How to conceptualize skill and technique

[Weebler I]

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.

[Dr Rumack]

"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.

[tsinkkoriitta]

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."

[tsinkkoriitta]

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.

[Syf]

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.

[Light_Speed]

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?

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.

[tsinkkoriitta]

Skill has nothing to do with physical attribute.

Can you elaborate why?

[tsinkkoriitta]

Anyone else?