Who had better power mechanics technique wise, modern boxers or olden day boxers?

[AlexKid]

Is modern better due to the accumulation and addition of knowledge or has technique esp power mechanics gone down hill compared with olden day boxers?

Jack Dempsey seems pretty damn advanced more so than your typical modern boxer.

[Elroy1]

Utterly ridiculous post and topic...

Did Heisenberg and Einstein know reality better than Newton and Liebniz? OBVIOUSLY!

This sort of thing would appeal to ONLY nut bags!!

I know it's their section and all but lately there has been many many incursions of nutters like Bill for example in reality sections also, so fair game.

[billeau2]

Utterly ridiculous post and topic...

Did Heisenberg and Einstein know reality better than Newton and Liebniz? OBVIOUSLY!

This sort of thing would appeal to ONLY nut bags!!

I know it's their section and all but lately there has been many many incursions of nutters like Bill for example in reality sections also, so fair game.

Liebnitz was a logician you idiot. His epistemologial reference was tremendous with respect to formal logic and language (to a degree). You cannot compare him to a physicist. Did Aristotle know physics less than Einstein? well people followed Aristotelean physics for many more years than einstein and when Aristotle was around he advanced our scientific knowledge tremendously compared to Einstein, so a comparison shows short sited stupidity. Without Aristotle we would not have modern biology (for example). So do we know more with Einstein because his theories are in vogue presently when we try to conceptualize big things in the universe?

With that said, if we take a modern theory like Behavorism for example, and it is proved utterly false regarding language learning, in 20 years, then who is more right regarding language? Skinner, who was proved wrong about language learning? or Wittgenstein who advanced the study of language over a much greater time, but is now considered somewhat naive? See not everything can be quantified as better and worse junior.

Knowledge builds and is not always subject to "better and worse", Heisenberg and Einstein depended on past knowledge to derive present theory, and there is no proof that our understanding has become "better." Einstein could be proved wrong tomorrow, then what? Did he not know reality? No...reality and understanding is not objective, it changes and proceeds as we change and proceed. Technology is culmulative, epistemology is not. Technology and understanding (theory and praxis) are two aspects of epistemology, one advances one changes.

You see how limited your thinking is?

[Elroy1]

Liebnitz was a logician you idiot. His epistemologial reference was tremendous with respect to formal logic and language (to a degree). You cannot compare him to a physicist. Did Aristotle know physics less than Einstein? well people followed Aristotelean physics for many more years than einstein and when Aristotle was around he advanced our scientific knowledge tremendously compared to Einstein, so a comparison shows short sited stupidity. Without Aristotle we would not have modern biology (for example). So do we know more with Einstein because his theories are in vogue presently when we try to conceptualize big things in the universe?

With that said, if we take a modern theory like Behavorism for example, and it is proved utterly false regarding language learning, in 20 years, then who is more right regarding language? Skinner, who was proved wrong about language learning? or Wittgenstein who advanced the study of language over a much greater time, but is now considered somewhat naive? See not everything can be quantified as better and worse junior.

Knowledge builds and is not always subject to "better and worse", Heisenberg and Einstein depended on past knowledge to derive present theory, and there is no proof that our understanding has become "better." Einstein could be proved wrong tomorrow, then what? Did he not know reality? No...reality and understanding is not objective, it changes and proceeds as we change and proceed. Technology is culmulative, epistemology is not. Technology and understanding (theory and praxis) are two aspects of epistemology, one advances one changes.

You see how limited your thinking is?

Nobody, especially myself, is interested in hearing about your dismantling of a simple analogy Bill.

It's JUST a quick analogy to serve a purpose, it was never intended to be laser accurate in every little detail, the point is conveyed adequately as was (Liebniz WAS, despite being of the philosopy sect rather than science- diametrically opposed to Newton in their debate over the nature of space and time (and whether they were real en****** or merely mathematical constructs)).

The fact that you felt you needed to write 3 paragraphs to basically say "Look at me, look how smart I am" with the apparent irony of "who gives a damn about that" completely lost on you, only serves to show how LIMITED your insight really is, especially on a social level.

It's obvious you don't get out much Bill.

And always remember smart guy...

A scholarly nut bag is still a nut bag!

[AlexKid]

Nobody, especially myself, is interested in hearing about your dismantling of a simple analogy Bill.

It's JUST a quick analogy to serve a purpose, it was never intended to be laser accurate in every little detail, the point is conveyed adequately as was (Liebniz WAS, despite being of the philosopy sect rather than science- diametrically opposed to Newton in their debate over the nature of space and time (and whether they were real en****** or merely mathematical constructs)).

The fact that you felt you needed to write 3 paragraphs to basically say "Look at me, look how smart I am" with the apparent irony of "who gives a damn about that" completely lost on you, only serves to show how LIMITED your insight really is, especially on a social level.

It's obvious you don't get out much Bill.

And always remember smart guy...

A scholarly nut bag is still a nut bag!

I care how smart he is, carry on Bill, you have an audience now!

[Elroy1]

I care how smart he is, carry on Bill, you have an audience now!

Last time I checked this was a bloody boxing forum, not a semantics seminar!

You can go and chill with your little mate!

[billeau2]

Nobody, especially myself, is interested in hearing about your dismantling of a simple analogy Bill.

It's JUST a quick analogy to serve a purpose, it was never intended to be laser accurate in every little detail, the point is conveyed adequately as was (Liebniz WAS, despite being of the philosopy sect rather than science- diametrically opposed to Newton in their debate over the nature of space and time (and whether they were real en****** or merely mathematical constructs)).

The fact that you felt you needed to write 3 paragraphs to basically say "Look at me, look how smart I am" with the apparent irony of "who gives a damn about that" completely lost on you, only serves to show how LIMITED your insight really is, especially on a social level.

It's obvious you don't get out much Bill.

And always remember smart guy...

A scholarly nut bag is still a nut bag!

I may come across as trying to flex my knowledge...I will give you that, but when you use an analogy and it is so wrong for so many reasons, it goes to the issue of credability. Your use of analogies is on a par with your use of boxing rhetoric, its just plain mistaken.

yeah, nobody needs a speech on formal logic and physics so don't use analogies that are wrong or inaccurate.

furthermore I just can't help but deconstruct how your errors reflect this world you live in where there are fighters who you think are so subpar and others who you hyperbolize to the other extreme. You cry out to be exposed junior...I'll take one on the nose for explicating too much. How about you do a self check as well? For all our sake?

[billeau2]

Nobody, especially myself, is interested in hearing about your dismantling of a simple analogy Bill.

It's JUST a quick analogy to serve a purpose, it was never intended to be laser accurate in every little detail, the point is conveyed adequately as was (Liebniz WAS, despite being of the philosopy sect rather than science- diametrically opposed to Newton in their debate over the nature of space and time (and whether they were real en****** or merely mathematical constructs)).

The fact that you felt you needed to write 3 paragraphs to basically say "Look at me, look how smart I am" with the apparent irony of "who gives a damn about that" completely lost on you, only serves to show how LIMITED your insight really is, especially on a social level.

It's obvious you don't get out much Bill.

And always remember smart guy...

A scholarly nut bag is still a nut bag!

By the way...why would you assume that nobody has an interest? Your a meglomaniac as well....According to you, you punch like Foreman, have to find bag holders, know what is true and what is not, and know what interests other people. You see a pattern here?

[Anthony342]

Dude, why do you even bother? Just ignore his posts and move on to the next ones.

[Suckmedry]

It's obvious you don't get out much Bill.

irony1
ˈʌɪrəni/
noun
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms: sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism; More
antonyms: sincerity