MIKE TYSON VS THE GREATEST SHAOLIN MONK IN HISTORY?

who do you think would win in a fight with no weapons? and give a reason why or show some videos or a website backing you up?

Also who is the greatest shaolin monk in history?

I have no idea who the greatest Shaolin Monk in history is but I imagine that he would have to be pretty tough.

In a boxing match I'd easily give to Tyson but in a real fight I'd go with the Shaolin Monk. Boxing is very different from real fighting.

I think your kind of confused to what a Shaolin monk actually is

People underrate Boxing as a martial art, they seem to think because it mainly utilises upper body strength it's inferior somehow.

Those people have never been in a fight.

That being said, no idea who the best Shaolin monk is/was.

a boxers hands are weapons of tiny destruction, one punch can knock out almost anyone here, but monks are not joke, so i still give it to the monk.

Tyson bites his ear off

End of story.

Nobody in any of these threads have actually explained why these shaolin monks are so good. Are there even well known Shaolin monks?

This.

This.

And this...

Not really. Boxing is one form of fighting. And an extremely effective one at that. Boxing itself is a sport, but it's a fighting sport which uses fighting techniques. What have shaolin monks got in a street fight that a fast, bulking, precise and experienced 200+ lbs heavyweight boxing champion, doesn't have?

You are talking about thousands of monks, from an order that's been around god even knows how long who basically devote themselves to physical and martial training there isn't a single one out of that group that could beat Mike Tyson in a real fight?

And no, boxing is very different from real fighting. Boxing has strict rules, too many to even list in this post. You can only hit certain spots, with certain techniques, with certain equipment, in a small boxed area. Boxing rules go a long way towards ensuring fighters' safety (not that it stops brain damage and even deaths but they try).

Something as simple as uneven terrain would badly throw off a boxer's footwork. There are no kicks, elbows or knees in boxing (normally), and boxers don't learn any methods of defending against kicks. Same goes for throws and all sorts of grappling techniques which in a real fight are much more important than strikes. All boxing has is strike's and only ones with the hands at that. Not to mention Mike Tyson isn't even a barehanded boxer, he can't even apply his knowledge of how certain punches will affect him or his opponent because of the different physics involved.

Low-blows, eye gouging, nerve strikes etc. are all disallowed in boxing but they are huge part of martial arts techniques. Boxing teaches an extremely narrow set of skills relative to martial arts as a whole. Sure, it's enough to curbstomp 99% of people but to say it's not much different from a real life or death fight against a highly trained opponent is false. Now, I know very little about Shaolin Monks, I've seen a documentary or two and that's about it but of all the thousands of Shaolin Monks that have lived, with all of that training, in a fight where Mike Tyson is clearly out of his element you don't think the greatest one amongst all of them can beat him under those conditions?

Which monk are we talking about?

Mike Tyson. Because he's Mike Tyson. Not only was he a pretty good boxer, in his prime, he was a beast for anyone to handle not just a boxer. Also, just because you have the greatest Shaolin Monk (should that be capitalized?) doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to be in Tysons weight class. The greatest Monk is history might only have been 110lbs...I don't care how good you are, Mike Tyson will destroy you with one hit at that weight. So...I guess I'll assume that the Monk is also in Tysons weight class, I still think Tyson would win it. Tyson, at least, has had experience in real life situations where he had to use his art on top of being very strong and tough. Shaolin guys, while cool, I have found don't have a lot of actual "real world" experience with their art. It's tough to throw a spinning kick on the street and have it do more than just make you vulnerable. Not to mention that neither of them has any grappling (the monk might, not sure but I know Tyson doesn't) which leaves them both open to just amateur wrestling moves on each other. In the end, without actually seeing the Monk, I would be forced to give the vast majority to Tyson. The Monk would need to be some kind of super jacked dude, who'd been in real fights with moves that actually worked (consistently). You always hear about eye gouges and crotch shots, but in real life, try pulling that move off. As a matter of fact, try Googling "eye gouge" and see how many real world scenarios is has worked in. I'm guessing you'll find a lot of "how to" instructor types, but not many "caught on video" type vids.

