Rock (Slugger), Paper (Boxer), Scissors (Swarmer), and Mathematics.

Very interesting post. I can see where a lot of what your son said can be true, all things being equal. The thing about boxing is all things are rarely equal. From fitness to desire and from pain tolerance to experience, boxing is a sport of inequality. Because of that, stylistic advantages will often take a back seat to other factors.

One other thing, if your son is retired you must be really old!

 

I am sure you son is a very bright guy, but he just concluded that boxer is the weakest style, when anyone who had actually watched the sport knows that it is slightly the strongest.

The difference between inductive and deductive reasoning?

 

I have doubts about both the premise and the process. A completed equation for something of this nature would rely heavily on his own assumptions. At that point is ceases to be pure math.

 

Lizard..Spock..

 

In what way has he used stats in this endeavor? Can you provide more detail on what exactly he did to come up wuth these conclusions?

 

I've applied a triangle theory to boxing in the past but it was a lot different.

Counter puncher beats textbook fighter. Unorthodox fighters beat counterpunchers. And textbook fighters beat unorthodox fighters.

I believe it revolved around counterpunchers not being able to read an awkward fighter as easy as a textbook fighters, while a textbook fighter can exploit an awkward fighters flaws through solid fundamentals. Pretty sure I was thinking about this stuff when I was trying to understand why Mayweather had so much trouble with Maidana despite beating better fighters like Cotto, and why Barerra completely schooled Hamed.

 

It's a good question, and hard to answer without seeing the process used. If the end result doesn't match expectations is the process wrong or is it our own intuition failing? Probability and statistics are hard concepts to intuitively understand (just look at the monty hall problem's history), and often results will seem funky.
At the same time often you can check your process when your answer is obviously wrong...

Would love to hear more.

 

I've learned something here.

 

Good post.

Show this man some respect, folks.

 

I am a former boxer and a statistician for my profession, but haven’t applied it towards boxing, however based on my observations I would agree with your son.

However your son might agree with this general statement that a statistical model is only as good as the variables that are included in the model. Does he have controls for things like height, weight, experience which you can find on boxrec. Then there are things that are harder to measure like speed and determination, which is more of what we perceive. Then you can get the bigger dilemmas about boxers who switch styles depending on who they are facing.

So why I overall agree with his conclusions, the general findings isn’t as helpful on an individual level. The tall boxer who is slow may need to stalk his opponent. The short boxer who is quick may need to outbox his opponent. That’s why I enjoy the surprises in boxing and try not to apply as much logic as I used to. I just try to enjoy each individual fight for what is.

 

There's a survivorship bias involved here.

The swarming style is known to allow a braver/crazier/stronger fighter to beat a better boxer. Yet it means the fighter takes a lot of damage and is known to be weak against punchers so it takes an unusual person to decide to be a careerlong swarmer. Since there are entire divisions without any high level swarmers you can safely be an out boxer without worrying much about this.

Many people are just disqualified from being a puncher. If Paulie Malignaggi decided early on he only wanted to set his feet and try to blow his opponent out no one would know his name today. Part of what Wilder and Foreman have they were born with.

No one is a natural out boxer, it takes practice and schooling and requires being in good shape. In return you take the least damage so fighters with discipline interested in a long boxing career will be drawn to it. They were the ones most likely to consistently succeed and fulfill their potential anyway.

The style has a career development advantage even though power and swarming can allow an inferior fighter to win a single fight (but these fights are hardly ever made). This leads to there being a lot of boxers at the top.

 

Yeah I boxed as well and was waiting for someone to mention the key word 'variables.'

Different styles affect all boxers but that usually depends on key factors such as chin, power, speed, agility, determination and heart.

Tyson also once said everyone has a plan until they get hit!

Also the word 'levels' is missing in this thread.

Interesting thread though, nice one guys.

 

I don't have neat categories for this but shape of guard and the preference for straight vs hooked punches has a similar effect.

Some pairs are like key to lock with each other.

 

Now djanders got me thinking how to run some statistical models on this. Part of the issue is cut off points. On the world class level you can more clearly define a boxers style, at the lesser levels their styles are not as defined as they are developing their skills. However at the world class level you have boxers who learn tricks in order to still beat boxers who would normally beat their style. Okay well I concluded again it’s not worth modeling. I will just enjoy good matches!