Artists vs Scientists

Okay, i'm applying the art v science theorem to boxing. I've been thinking about this for a while. Here's a little background just in case you're a bit puzzled;

Science-

A science is something that can be empirically proven, ie 2+2=4, i can prove this by taking 2 apples, putting another 2 next to them, there are now 4 apples, simples.

Art

Subjectivity, an art cannot be so empirically proven, for example, if my car is said to be worth 200 yen, then i cannot prove this. Why is it 200 yen? Because i have evaluated it at such value? Because my accountant has depreciated it accordingly? Who the **** is he?

Now, to apply this to boxing-

When calculating on the scientific front, we have set formulae and methodology, for art we do not. An artist is creative on the strength of his own, he may acquire skills through training, but under pressure to produce, the artist expresses himself in a unique manner.

Here's how i see it, Bernard Hopkins is a scientist, he is a complete exponent of boxing 101. His footwork is 'correct' so to speak, as is his ring generalship in almost all aspects to the degree that what he is doing 'incorrect' is negligible. Roy Jones is an artist, he's doing all this 'wrong' stuff with a supreme success rate. He's expressing himself and fighting how he wants to. We were watching him today and my friend pointed out that he was making some punches up as he goes along!

Anyway, if you agree on the theory being interesting then please post, if you think i'm talking **** then tell me that as well. The thread is not about Hopkins and Jones, they were just examples. Please post observations you might like to make of your own.

 

Like i say, Roy Jones the artist, Hopkins the scientist. Mayorga is a low level artist for example

 

Agreed fully. Whitaker is one of the greatest artists to ever get in the ring.

 

I understand you McGrain, i suppose there is ultiamtely a degree of artistic expression in everyone, i just used the term 'expressing yourself' because i've seen art defined as a form of expression, not that the artist is always conveying himself ie his feelings, but he's expressing something. The extreme assumption here would be that to say that Bernard Hopkins doesn't really have his own way of fighting at all, he just fights the way he's 'supposed' to, whereas Jones has a paint brush and is doing what he wants with it, he doesn't have to report back to anybody because he knows the painting will come good and sell. As i say, that's the extreme assumption, i'm not saying i believe in it in the case of these fighters 100%, they're just two of the best examples i can think of to convey a possible theory i've been thinking of, just for fun this thread really. Feel free to reject the hypothesis mate

There's far more fighters that are going to fall into middle territory than at one of these two opposites though. As you say, Pacquiao, is he an artist? Or a low level scientist? Wlad Klitschko is someone i'd describe as a scientist, he just doesn't have his degree yet. In fact i think he'sdropped out and just gotten a job with the tools he has.

Thanks for the input everyone.

 

:good Nice post.

 

Oh ok, well it's hard to say. Maybe Pep? Pure boxing, but look at the input he seemed to have of his own. He maybe encompasses what El Buja said, he mastered the fundamentals and then went and painted the town red with what he had learned.

 

Yeah, thanks for the good post Stoney. I remember when i first sparred, i'd watched shitloads of boxing history vids and thought i'd do Ali or Duran, i got in there and just got peppered with punches for the whole round, ****ing nightmare,

Without hard work, you will lose.