.

But this throws everything off! New mnemonics are hard! (Spelling mnemonics is hard). Well, at least Pluto is still a planet. Or pluton. Whatever.

Happy Birthday, Debet!!

Thanks, Plei. Sadly, that site does not meet my friend's needs, which is a location with lots of reasonably priced pretty things. The boyfriend is all caught up in the Wedding Industrial Complex and freaking out about the thought of spending thousands of dollars. She would like to show him that hundreds of dollars is fine.

That's when you physically drag the guy to quirky antique malls. My modest antique wedding set was under $800 at one.

Or point her here: [link]

Ooh, that's a good one, thanks! Granted that apparently Monday night was the first skirmish, but she emailed him the link to a $400 ruby ring on eBay that she really liked, and he was still all alskdfj;alsk.

There's little use in trying to normalise inside and outside competition. Boxing is competition. How do you normalise for outside the ring? What happens in TKD and karate competition depends entirely on whose rules you're using in which federation. How do you normalise that?

Well, the problem with the original study is that it's comparing apples and oranges. What I was trying to do was riff on the research question, and attempt to fix the problem with the study by looking at it apple-wise, and orange-wise.

(I would suggest that boxing has a long tradition of stand-up fighting before it became a formalized, competitive sport. Kids on a playground, and their parents in a bar, have been assuming a boxing stance -- hands up at the face, jabbing with the closed fist, aiming for the head -- for a long, long time.)

I don't mean to be cranky. I just find your narrow-focus interrogation of my general-approach discussion overwhelming, and not conducive to the kind of riffing that I think works in Natter. In a formal debate, what you did would be fine; but instances like this, where you respond with considerably more literal seriousness than I think is necessary, can throw a chill on the conversation. Different conversational styles, I know, but I remember that time we talked about conversational styles, and you were surprised to find out that your style can sometimes make people squirm. I'm telling you: the above made me squirm.

No harm, no foul, just squirm.