Summary: Tyson in a walk.

lmfao

A lot of Asian martial arts are accredited to the house of Shaolin and Shaolin Kung Fu is a collection of Wushu forms and styles itself and the Monastery would train the monks for years from childhood in all of them. My money is on the monk big time.

We talking about this guy?

Tai Djin

Wasn't making any statements, was just asking what have they got that a boxer doesn't since I don't know much about them.

Just because boxing techniques don't include things like kicks, grabs, pressure points or other tactics doesn't mean it isn't "real fighting". Brazilian Ju jitsu is a martial arts form that isn't about striking. It doesn't include all aspects of fighting but that doesn't mean it isn't a real fighting martial art. Boxing is a martial art form just like any other. You have boxing techniques, boxing training and boxing diets. Just because a governing body has it's own individual set of rules, doesn't change the fact that boxing is a martial art.

Do you get what I'm saying? Boxing is primarily a sport. But it's a sport based on a martial art that focuses on striking. Just like karate competitions are based on karate. Karate has it's own rules but it's still a martial art. A "real fighting" martial art.

I'm not arguing that being a boxer will give you all aspects of fighting like a Mixed Martial Artist. A boxer vs a MMA in a street fight will, generally, favour the mma. Supposing they are around the same weight, fitness level and level of experience.

But yeah... I think you're getting too hung up on this idea that boxing is "narrow". It isn't really. A mixed martial artist is someone who incorporates multiple martial arts into their fight game. A boxer is someone who boxes. You know? A mixed martial artist will (well, should) know how to box to an extent and should have a good striking game. By saying boxing is narrow and limits your fight game, is saying the same about every martial art. Which is true. If you only do Judo you won't know much about trading punches or kicks. If you only box you won't know much about grappling.

So yeah. I think we can agree on this. Boxing is a martial art, and a valid fighting style out of the sport itself. But you're right in saying that limiting yourself to just one martial art will hinder you against someone who knows multiple martial arts. But having said that, if you're going to be a mixed martial artist, it's highly advisable that you learn to box. Learning to box is your stand up striking, your footwork and balance, your defence, your counter punching, your head movement. The full striking package.

Back on topic though - what kind of techniques do Shaolin Monks incorporate into their training? I don't know much about them but if you could fill me in I'd be grateful. I'm guessing they're a little more versatile than a boxer but.. don't underestimate the striking game. A good boxer, especially someone like Tyson, can near enough kill someone if they hit them hard enough in the right place. They train in 16 ounce gloves and fight in 8-10 ounce. Now take away all that padding weight, and you have faster hands, harder fists and extremely dangerous striking power. Tyson especially is dangerous because of his infamous striking strength and 210+ lbs of fury.

Ah cool. See I don't actually know a lot about Kung Fu or asian martial arts in general. I would hazard a guess though, and say that boxers have the strength and striking advantage over the Shaolin. Their whole game is essentially punching so it's pretty hard to top them in it. But I do know Kung Fu utilizes kicks, and particularly high kicks. So.. I dunno. Could end bad for the boxer if he leaves himself open.

However, I'm guessing very few monks are 200lbs of pure muscle who literally live to get punched in the face and punch others in the face. I'd give the boxer strength and durability confidently (as of now anyway). Punching speed aswell maybe. Boxers train in 16 ounce gloves and fight in 8-10 ounce so when you take that weight and padding away, you have much faster and more dangerous hands.

Tyson KO's him before he realises then claims his abilities

Let's not forget that Sweet Dempsy roll Cus had him prefect.

@nelomaxwell: Yeah, Tyson was a well tuned animal in his prime. He would of gone all the way if Cus hadn't died early in his career.

@i_like_swords: Wasn't making any statements, was just asking what have they got that a boxer doesn't since I don't know much about them.

My apologies then, I may have misinterpreted you.

Just because boxing techniques don't include things like kicks, grabs, pressure points or other tactics doesn't mean it isn't "real fighting". By saying boxing is narrow and limits your fight game, is saying the same about every martial art. If you only do Judo you won't know much about trading punches or kicks.

