        
|
Boxing as Combatives Training: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly.
By: Jason Winkle
I am constantly asked what role, if any, boxing should play in a defensive tactics and CQC curriculum. As with any question that challenges the status quo, a simple one-sentence reply will not suffice. Let me begin by clarifying why I used the term status quo. If we examine the curriculums of military and law enforcement academies we find an extremely high percentage of them utilizing boxing in their combatives program. If we were to base our evaluation on this fact alone we would have to say that boxing does in fact play a role in combatives training. However, I hope I have shown my distaste in previous articles for accepting institutional inertia as truth. Defensive tactics and combatives training must be progressive as new knowledge and advances in training gear become available. Doing things in a particular way simply because that is how they have been done in the past is a very irresponsible approach to an area on which the lives of our brothers and sisters-in-arms depend. This article will look at the good, the bad, and the ugly elements of a boxing curriculum in law enforcement and military combatives. It is important to remember that this critical examination is not reflective of boxing as a sport; rather it is solely concerned with the appropriateness of boxing as a system or element of law enforcement and military combatives. I will approach this audit with the same rigor I applied to my critique of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.
THE GOOD The mantra that I religiously hear from boxing proponents is that this style of training teaches toughness and warrior spirit. I agree. There is something about having to confront your fears and step into a confined space with an opponent while engaging in a primal dance of pugilism that makes you tougher. Boxing definitely is one method of developing the affective domain of warrior spirit. A second area in which I believe that boxing has applicability to law enforcement and soldiering is in the area of physical fitness and the desensitization to physical confrontation. There is no doubt that a properly executed boxing program will develop the fitness levels of participants. It will also, via repeated exposure, lower a person’s anxiety and fear (in most cases) of physical confrontation. Another positive contribution that boxing makes to a combatives curriculum deals with its approach to handling an initial middle to long-range attack. It is here that we see the “sweet science” in action. We would be hard pressed to find an art or system that has better understanding of the middle to long punching ranges. Boxing was crafted around these two ranges. There is no doubt that a few boxers have achieved fame by learning how to fight from the clinch, however, they are the exceptions not the norm. Boxing is very effective in teaching an understanding of critical distance for punches. It also shines in the area of efficient parrying and head movement. The areas listed above are the crucial elements of a combatives program that I believe boxing is able to successfully address. While I don’t believe that boxing, as a system, is the best method of teaching the aforementioned areas, I do believe that its applicability to our needs is strongest in these realms.
THE BAD
A common theme espoused in attempting to justify boxing in combatives curriculums is that it teaches a practitioner that they are able to take a punch and keep fighting. I am not a fan of the logic, or lack thereof, behind this statement. While this claim is grounded in the previous justification regarding the development of warrior spirit, it falls short in my opinion of providing a solid reason for why boxing is preferred over other methods of training. If we are only concerned with teaching someone that they can take a punch, why not line them up and have the instructor walk down the line and punch each person in the face? Wouldn’t that save a lot of time? While I am being facetious in my comments, I am serious about my concern over the repercussions of such a claim. What about the law enforcement officer, soldier, or cadet that gets knocked out during a bout? Should they seek new employment? When we insist that boxing is useful in the sense that it teaches a person to take a hit and continue to fight we are setting some of our trainees up for failure. Self-esteem and confidence are cornerstones to effective policing and soldiering. However, it is ridiculous to assume that all good law enforcement officers and soldiers are high-speed, low-drag fighting machines. I have witnessed, on numerous occasions, a soldier get knocked out in the boxing ring but be extremely tough in other areas such as grappling or live fire exercises. On the flip side, I have also watched soldiers who were successful in the boxing ring fall to pieces once out in the field where food and sleep are compromised. Outside of the affective domain, boxing teaches some fundamentally wrong methods of dealing with realistic hand-to-hand encounters. Law enforcement officers can’t stand toe-to-toe with law breakers and exchange punches. Can you imagine the backlash of the media and the public if we trained officers and soldiers to box out on the streets? The public doesn’t understand the dynamics of any physical encounter. They don’t realize that the officer has no idea as to the intentions of the perpetrator. If you don’t deal with violence on a daily basis you can’t comprehend how a bad situation can become a deadly situation in one, explosively-violent second. As soldiers and law enforcement officers we are held to a higher standard in these encounters. Such expectations by the public are not fair but they dictate our operational reality. In addition to the negative stigma that accompanies slugging it out in the streets or in the combat zones, boxing will get you killed in these situations. Rules in the ring don’t apply in the streets or in combat. When our available options of responding to an aggressor are limited by the law, the force continuum, and rules of engagement, we cannot afford to use anything superfluous. The first area of concern that I have relates to the misconception by practitioners of boxing that a fight will take place in middle or long range. Real fights don’t transpire this way. Boxers fight in middle and long range because intelligent coaches realized that the rules of the sport favor the fighter who stays mobile while landing large quantities of punches. These fighters don’t have to worry about getting foot-stomped or kicked in