People who know boxing are an incredible resource when one is learning how to look at fighters. I started publishing articles on boxing, all the while trying to learn what to look at, from posters who knew a lot more than I did.
In so doing, I discovered something that makes a lot of sense, and is often revealing, regarding the knowledge of a particular poster. While I mean no disrespect, when one looks carefully at two axioms: "Triangle Theory" versus "Styles make fights" only one is correct. Many posters still use triangle theory, vis a vis the performance of a fighter against a common opponent, as a means to argue the greatness of a fighter... I will show why this is flat out Wrong.
When we use triangle theory, what exactly is it about the common opponent that makes the fighter in question "better" or "worse?" For example, When we say Louis losing to Schmelling, who was beat by max Baer, means Baer potentially could have been more competative with Louis... Why would this be so? What actual reason would suggest such a conclusion? The theory tells us little to nothing about an actual reason.
Now, we could look for specific reasons why Baer might be more competative because of the common opponent (Max Schmelling) but these reasons are unconnected to the theory. If for example, Schmelling found a technical loop hole, and exploited it, how would this make Baer a stronger opponent?
Triangle theory amounts to suppositions drawn from generalizations and assumptions, and little else. The fact that Schmelling found a technical tool to best Louis has nothing to do with his fight and ability against max Baer. There is literally no connection.
On the other hand, when we look at styles as determining a reason for a victory and possible outcome, things make more sense. Lets take the same example above with Baer. Schmelling had a technical style that allowed him to exploit foibles against an opponent, that was a characteristic of Schmelling's approach to boxing. This style initially flumoxed Louis, but did not cause the same problems for Baer. One could draw the conclusion that Schmelling's style was more of a threat to Louis than Baer.
We can isolate what Schmelling actually did to verify this conclusion: Louis dropping his right coming back caused a flaw that Baer did not have. Schmelling's style was more effective against Louis (at least initially) than Baer. The reason specifically was the mechanics of the right... Baer threw his from the shoulders, while Louis threw his from the waist. This positioning allowe Schmelling to time the right coming back and loop his own shot over, before Louis could follow up.
In conclusion, lets discuss both theories. To me? one is specific and verifiable, the other is nebulous, and incapable of empirical validation (tape). I find that people who think they know a lot, and use triangle theory logic, are blind to what the theory implies.
In so doing, I discovered something that makes a lot of sense, and is often revealing, regarding the knowledge of a particular poster. While I mean no disrespect, when one looks carefully at two axioms: "Triangle Theory" versus "Styles make fights" only one is correct. Many posters still use triangle theory, vis a vis the performance of a fighter against a common opponent, as a means to argue the greatness of a fighter... I will show why this is flat out Wrong.
When we use triangle theory, what exactly is it about the common opponent that makes the fighter in question "better" or "worse?" For example, When we say Louis losing to Schmelling, who was beat by max Baer, means Baer potentially could have been more competative with Louis... Why would this be so? What actual reason would suggest such a conclusion? The theory tells us little to nothing about an actual reason.
Now, we could look for specific reasons why Baer might be more competative because of the common opponent (Max Schmelling) but these reasons are unconnected to the theory. If for example, Schmelling found a technical loop hole, and exploited it, how would this make Baer a stronger opponent?
Triangle theory amounts to suppositions drawn from generalizations and assumptions, and little else. The fact that Schmelling found a technical tool to best Louis has nothing to do with his fight and ability against max Baer. There is literally no connection.
On the other hand, when we look at styles as determining a reason for a victory and possible outcome, things make more sense. Lets take the same example above with Baer. Schmelling had a technical style that allowed him to exploit foibles against an opponent, that was a characteristic of Schmelling's approach to boxing. This style initially flumoxed Louis, but did not cause the same problems for Baer. One could draw the conclusion that Schmelling's style was more of a threat to Louis than Baer.
We can isolate what Schmelling actually did to verify this conclusion: Louis dropping his right coming back caused a flaw that Baer did not have. Schmelling's style was more effective against Louis (at least initially) than Baer. The reason specifically was the mechanics of the right... Baer threw his from the shoulders, while Louis threw his from the waist. This positioning allowe Schmelling to time the right coming back and loop his own shot over, before Louis could follow up.
In conclusion, lets discuss both theories. To me? one is specific and verifiable, the other is nebulous, and incapable of empirical validation (tape). I find that people who think they know a lot, and use triangle theory logic, are blind to what the theory implies.
Comment