Artists vs Scientists

Yes mike was tremendous in his youth.
Its a shame as he went on he turned into just a guy relying on his power.
In the new 'marciano' category early iron mike and most of jones' career fits into the 'one style artist'.
Youve buggered up my lovely abstract categories punchy!

 

I'll apologise upfront for what I'm about to say teeto, cos this is an excellent thread with some interesting points being made, but as someone with interests in both art and sport I don't believe that the two are compatible on a fundamental level. Which is to say that I don't think that 'artists' - as the term is defined - exist in any sport, boxing included. That's not a criticism mind you, as I'd describe someone like Ali as a genius but not an artist if you get my drift. If we're talking on a metaphorical level, the 'artists' like Ali, Jones, Gavilan, Greb etc are to my mind still actually 'scientists', but scientists of more complex and volatile fields and subcategories rather than the more immediately comprehendable ones. Ergo, Ali and Greb are dark matter or quantum mechanics whereas Louis and Hopkins are Newton's laws of motion, so to speak.

Art is a tangible end product resulting from the application of symbols that affects sense, emotion and intellect. It usually represents some kind of social, intellectual or aesthetic value. Many people will say that boxing does the same thing, but I'd say that the primary purpose of sport is that of friendly competition and physical prowess serving as a welcome distraction to the more malignant aspects of the world. It's a truly great thing in it's own right, but not as important as other fields of endeavour.

So after all of that pretentious claptrap I've just dribbled onto my keyboard, I suppose I'm saying that boxing is science rather than art and that the flashy, unorthodox, idiosyncratic types that often populate it are as much scientists as the fundamentally expert masters of technique are, or even the hard-working labourers. It's just a different branch of science.

If nothing else, I'm a good cure for insomnia

 

Now we are talking tin ribs!!!!!!!

When we are talking proper artists of course boxing is just small time.

One poem by heinrich heine,a look at the sistine chapel or a chapter from fyodor D and even Duran leonard 1 loses its appeal!

How gay we are in this macho sport...:smoke

 

That said, I still placing boxing far and above any other sport in terms of how hard it is and how much of a positive effect it has. It's also far more ambiguous and questionable in it's intent, yet that's what makes it so appealing. The best and worst of human nature all rolled into one.

The careers of the best fighters of all time are the closest we'll get to the Sistine Chapel, Joyce, Dostoeyevsky etc in a sporting arena.

 

Couldnt agree more.

But now pandoras box has been shattered,the life stories of artists,writers,poets etc are truely legendary and inspiring.

I mean dostoyevskys' house of the dead!!!
Nietzsches' anti-christ!!!
Heines' 'seal heaven'!!!

And their life experiences!!!
They dont make em like those dionysian superstars anymore...

 

The times that boxing turns poetic for me is when a fighter bears his soul one way or another. And that has a lot to do with who that fighter is and what he's been through. Mike Tyson being koe'd by Buster Douglas. Poetry. Ali doing what he did to Foreman, Corrales coming back vs. Castillo. Duran saying no mas. Hopkins laying down on the mat after beating Tito and staring up into the lights in awe that his dream came true.

 

Couldn't agree more!!

 

No worries mate, you make some points and it's an interesting argument. Hope I'm not talking **** and taking the thread off on a tangent here, but although the end product of an artistic venture could perhaps be compared to the recording of a fight or the artistic process compared to the mental toil of fighting etc etc I still see a fundamental difference. To me, the goal of boxing is the assertion of physical superiority over your opponent, while the process of throwing a punch - from the cognitive process and mental intent to the actual physical movement - is different in it's goal than the stroke of a brush on canvas or the writing of a soliloquy.

Taking part in a great fight or watching one probably engenders a similar euphoric feeling as the creation of a great work of art or the observation of one does, but I don't think it stems from the same philosophy. That isn't to say that this robs boxing of it's own unique beauty or of it's poetic nature. Take the natural world as a comparison; it isn't in itself a field of human achievement (which might undermine my point here), but although an aurora is a purely natural scientific phenomenon, no man alive who has witnessed the Northern Lights would in their right mind describe them as anything less than awe-inspiringly poetic.

Boxing is, to me, a poetic reflection of the human condition. Just not an artform in the real sense of the word. Sorry, I'm turning your thread into a ****ing philosophy debate here.:!:

 

Is an off the back foot boxer a scientists by definition? What about a boxer who uses perfect or near perfect fundamentals? By these definitions both Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali would be boxers. However is there not a certain lever of for a lack of a better word beauty in the way they box?
On the other hand Boxers like Roy Jones and Naseem Hamed don't seem to fallow any or the "rules", but there seems to be a method to their madness.