How to conceptualize skill and technique

Anyone else?

Skill has nothing to do with physical attribute. Can you elaborate why?

In terms of comparing technique, you have to rate it in proportion to the fighter's weight What does technique have to do with weight? :thinking: This is not true, when the phenomenon we are trying to analyse is strongly and inextricably linked with the environmental and innate attributes, like the skill is. It is build on physique (on these innate attributes), so we cannot leave physique out of the picture and compare skill manifested from meaningfully different physique Skill has nothing to do with physical attribute. You guys say dumb things in a very sophisticated manner.

So, which fighter you think posses better technique and why? Do you think light weight guys have punching power to knock out heavy weights? In a fight, the guy that can manipulate his environment the most as a sheer physical presence has a distinct advantage from the outset. In a barefisted fight, any guy can ko any guy. A bare fist is just as much of a piercing energy as concussive, and it doesn't really take much Ppsi of piercing energy on the right spot to hurt a man. When wearing gloves, your punches become more concussive, blunt. The nature of blunt concussive energy is the more weight and mass paired with momentum behind it, the more devastating it can be. That's why medieval maces were heavier than a mother****er...same concept. Some people overcome a statistical disadvantage, but the fact of the matter is this: Tyson wouldn't have to land clean on Floyd. He could land on a shoulder and bruise it badly or even dislocate it. He could land on Floyd's defensive shell and shatter it with one punch. Meanwhile for Floyd to even stall Tyson he would have to land the cleanest, hardest punch he's ever thrown.

I think skill is a term we use for doing certain things well but it doesn't really mean anything concrete. Froch tears through supposedly more skilled fighters all the time rendering the term empty. Maybe, or maybe skill is conceptualized or perceived in incorrect fashion, e.g., maybe "proper" (general) technique has been given more value than in-context effective approaches, or something like that.

My point is that you're looking at two distinct sets of technical skills and are treating them like they're one and the same. Well that is where the whole argument started, and it had two sides. What you present there is the other side - presented in the first post - and the other (also presented in the first post): e.g., in "skill is inextricably linked to physical attributes, different type of physic enables skill to manifest in different forms." and "while other thinks that Floyd could not compete with Iron Mike, as he does not posses a superior technique for the reasons stated above."

"Secondly, if you are talking about technical attributes alone, then the most valid and reliable analysis is one where opponents do share specific attributes. The best environment for the analysis of any variable is one where all other variables are equal." This is not true, when the phenomenon we are trying to analyse is strongly and inextricably linked with the environmental and innate attributes, like the skill is. It is build on physique (on these innate attributes), so we cannot leave physique out of the picture and compare skill manifested from meaningfully different physique (e.g., in low and high weight classes), as the skill manifesting from different innate attributes results in different kind of environmental attributes. "When you remove the weight classes, you're moving away from a reliable analysis of technique, not towards it." Like stated above, comparing skill in weight classes far apart is like comparing a skill of a tennis player to a badminton player. (Obviously this example exaggerates the environmental differences, but should make somewhat clear that different attributes and components skills are valued somewhat differently depending on which game is in case.) To unify the play field, we actually did remove several innate attributes from the picture in the fantasy match-up (height and reach) by selecting Floyd and Mike. And it was to speculate of how well Floyd's badminton translates into this new field (that is neither badminton or tennis) against Tyson's tennis. My point is that you're looking at two distinct sets of technical skills and are treating them like they're one and the same. Let's imagine I'm really good at repairing bikes, and you're pretty good at repairing trucks. What's the accurate description of that situation? Is it that I'm a better mechanic than you are? I don't think so. The correct description is that I'm a better mechanic within my specialisation than you are within yours. So transfer that to boxing. When we say Floyd Mayweather is the best technical boxer in the world, that's an incomplete statement. The correct statement is 'Floyd Mayweather is the best technical boxer in the world when fighting people of a similar size'. But weight classes are so taken for granted nobody ever actually says the latter part. You're trying to compare two different skill sets, technical ability vs opponents of a similar size and technical ability against opponents of all sizes. With the bike mechanic and the truck mechanic, you could just test their ability on a number of different vehicles to see who's the better mechanic. But in your boxing problem you can't do that because size is too big of a factor. To cut a long story short, you're comparing apples and oranges. Come up with some specific criteria for the comparison and you'd have a better chance of finding an answer.

I think skill is a term we use for doing certain things well but it doesn't really mean anything concrete. Froch tears through supposedly more skilled fighters all the time rendering the term empty.

All things considered, A Prime Tyson easily dismantles any version of Floyd. So, which fighter you think posses better technique and why? Do you think light weight guys have punching power to knock out heavy weights?

I think you are too mired in conceptual thought and not grounded enough in actual experience and application. Reminds me of a poetry professor I had that went a week of classes pontificating about a very short poem about a red wheelbarrow in the rain. Well, It's a damn red wheelbarrow in the rain! If you have ever been in the ring, Size and weight matter, this is why weight classes exist. All things considered, A Prime Tyson easily dismantles any version of Floyd. Whichever two of you that was trying to argue Floyd can hang with a prime Tyson is dumb beyond words, despite whatever illusion of eloquence you might possess. Words are just a medium; a vehicle for communicating something you feel or believe based upon your OWN experience. Any combination of words, tall or small, are irrelevant if you have nothing worthwhile to add to a specialized pool of thought. It's just wind. Go out and DO

When... :dance::bottle:

