Does having a higher intelligence equate to ring smartness?

It takes a lot of intelligence when the other guy is as fast and as strong as you are, or faster.

 

You're wrong. Intelligence as measured by IQ is innate. For example, a person would have the same IQ whether he attended Harvard or he was raised by wolves, since IQ tests only measure your ability to learn, nothing else. They do not measure what you have learned, such as vocabulary or history, which is why they are ordinarily administered between the ages of 6-9 (when we don't know anything). It is also a fact that people get dumber as they get older, i.e., their IQ falls.

 

Intelligence has nothing to do with nature. IQ is basically a measure of how fast people learn, that all. Your IQ would be the same whether you attened Oxford or sat on your mother's couch all your life.

 

And how often does that happen? Yes, there are cases. But 95 percent of the time the fighter with the physical advantages wins. Is strategey important, of course. But is very rare that a smart fighter suceedes based only on his smarts...And that is true in virtually any sport from Football to Baskeball to Golf.

 

That's not even true. IQ's go up an average of 3 points every 10 years up to something like the age 70. And your argument about intellegence being strictly inate is bogus. If someone is raised by wolves, they won't even be able to communicate with people so how the hell are they going to take an I.Q test? Intelligence is both nature and nurture. You are born with a potential for a certain level of intelligence. However, you need the proper nurturing in order to reach your full potential.

 

Given the rest of your post, I'm going to assume that you meant that intelligence has nothing to do with nurture. That of course is completely false.

 

Lol I think your thinking is the one thats flawed bro, he never even said what he himself thinks in his original post, just made some observations (very good ones at that) and proposed further discussion

To answer the post I think intelligence plays a large role in ring IQ. But there is a fine line between a talented fighter and a skilled fighter. A better rounded, more experienced and even smarter fighter could get ran over by lesser experienced not as smart but more talented athlete and vice versa

 

Anybody who truly believes that mayweather and tyson are stupid or foolish individuals have been duped by the psychological tactics of feigning and marketing lol.

 

Why don't you read closely before you choose to spout off? I never said that intelligence didn't have anything to do with nurture. I said that intelligence as measure by IQ has absolutely nothing to do with nurture. That is why children are given the test when they are 6. Also, you're dead wrong about IQ rising as you get older. Do a simple Google search and you'll discover this in about 20 seconds.

 

Do you even know what an IQ test is? Anybody who can speak can be administerd one and it has absolutely nothing to do with acquired knowledge. So stop trying to pretend like you know what you're talking about simply because you have a lot of posts...Clearly you have no idea what the Stanford-Binet IQ test is or what it measures. It does not measure acquired knowledge!atsch

 

First of all, the question to your answer is that scholastic intelligence does not necessarily correlate in any way with ring intelligence.

Secondly, Tyson is actually incredibly intelligent if you actually listen to what he says aside from press conferences catered to the media to drive up public interest and make more money.

 

This is bull**** also. Studies have shown that things such as breast feeding and musical training can increase IQ test scores. How could you seriously say that nurture has nothing to do with an IQ test? What happens if you were locked in a dungeon your whole life? Your cognitive skills would never develope properly.

 

It's terrible that you even need to point all of this out to people. It just seems so obvious.

 

Kinesthetic intelligence is different from book intelligence. Athletes with kinesthetic intelligence know how to move, when to move and why they move in a certain way, ala Roy Jones and Pernell Whitaker.

Mike Tyson is maybe not a scientist but I think he's much more of an intellect than people suspect. He just doesn't have any interest or motivation to pursue a degree. For example, in reform school, when he was told that in order to learn boxing from Bobby Stewart, he would have to behave and do well in his studies. He went up 3 grade levels in the next few months, which might be elementary for us who went to school and went through the studies but for a thug who skipped school, thats astronomical.

 

Don't you see the glaring contradiction here? The ability to speak is aquired knowledge. IQ tests might not test aquired knowledge as you define it(I never mentioned anything about aquired knowledge anyway). However, I think even you can agree that language skills and cognitive ablities are essential in an IQ test. Those two attributes are definately affected by nuturing. So act like you know what you're talking about because you read a couple of pamphlets.