Skip to main content

Can a Boxer Beat a Wrestler? [Part 1] by Mark Hatmaker

 


Let us dive into a topic that has been addressed many times in the past, many times in the present, and likely on into the future; the perennial question of “Can a boxer beat a wrestler?”, or we can rephrase it as “Can a striker beat a grappler?”

We could, and perhaps will another day, offer the record of how often these early mixed matches occurred and all the commensurate outcomes from such matches. But today let's look to another sports authority who examined the same question, David Willoughby.

Mr. Willoughby dove deep into the historical record of boxing, wrestling and combination matches, which is the mix of boxing and wrestling. In some cases the rules stated, “This round is boxing and this round is wrestling,” in other cases it was actual mixed matches where the competitors got to use whatever discipline they felt comfortable with.

Well according to Mr. Willoughby and his studies the question of “Can a wrestler beat a boxer?” should no longer be a question, since it has already been answered several times, always in the affirmative.

Let us look to a few early standout answers to this persistent question.

The first notable instance occurred when, in 1887, the fabulous John L. Sullivan went into the ring with his trainer, the Greco-Roman wrestling champion, William Muldoon. Sullivan started the proceedings by tripping Muldoon. But before John L. could do anything further, Muldoon was back on his feet. Taking a waist hold on Sullivan, Muldoon slammed the prize fighter to the mat so hard that Sullivan laid there, stunned. Time: 2 minutes!

Might I add that the trainer in question, William Muldoon, was also one of the early physical culturists who used Warrior Walking as the original roadwork. For more on Warrior Walking, browse this blog, shop our store.

The next publicized encounter of this kind was when, sometime during the 1890s, the then heavyweight boxing contender, Bob Fitzsimmons, thought he could take the measure of the then Greco Roman wrestling champion, Ernest Roeber. But Roeber simply grabbed Fitz’s left hand, pulled him to the canvas, applied a double arm lock, and made Fitzsimmons cry “Uncle.”

And then there was the “match,” in 1936, between the heavyweight boxing contender, Kingfish Levinsky, and the veteran wrestler, Ray Steele. The Kingfish aimed a left hook at Steele, who ducked the punch, grabbed Levinsky, and slammed him to the mat--all in 35 seconds.

Even Jim Corbett, who was perhaps the cleverest of the early heavyweight cadre, expressed the opinion that in such mixed matches, “nine times out of ten, the wrestler will win.”

Who are we to contradict the authority of Gentleman Jim?

All this is not to say that boxing/striking is valueless—that is absurd.

Boxing/striking has its place, of course.

It is to say though, that those who undervalue grappling, and perhaps overestimate the striking game may do so at odds with the historical record and expert opinions such as Gentleman Jim’s.

An assumption of, “Well, I simply won’t let the wrestler get ahold of me, I’ll cold cock him before he can get to me.”

I offer, that is exactly what each of the above, likely better strikers than you and I thought.

What are we to do with this information?

Not a thing if you do not desire.

Train as to make you happy.

If your training is inside a ludic bubble of “You’re not allowed to do that” whether the “not allowed” is grappling, head kicks, cartwheels, what have you—you know best what fits your chosen game. I repeat—Game.

If…if your focus is even obliquely related to the scrum of reality outside of game-rules, well, then I would say, everyone needs to be able to grapple, at least a little.

Ignoring this aspect while making claims for tactical readiness is, well, puzzlingly at odds with reality.

If one desires to train as an Old School Combination Fighter, which is the focus of Black Box Training, Combination Fighting and Rough n Tumble, in that case, I offer the Pareto Principle advice of using the 80/20 Rule.

Make 80% of your training grappling oriented—be that ground, clinch, takedowns, anti-takedown, escapes, counters etc.

And 20% hardcore striking.

Corbett would weight that training ratio more towards 90/10 but, me, hell, I like throwing hands too much to cut back much more than that.

For those who still lull into the, "Well, grappling is important but all ya gotta do to counter that stuff is..." Might I suggest these two additional resources to assist the full-load of consideration in that area.

Counter Grappling & Specious Tactics

Counter-Grappling BS

For info on The Black Box Project and all of our sundry products and training programs see here.

Or try our podcast: Mark Hatmaker Rough n Tumble Raconteur.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Apache Running by Mark Hatmaker

Of the many Native American tribes of the southwest United States and Mexico the various bands of Apache carry a reputation for fierceness, resourcefulness, and an almost superhuman stamina. The name “Apache” is perhaps a misnomer as it refers to several different tribes that are loosely and collectively referred to as Apache, which is actually a variant of a Zuni word Apachu that this pueblo tribe applied to the collective bands. Apachu in Zuni translates roughly to “enemy” which is a telling detail that shines a light on the warrior nature of these collective tribes.             Among the various Apache tribes you will find the Kiowa, Mescalero, Jicarilla, Chiricahua (or “Cherry-Cows” as early Texas settlers called them), and the Lipan. These bands sustained themselves by conducting raids on the various settled pueblo tribes, Mexican villages, and the encroaching American settlers. These American settlers were often immigrants of all nationalities with a strong contingent of
Post a Comment
Read more

Resistance is Never Futile by Mark Hatmaker

Should you always fight back? Yes. “ But what if …”           Over the course of many years teaching survival-based strategies and tactics the above-exchange has taken place more than a few times. The “ but what if …” question is usually posed by well-meaning individuals who haven’t quite grasped the seriousness of physical violence. These are people whose own humanity, whose sense of civility is so strong that they are caught vacillating between fight or flight decisions. It is a shame that these good qualities can sometimes stand in the way of grasping the essential facts of just how dire the threat can be.           The “ but what if …” is usually followed by any number of justifications or pie-in-the-sky hopeful mitigations. These “ but what if …” objections are based on unfounded trust and an incorrect grasp of probability. The first objection, unfounded trust, is usually based on the following scenario. Predator : Do what I say and I won’t hurt you. Or
1 comment
Read more

Awareness Drill: The Top-Down Scan by Mark Hatmaker

American Indians, scouts, and indigenous trackers the world over have been observed to survey terrain/territory in the following manner. A scan of the sky overhead, then towards the horizon, and then finally moving slowly towards the ground. The reason being that outdoors, what is overhead-the clouds, flying birds, monkeys in trees, the perched jaguar—these overhead conditions change more rapidly than what is at ground level. It has been observed by sociologists that Western man whether on a hike outdoors or in an urban environment seldom looks up from the ground or above eye-level. [I would wager that today, he seldom looks up from his phone.] For the next week I suggest, whether indoors or out, we adopt this native tracker habit. As you step into each new environment [or familiar ones for that matter] scan from the top down. I find that this grounds me in the awareness mindset. For example, I step into my local Wal-Mart [or an unfamiliar box store while travelli
Post a Comment
Read more