Boxing is a sport. It has some self-defense application but it's very limited. Normally, boxing is conducted in ring with similar-sized opponents and rules and a referee and boxing gloves.. Etc.
In a self-defense situation none of this will apply. There is no defense against grappling or weapons.
The same can be said about Muay Thai. Again, primarily a sport with the problems listed for boxing. It does have the advantage of teaching all body weapons; hands, feet, elbows, knees.
However again no defense against grappling or weapons.
The various types of Filipino arts make no pretense of being sporting arts. They are meant for combat only. In addition, the basic principals apply if you have a weapon or not.
If you are looking for a versatile and practical self-defense system, then a good FMA instructor is a good bet.
I would never recommend either boxing or Muay Thai due to the extreme danger of head trauma should you decide to compete.
Yes. I am actually finding myself agreeing with the aspect that for certain individuals, going through weapon training first, will help them in better overall structure and techniques, as well as the general context and sort of fight they will be in as opposed to a sporting environment like Mark said.
That being said though...I wouldn't judge boxing lightly. I'd say all these 3, there is no superior style. There's only the superior law wrote by Murphy. Basically try to do all if you can. The more you cover, the less the law will occur and backfire whatever advertised principles the art highlights. You don't predict or state how the fight goes. e.g. he's definitely going to attack in a MT manner or grapple and definitely not boxing.
Take weapon attack into 3 dissected anatomy. Pre-deployment. Deployment. Post-deployment[AKA **** happens you're not gonna go away without a scratch]. Boxing although like many arts don't teach you to actively defend against weapons but its theories and principles nonetheless helps you to dispatch someone during the pre-deployment-deployment stage. I.e. if he reach into his pocket and is a sure sign of threat. Having the pre-emptive response of a knock out and leave is better than some movie flashy FMA fight inviting him to draw it out and engage it like a film. The more pre-emptive and justifiable any defense is, the better. If you want to cripple then simply follow through. The same thing is with grappling if you can knock out a wrestler before the engagement range where his skills can be used....he's not gonna do anything. Like Itay Gil's video....boxing defense is not gonna do anything to a screwdriver once it's in the post deployment stage.
But the trouble appears when accidents happen. E.g. he has some assassin grip or concealment on the weapon ready to use and will deploy faster than you could attack, or he's higher and bigger, effective head blows in boxing becomes virtually impossible. Then the Murphy Law happens to make you into a pile of manure.
While I said for some people, learning weapons allows you to beat an empty handed person easily. There's a logical reason for that. Weapons survival, not fighting (unarmed fighting and trying to kill or maim an armed opponent is a mythical joke) belongs to more or less the higher tiers of martial arts. The situation is much more like do you want an apprenticeship in maths or do you want to grasp the basics then go to application. Neither way is better but different individuals may find it easier to go weapon training first, then hand to hand or vice versa.
Trouble with the first is that today a lot, A LOT of weapon training is pure BS and gets you killed. There's also the question of what are you learning how to kill someone or cripple someone with their or your weapon for? More justifiable reasons maybe that to understand defense, understand offense first, or try to get more understanding etc. The trouble however, is that some weapon guys forgot what they were doing it for e.g. some cutting technique with the attacker's own knife which could well get you in jail in modern times. Or some combat focus of I'm going to stay there and disarm this guy, then pin him and wait for the police, when the option of safely exiting the scene and call the police is open to you. So if you are going weapon first then empty hand. I suggest you seriously gets a good school, or the entire focus of this approach is lost.
I'd say try your approach. Understand the specific purpose of a style to your own requirement, not style loyalty or just sticking to what the standard zone is. You need to try both ways to see if you can get a good grasp with the 2 orders.
No martial arts is just a psychotic game where the martial arts instructor picks you wife jail time and the baby sitter picks how many felonies you get and why you dont deserve the opposite sex.
If you can dodge a knife, you can dodge a fist, If you can handle well against a stick, you can handle well against a kick?
Is dealing with weapons more deadlier ten empty hands, so you can easily deal with a boxer, why it why not?
