Discuss Youtuber on scientific fighting, good vid

[billeau2]

[Marchegiano]

It's a fine video but it touches two nerves of mine. 1 Really all his problem is, is a lack of explaining nuance. Which I never got, nuanced subject don't really need an explanation because they're kind of interpretive. 2 I do love me some Mendoza don't try to take that shine off The ***.

Figg was known as a slaughterer in his time. Which is ye olden for puncher. Y'all here don't need explained the nuance between a puncher and a boxer and the first time I ever heard the term puncher I knew exactly what the old man meant. All he did was teach me the proper term for a style. What I mean to say by that is it isn't hard to understand when people slag puncher for not having boxing skills they don't mean they're talent-less. It doesn't take being inducted into boxing fandom at all. The first time you hear the term you get it and the only reason to use terms like that is to distinguish between styles, usually to call the puncher skill-less.

To bring this back to nerve 1, if Baldy McGew from the OG vid looks at punchers now and then as skill-less, which many boxing fans do, then fair enough to him. The explanation he gave for the Figg era is no worse than the descriptions many, many, many boxing fans give for Marciano, Tyson, and definitely not Wilder.

[The Old LefHook]

The muggery buggery of puggery. Modern neophytes and blatherskytes think you must curtsy and dance to be a master, and are forever confusing fast twitch fiber with boxing ability.

[billeau2]

My sense of it is the unwillingness of many to see separate distinct styles of pugalism. They look at information about the era and don't really see. People have been using scientific principles to fight way before modern methods... Ju Jutsu has schools operating in the 1500s, South East Asian has blade styles as old as the tribes that use scientific methods... whatever one wants to call them.

Modern boxing is different than preclassical boxing. Therefore different principles applied.

[Marchegiano]

My sense of it is the unwillingness of many to see separate distinct styles of pugalism. They look at information about the era and don't really see. People have been using scientific principles to fight way before modern methods... Ju Jutsu has schools operating in the 1500s, South East Asian has blade styles as old as the tribes that use scientific methods... whatever one wants to call them.

Modern boxing is different than preclassical boxing. Therefore different principles applied.

I can see how I pick and choose here...maybe I should think about that.

Apollo is the god of science, among his many titles. Which I always felt was kinda...not right. Because inquiry into processes alone is not what science is and the ancient greeks had no scientific method. I mean no disrespect to any genius in any time, but, fact is science is a huge leg up on going it alone or even with local minds. Science is kind of impossible in the ancient world. I get what they mean buy god of science, but no, he's the god of knowledge.

However, ask my ass about ancient boxing to present boxing and I will do my best to paint one long continuous narrative from BC Sparta to 17th century London.

So for some reason I refuse the analogous nature of modern science the and methods that came before to inspire modern science but acknowledge boxing method and methodology as one growing and evolving thing humans do.

Which puts me at odds with myself. Even though I damn well know there is nothing scientific about Daniel Mendoza, the fact that the idea of science comes from his place in time and his geographic location makes me want to say no, there's a huge distinct difference between early inquiry and modern science, but, early defense, I know that **** well, there's always Melankomas, Euthymos, and Pythagoras. BC legends of defense. Oh and Glaukos's kid too, forgot that guy's name atm. Glaukos was a hammer but his son had slick skills. However, isn't it totally possible things like placement, footwork, juxtaposition, didn't really get flushed out until the 1700s?

As I know it Mendoza is known for bring movement at a time when men didn't do much moving because it was cowardly.

As I know it before 1640s revival, which I have a thread somewheres on this forum about, when boxers fought and moved too much they were deemed boring and ladders were places around their legs to make them stop.

Figg was a puncher, Broughton lost to a butcher, then you have a series of champions who had normal jobs then Big Brian, who, was big....not slick, then Mendoza with a whole system for fighting people absolutely hated to see and conspired against to remove.

I'm not sold on the idea that because someone might have ducked punches naturally, or naturally had a great guard or some such, that a Mendoza-like figure actually existed before Mendoza because I don't think there is a time frame for that person to exist and there's very little narrative to support it.

[billeau2]

I can see how I pick and choose here...maybe I should think about that.

Apollo is the god of science, among his many titles. Which I always felt was kinda...not right. Because inquiry into processes alone is not what science is and the ancient greeks had no scientific method. I mean no disrespect to any genius in any time, but, fact is science is a huge leg up on going it alone or even with local minds. Science is kind of impossible in the ancient world. I get what they mean buy god of science, but no, he's the god of knowledge.

However, ask my ass about ancient boxing to present boxing and I will do my best to paint one long continuous narrative from BC Sparta to 17th century London.

So for some reason I refuse the analogous nature of modern science the and methods that came before to inspire modern science but acknowledge boxing method and methodology as one growing and evolving thing humans do.

Which puts me at odds with myself. Even though I damn well know there is nothing scientific about Daniel Mendoza, the fact that the idea of science comes from his place in time and his geographic location makes me want to say no, there's a huge distinct difference between early inquiry and modern science, but, early defense, I know that **** well, there's always Melankomas, Euthymos, and Pythagoras. BC legends of defense. Oh and Glaukos's kid too, forgot that guy's name atm. Glaukos was a hammer but his son had slick skills. However, isn't it totally possible things like placement, footwork, juxtaposition, didn't really get flushed out until the 1700s?

As I know it Mendoza is known for bring movement at a time when men didn't do much moving because it was cowardly.

As I know it before 1640s revival, which I have a thread somewheres on this forum about, when boxers fought and moved too much they were deemed boring and ladders were places around their legs to make them stop.

Figg was a puncher, Broughton lost to a butcher, then you have a series of champions who had normal jobs then Big Brian, who, was big....not slick, then Mendoza with a whole system for fighting people absolutely hated to see and conspired against to remove.

I'm not sold on the idea that because someone might have ducked punches naturally, or naturally had a great guard or some such, that a Mendoza-like figure actually existed before Mendoza because I don't think there is a time frame for that person to exist and there's very little narrative to support it.

The scientific method per se is distinct, but empirascism has been with us forever. The Chinese have the largest pharmacopia by far in the world... all sussed out empirically meticulously recording what happened to Joe when he ate this mushroom, etc etc etc. You do not need the scientific method to be rational, systematic and effective under operant conditions.

Scientific method is a great tool, I understand chauvanism regarding how great it is... But I don't think it is necessary for people to evolve methods that are exact.