See, I think you are misinterpreting me now. I'm not saying boxing isn't a real martial art, I'm saying a boxing match is not the same thing as a real fight at all. It would be similar to saying a trip to the shooting range is the same thing as fighting in a war. It of course has applicability to the real thing, but it is not the real thing. And while it's true that no martial art is truly "complete" on it's own some styles are obviously more versatile than others. Boxing is not as versatile as something like Krav Maga. That's not even debatable. And within the context of this debate, Shaolin monks have more versatility in the kind of techniques they study.

So yeah. I think we can agree on this. Boxing is a martial art, and a valid fighting style out of the sport itself. But you're right in saying that limiting yourself to just one martial art will hinder you against someone who knows multiple martial arts. But having said that, if you're going to be a mixed martial artist, it's highly advisable that you learn to box. Learning to box is your stand up striking, your footwork and balance, your defence, your counter punching, your head movement. The full striking package.

I can totally agree with this, yeah.

Back on topic though - what kind of techniques do Shaolin Monks incorporate into their training? I don't know much about them but if you could fill me in I'd be grateful. I'm guessing they're a little more versatile than a boxer but.. don't underestimate the striking game. A good boxer, especially someone like Tyson, can near enough kill someone if they hit them hard enough in the right place. They train in 16 ounce gloves and fight in 8-10 ounce. Now take away all that padding weight, and you have faster hands, harder fists and extremely dangerous striking power. Tyson especially is dangerous because of his infamous striking strength and 210+ lbs of fury.

They do everything honestly, from what I have seen. Lots of strength and conditioning, body hardening, meditation stuff like that. Mainly isometric exercises of course but they do use jugs of water for weights and such. In terms of fighting techniques there are tons of weapons they use, I couldn't give you details on exactly the kind of hand to hand combat techniques they study but there is a huge range. Like the other guy said Wushu is derived from Shaolin training methods and it can be assumed that Shaolin training encompasses aspects of Wushu at the least but it obviously varies depending on what temple you go to and such. it's not really a single unified martial art so much as it is a lifestyle.

@shenkuei: I agree with you there. Krav maga is definitely a better choice than boxing for a street fight. That's life and death stuff right there.

Ah fair enough. Definitely seems like they keep in good shape anyway. Only thing is - do they do a lot of actual fighting? The good thing about boxing being a sport in terms of street fighting is that you do get some level of real fighting experience. You're stuck in there with a guy trying to take your head off for 12 rounds. It's not like a street fight that ends in 30 seconds, 2 minutes, or maybe one punch, or a choke hold. The rounds really add up and makes for a durable fighter.

Since Shaolin Monks didn't have a sport of competitions (or they might have, I dunno), it makes them a bit more lacking in actual fight experience. Which could aid the boxer. He'd be able to control his adrenalin much better and just get down to business, whereas someone who rarely fights for real will not know what they just stepped into.

You have a good point, Shaolin monks don't frequently have serious fights. They do sparring with each other but that's not really the same thing. In that sense, boxers do have more experience than Shaolin monks. They take their training very seriously though. Shaolin martial arts, from what I recall originated from a military history where their temples would frequently be raided by armed bandits for the artifacts and offerings they collected and such. So exceptional training in the martial arts was a matter of life and death for them (still may be in some parts).

Honestly I guess it just depends on the fighter. We can only speculate on our knowledge of their fighting styles and training. It'd be a cool fight though.

Au Contraire,the main focuses of Shaolin Kung Fu arestriking and grappling. Shaolin Kung Fu can be offensive or defensive,monks spend hours practicing strikes like a boxer would with the addition of kicks(like you said),there's usually a string of hand strikes and a kick to finish off,over and over again. Have you seen a monk in action, it's like they are dancing effortlessly

The monks are taught a high pain tolerance,they break concrete with their hands, continuously punch cement walls,break spears with their necks etc... And you're right most monks aren't huge like boxers are, they are lean muscle and are very agile, you think your man is going to be landing all his strikes on the monks chin? I'm not that convinced. The sifu's break bamboo and wood on their backs and they can't flinch,handstands on fingers...part of being a monk is transcending pain and I'm not sure ol' boxer can dish enough out to stop monkey.

