Gradually as common ground is found the posts get shorter.


'Better' implies more of an ability to actually use the strikes for their intended purpose.

No, because this can only ever be down to the fighter. You cannot logically claim an art is better at using strikes as it is not a conscious being. I can quite accept that in general boxing produces a lot more people who are comfortable fighting for real than karate (even though I say this I realise it is anecdotal and may not be true), and that this is due to the training methods. But as I said, training methods change and vary from place to place and so cannot be used as any kind of accurate judge of an art.

Even if we agree that karate's best training methods were stolen from boxing, that still doesn't answer the question who has the better strikes, all it means is we are able to consider the striking techniques on a more even playing field as both are being trained in the same way (think scientific method, eliminating variables for a true comparison..).

Example: who has better kicks, Taekwondo school A who train for show, or B who train for fighting? IMO their kicks are the same, B has more combative (so better for this dicsussion) training, but their techniques are the same. I wouldn't be surprised if the extra athleticism, speed and flexibility of school A's students had them winning half the fights against school B in a knockdown match. The fight is down to the fighter.


Do keep in mind though, that in a roundabout way a Western influence can still be established. The pedagogy of Judo was developed with a strong Western combat sport influence, and this influece was felt on most subsequent modern Japanese arts. This pedagogy was the major change Kano made to tradional Japanese arts.

Interesting. I don't know a whole lot about Judo's origins, but nothing I've read suggests this. What influences are you talking about and how did they affect Kano's developments? What's your source?
It's Shotokan not Shoto-can't!!!