the groin. They usually don’t have to worry about someone biting them or headbutting. They don’t have to be concerned with the possibility that their opponent might have a weapon or that more individuals might enter the fight. In boxing, the referee enforces the rules by which both fighters have agreed to abide. Middle and long range striking is what boxing thrives upon. However, in the streets and in combat when a physical encounter moves to the hand-to-hand realm it typically enters close quarters very quickly. All of the time spent learning how to circle your opponent in the ring is quickly out the window once one person in the fight decides they want to close the distance. It is easy to claim that we would be able to stay far enough away from a person once they attack to land a few devastating blows, however, it has been shown in many forums (UFC, actual street encounters, the film Surviving Edged Weapons) that talk is cheap. Another concern that I have with boxing is that it leads practitioners to believe that fighting in the street and in combat will mimic the counter for counter fighting that occurs in the sport. Boxers are taught not to fully commit to a strike. They work tirelessly on learning how to hit hard while remaining on balance. It is much easier to counter attack an opponent when they are standing upright and balanced and when you are in the same balanced posture. Unfortunately we are rarely on balance when a hand-to-hand episode initiates because it is usually done with the elements of surprise and with fully-committed violence. A second reason why real fights don’t mirror the parry and punch rhythm of sport boxing is because combatants in the street or in war zones don’t have 10 to 16 ounces of padding on their hands. While 10 ounces of padding may not seem to be a deal of cushion especially when someone very large and strong is punching you, it does make a significant difference in the dispersion of the force as well as the cutting capacity of the strike. Unfortunately I have been on the receiving side of both gloved and ungloved strikes and I can tell you without reservation that I would always choose to have leather rather than skin hit my face. The trauma caused by an unpadded strike that is delivered with complete commitment negates our ability to counter fight. The third contraindicated habit that boxing fosters is the reliance on striking with a closed fist. Not only will this habit get you an appointment with an orthopedic surgeon, it is not an acceptable method of soldiering and policing in most cases. Remember our discussion on perceptions of the public? Pummeling someone is not only an ineffective method of subduing an individual but it often comes with the price tag of a court martial or accusations of police brutality. I am by no means suggesting that a hand-to-hand encounter be strike free, I simply want to point out that the repetitive striking of another human being is not a wise or efficient means of soldiering or policing.
THE UGLY
There are two areas in which I think boxing goes against the most fundamental aspect of policing and soldiering; the willingness to close with and engage the threat or enemy. The first area is directly related to boxing’s focus on the middle and long ranges. When boxers clinch, the referee steps in and breaks the fighters apart. He will then place them at long range before resuming the bout. This practice will instill in the boxer an unconscious habit of ceasing to fight once the clinch has been secured. There are no referees in the street or in combat and even a slight moment of hesitation in this range can be the decisive factor in the engagement. I have stated in previous articles that I truly believe that we perform the way that we practice. If we are conditioning our soldiers and law enforcement officers to relax once they find themselves in the clinch, we are securing their failure. The reason that boxing doesn’t allow the bout to continue once in this range is because it is an extremely dangerous position. The clinching range allows for the most primal of fighting techniques to be employed. This range features biting, headbutting, eye-gouging, grabbing, elbowing, and kneeing. Believe me, the enemy doesn’t care about rules. They only care about escaping or causing you injury or death. A fighter skilled in the clinch range is a formidable opponent. Ignoring this range does not help our officers and soldiers come home safely after a shift or tour of duty. It simply shows our ignorance of real hand-to-hand encounters. The second area, while related to the previous issue, differs in intent. In my opinion, boxing’s greatest failure for the soldier and law enforcement officer lies in its strategic approach to dealing with physical conflict. At the beginning of this article I placed boxing’s ability to develop toughness in its practitioners as a strength. However, toughness and the willingness to close with the enemy are not the same. I view the latter as the cornerstone of soldiering and policing. Boxing places value in moving and staying at long and middle ranges. This is completely contradictory to what is required of a soldier or law enforcement officer.
CONCLUSION
I have tried to outline the good, the bad, and the ugly elements of a boxing program that serves as a combatives program. It is not my intention to berate boxing as a sport. I respect the sport, the athletes, and the coaches. I am only concerned in this article to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of using a boxing program for the combatives development of soldiers and law enforcement officers. Boxing’s strengths in this realm revolve around the development of warrior ethos, improved fitness levels, and an understanding of how to effectively deal with long and middle range strikes. I believe its weaknesses, however, outweigh its strengths. The poor habits that boxing perpetuates are too costly for the blind acceptance of this type of training in a combatives curriculum. Boxing continues to be taught at various law enforcement and military academies because it is relatively easy to find someone with a knowledge of boxing. It is much more difficult to find someone who understands hand-to-hand combat and various physical engagements that cross a wide chasm of force. It is understandable why boxing continues to be part of these curriculums. Law enforcement agencies and the military must take a more rigorous look at the applicability of sport fighting to real engagements. Unfortunately, in our business, what you don’t know can get you killed
Jason Winkle, Ph.D. Director of Combatives West Point, NY 10996
|