@i_like_swords: These testaments to speed,strength and durability should suffice:

@jeanralphio: My point does still kind of stand.. boxers have much more extensive punching training and conditioning, and strength and speed training, backed up with diets that will maximise their results from exercise. I will still take a boxers striking over a Monks because that is their main objective.

I'm not doubting that these guys have incredible pain tolerance. It is remarkable. Pain tolerance is an extremely useful thing to have in a fight because it shows your willingness not to be broken and will help you to push through difficult situations. However, in a fight with a boxer it isn't the most important attribute. The boxer is looking for a KO, or to leave you injured and unable to fight. You can do neck exercises (like Floyd Mayweather and some others do) in order to improve your chin, but really, if you get hit with the right shot then you're going lights out. Especially when it's someone a lot bigger than you. It might not hurt a seasoned monk but it will leave him unable to fight.

@i_like_swords: Your point is kind of fair...in strength training, I assuming boxers lift a lot so they'd have the monks beat there but striking, conditioning and speed...still not convinced. Sure boxers are "quick" for fighting other boxers but not someone who's been training and ONLY training since childhood to be effectively quick Wushu boxers(not western).

A boxer being quick compared to another boxer is actually a pretty good feat considering the training they all go through. Some guys are naturally faster than others.

The reason I'm saying boxers have some of the fastest hand speed in the world is because of the training they undergo. They train intensely for 3-4 months before a fight non-stop, with diet coaches telling them exactly what is good for them and what isn't. They train to fight for 12 rounds, with 10 ounce gloves on, and train in 16 ounce. Basically what I'm saying is they do all this conditioning so that they can fight at insane speeds with gloves on, and for long periods of fighting time, so imagine a boxer in his prime without any restraints. All the same conditioning but no gloves. His hand speed would be flying. You see it when they shadowbox freely, their hands just fly.

And like I've been saying, in terms of conditioning, boxers are hard to top. They're going in that ring for 12 rounds to hurt each other so there's no room to be in anything less than perfect shape. However it's fair to say that a lot of martial art forms require fighters to be in great shape so I wouldn't put a boxer so far ahead of a Shaolin Monk. We'll just say that aspect is an even since they're both fighters in great shape.

In terms of actual striking, I'd still say however the boxer has the advantage. At least in closed fist striking anyway. It's all they do. They'll punch the heavy bag and the floor to ceiling bag tens of thousands of times just to get one punch right, so that it's just natural instinct to throw it in a fight. It's some of the most basic striking techniques but they are so effective and dangerous when used by the right person. A straight right or left hand to the jaw can leave someone permanently injured or knocked out. And if you catch a hook in the temple from Mike Tyson it could near enough kill you. Not saying one punch is going to end it all here because that's less likely between two capable fighters, but that's the kind of striking force we're dealing with. Plus, without even considering technique, the boxer still has the size advantage due to his heavyweight weight class and strength training, meaning his strikes will be a lot more effective against a lighter opponent.

Sorry that was a bit of rant, but it's more just for anyone reading this that thinks that boxing is a crude art and isn't a valid martial art. Or that it's "just a sport". If I was going to be any kind of fighter whether it be a mixed martial artist, a bouncer, soldier or police officer, I'd definitely take up boxing for my basic striking and defence.

WHO WAS THE BEST MONK EVER?

We are talking about the equivalent of navy seals for classical china, very serious army people. Shaolin was the training academy for the chinese military for something like 1000 years, so it's likely that the very hardest shaolin monk ever was some kind of highly decorated mid-30s chinese army special forces guy from about 1300-1400AD, and I don't think Mike Tyson would stand a chance of landing a finger on him, he'd have his legs swept out from under him and be in a basic choke hold. Even against the very hardest russian Spetsnaz assassins, very capably violent hand to hand combat guys, or Mossad's best, your hardest ever Shaolin monk could probably handle between 3 and 5 of them and be giving a running commentary. Most military special forces, in a no-holds-barred hand-to-hand fight would just use the standard set of techniques to have any Professional Boxer on the floor with several broken bones and quite dead indeed. Shaolin's finest vintage monk would have been extremely lethal.