When comparing speculatively skill match comparison it is fodder for the realtive ease with which Tyson matches cognitively with the smaller Mayweather. In light of this eveidence, it is perforatively clear that minimal risks associated with the conglomeration of punches would inevitably constitute a quick demise. One must remember that Tyson while diminishing attributes it is also clear that Mayweather takes the reiterations of former glory. Speed, while conducive to technique, will not overcome the skill leverage that is abundantly harnessed in the bigger Tyson. One must assess each fighter on the inept pontification of his/her latter combustibility or lose sight of the techniques that put them at the top of the food pyramid. Barring an unforseen avalanche of premonitory obfuscations it is prevalent that Tyson and Mayweather are boxers devoid of mentalities preventing skills and techniques good. I mean, this is as good as most of what has been posted here, no? :gives:

"Secondly, if you are talking about technical attributes alone, then the most valid and reliable analysis is one where opponents do share specific attributes. The best environment for the analysis of any variable is one where all other variables are equal." This is not true, when the phenomenon we are trying to analyse is strongly and inextricably linked with the environmental and innate attributes, like the skill is. It is build on physique (on these innate attributes), so we cannot leave physique out of the picture and compare skill manifested from meaningfully different physique (e.g., in low and high weight classes), as the skill manifesting from different innate attributes results in different kind of environmental attributes. "When you remove the weight classes, you're moving away from a reliable analysis of technique, not towards it." Like stated above, comparing skill in weight classes far apart is like comparing a skill of a tennis player to a badminton player. (Obviously this example exaggerates the environmental differences, but should make somewhat clear that different attributes and components skills are valued somewhat differently depending on which game is in case.) To unify the play field, we actually did remove several innate attributes from the picture in the fantasy match-up (height and reach) by selecting Floyd and Mike. And it was to speculate of how well Floyd's badminton translates into this new field (that is neither badminton or tennis) against Tyson's tennis.

Thanks for your reply Dr Rumack We are talking about Tyson vs Mayweather without any imaginary modification. Two fighters relatively similar height and reach, but not weight. The key point is that could Mayweathers "superior" skill handle the skill of Mike Tyson that is manifestation of his larger physique. For example in submission wrestling there are lots of technique that are great in a handicap system (in your weight class), but when there is no weight class, they render useless due to the new characteristics of the environment, for the smaller guy. In this kind of case, can it really be stated that someone has a superior technique, when it is only superior against the opponents sharing some specific attributes. The weight deficit is too great to be overcome by skill, especially in this instance where the naturally heavier man has a very sophisticated skillset, in terms of speed and mobility as well as punching power. Mayweather has a sturdy chin, sublime accuracy and a superb defence, but even this cannot compensate for the lack of authority in his work due to the constant mobility which he will be forced to employ, unable to plant his feet and generate leverage on his punches, therefore not able to command his opponent's respect. Physically, an exhausting fight for Mayweather where his ring savvy and stamina will be tested to the limit, the prediction is that Tyson will stop Floyd between rounds 3-5, of course depending upon when Tyson catches Mayweather. In terms of comparing technique, you have to rate it in proportion to the fighter's weight, you cannot compare directly the speed of a 147lb fighter and a 210lb fighter, well, technically you can, but you are not taking into account that weight can have a significant effect on, for example, hand-speed, foot-speed as well as punching power. Mayweather will obviously have the quicker hands and feet, because he is carrying less muscle mass which allows him to be lighter on his feet, but will lack the power of the more densely-built 210lb man in Tyson, but this can also depend on the physical build of the athlete. Tyson's explosiveness meant that, for a heavyweight, he possessed very fast hands and great mobility which allowed him to slip punches effectively, and get on the inside where he would go to work.

Thanks for your reply Dr Rumack We are talking about Tyson vs Mayweather without any imaginary modification. Two fighters relatively similar height and reach, but not weight. The key point is that could Mayweathers "superior" skill handle the skill of Mike Tyson that is manifestation of his larger physique. For example in submission wrestling there are lots of technique that are great in a handicap system (in your weight class), but when there is no weight class, they render useless due to the new characteristics of the environment, for the smaller guy. In this kind of case, can it really be stated that someone has a superior technique, when it is only superior against the opponents sharing some specific attributes. Well firstly, Mike Tyson demolishes Floyd Mayweather in the absence of any weight equalisation. That much is a given. Secondly, if you are talking about technical attributes alone, then the most valid and reliable analysis is one where opponents do share specific attributes. The best environment for the analysis of any variable is one where all other variables are equal. When you remove the weight classes, you're moving away from a reliable analysis of technique, not towards it. So Mayweather's technical superiority over similarly sized opponents is actually the best measure of how technical he is. Putting a fighter in with bigger or smaller opponents only dilutes your analysis of their technique. I think the conceptual root of your problem is that you are discussing technique in two different contexts. Technical ability is tightly matched to the situation at hand. When you talk about technique against similarly sized or larger opponents, you're actually talking about two different sets of technical attributes, rather than a singular measure of technical ability.

Thanks for your reply Dr Rumack We are talking about Tyson vs Mayweather without any imaginary modification. Two fighters relatively similar height and reach, but not weight. The key point is that could Mayweathers "superior" skill handle the skill of Mike Tyson that is manifestation of his larger physique. For example in submission wrestling there are lots of technique that are great in a handicap system (in your weight class), but when there is no weight class, they render useless due to the new characteristics of the environment, for the smaller guy. In this kind of case, can it really be stated that someone has a superior technique, when it is only superior against the opponents sharing some specific attributes.

Seems like you're hypothesising the technical attributes of heavier fighters. If you're talking about h2h match-ups, then you can only go on the technical characteristics they've actually displayed. I don't think you can really base an argument on speculation about the technical style a fighter would have adopted if they were 70lbs lighter. In general though, heavier fighters are at something of a disadvantage in p4p rankings and the like because they're not as fast or as mobile. If you're talking about Tyson vs Mayweather, all you need to think about is how much faster would he be with 30% less bodyweight, and much less force would be behind his shots. His technical style is his technical style. It either has the potential to get through Mayweather's defence or it doesn't.