Most Russian Army trained Spetznaz could likely handle any professional boxer, simply due to the level of expertise in techniques not allowed in boxing employed in military hand to hand combat to incapacitate and kill people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNr47D5ovuM

All Shaolin monks train from the age of about 4 or 5 about 12 hours a day *minimum*. All of them. Look up the various "iron body" conditioning techniques. Most of them have skulls a good half inch thicker than most non-conditioned people. All the tendons, ligaments etc, highly conditioned for extension, strength & power.

PROFESSIONAL BOXING SKILLS / SHAOLIN KUNGFU DIFFERENCES

the basic difference with kungfu is the lack of gloves and the use of the full body including legs, and attacking the opponent in any way. The modern equivalents of wushu or kungfu used by special forces in the field when they run out of bullets or find themselves ambushed in a hotel room, those systems (such as the US military's MAC and Mossad's krav maga) borrow heavily from asian martial arts. What the chinese special forces use today isn't much different from what a Shaolin monk was taught, with the exception that there were no guns until the 19th century, so a Shaolin monk was pretty much top of the food chain in terms of battlefield survivability. What's the cruise missile of the medieval chinese era? Shaolin monk.

Aside from the blocks, jumps and kicks made possible by unlimited use of the legs, the use of grabs and grappling due to the unconstrained fingers, known as qin na, often combined with multiple and followup attacks would likely be the end of the fight. Yes, mike tyson punching you is like being run over by a bus, but that's not a problem for a shaolin monk, you can't hit them, and then they're ripping your arm off while kneeing you in the back of the head.

This guy could probably handle Mike Tyson, as should be evident in the very short video:

But I doubt he could handle the best monk ever.

____

Then there's the whole pressure point stuff, which are methods of hitting which require much less force but knock out or disable an opponent quite completely, so it's entirely plausible that most master-grade 70 year old monks could handle a couple of Mike Tysons each. It's not a question of physical strength, it's a question of the level of skill and technical virtuosity.

Shaolin monk wins.

A really good martial artist is gonna take a boxer every time, just due to the simple fact that boxers focus exclusively on the upper body, the stances are there to protect your chest and face, not a nut kick.

The Monk

Liu Kang ?

He would win.

Tyson has feats, unnamed monk has none. So I'm giving it to Tyson because of Battle Forum logic.

The shoalin monk is undefinable, we don't know who he is or what he is capable of. But Mike Tyson is one of the greatest boxers. However, simple leg kicks would end Tyson extremely fast which shoalin monks do ALOT, they resemble Muay Thai in that sense.

So I know of a few shoalin monks in mix martial arts that can beat Tyson in my opinion, so someone better than them could.

The Unsung hero has better feats without a doubtzzz

Shaolin Monk uses the death touch

/thread.

IDK who the greatest Shaolin monk is in history, no sources have been documented. He may be long dead for all we know but below is what well-trained shaolins can do.

There are plenty of more moves including chopping bricks, snapping tree branches and paralysing opponents by the nerve points

Ends in broken English either way

Who is the Greatest Monk in history ?

An Elder Shaolin Monk can easily swat or evade anything Mike Tyson throws at him and their bodies are like steel, they can resist (In my opinion) many punches and still not be knocked out, therefore Shaolin Monks all the way.

The Shaolin Monks have tough heads, I doubt Mike Tyson's punches would even faze them.

Tyson would literally knock them out in one punch.

Uhmmm, people talk about how boxing is ineffective and inefficient in a real fight situation, but how about kung fu/shaolin stuffs? Are they really effective in real fight situations?

As far as i know were some forms of Kung Fu quite effective back then but resembled more something like Muay Thai, so with the greatest in history would we probably get someone who uses a decent fighting style.

Tyson would bust his hands up on the monk who trains to take hard damage. Then the monk would win.

Sure. Kung fu can be effective against an untrained dude out on the streets. The real question is whether kung fu is effective against another trained professional martial artist. There are some pretty lolsworthy posts from 5 years ago on this thread.