Boxing and chess? Good combination?

[Chris Nagel]

Another slipping training move -
Be tricky - block the jab, block the jab then slip to the left, then slip to the right
Then mix it up block, block, block, slip (hours of fun can be had by one and all
with all the thousands of combinations of defensive moves)

Thomas writes,

What you are describing here is what I call an "element of randomness" glad to see this brought up. Throughout my experiences with boxing I had always attempted to rationalize it as a perfectly deterministic system, that is to say, all reactions are known and can be predicted with absolute certainty. imagine the look on my face when I found out how wrong I was! Something like this I think it was

You see I was under the false assumption that -- according to game theory -- boxing was a zero sum game with perfect information. let me just say now while I am on the subject it would be wise for you all to read up a bit on game theory which is a branch of mathematics that focuses on strategy. Always a good idea to become familiar with the works that have been published on the subject of strategy. Anyway back to my point, while it is true that boxing is a zero sum game (one can only win by "dealing damage" to his opponent), it can’t quite be considered a game with perfect information (all moves are known to both players as they happen: Chess, tic-tac-toe). this is because things happen so quickly one cannot possibly, say, jab his opponent, wait to see what his reaction is, stop, digest the information, then figure out what to do next. Things move to fast in boxing to go through this process. When I actually jab my opponent he has several possible reactions at his disposal that he can choose from: he can slip to either side, counter jab, parry, etc etc. all of which I am not in actual control over. that is to say, if I want him to counter my jab with a straight right, so I can in turn counter his straight right with my own straight right to his solar plexus as his body turns to punch, I can’t actually make him react this way. That option is up to him and if he doesn’t choose it, my counter punch doesn’t land.

I was pretty upset upon the discovery of this. After all it completely flew in the face of what my concept of boxing strategy had been up to that point. Was boxing really just some random punch fest I had no actual control over? This whole time I had been trying to explain the world of boxing, bringing reason into a seemingly chaotic system only few men have ever figured out. It all seemed to be slipping away. But just as it is with everything else in life, you eventually learn from your mistakes. You see this finding eventually made me realize that in boxing, one must systematically limit the "element of randomness" that is your opponent. This is the key to landing punches. it is true you cannot make him react the way you want him to every time with absolute certainty but you can limit his options. By this I mean, when I jab he has several choices to react back with, but by showing him advantage and disadvantage I can manipulate what reactions he chooses ever so indirectly. If I leave my parry hand off of my face the chances increase that he will attempt a counter jab in response (advantage). If counter his straight right with my own straight right to his solar plexus he no longer will throw his straight right (disadvantage) and he is forced to choose a different reaction. This process continues until my opponent is so limited in what he can do that he becomes almost absolutely predictable. You see by doing these things I can indirectly influence what I want him to do. Understanding things in this manner, my opponent can only do to me, only that which I allow and he is random no more.

[Chris Nagel]

The revelation of strategy

mostly i would learn from every tape and every silent film i saw and not from any one boxer. the mystery of the sport is hidden inside every bout you see from leonard, dorin to barney ross. you must look closely.

but i am reminded now of the time when as a boy i met the profoundest chess player that there was around my way. whenever i would play him he would violently tear me to shreds with an ominous kind of calm that i had only seen at the end of old west shoot out movies. he was sharp. even in times that i had captured more of his material and was (at least i assumed so) in the seat of power - maybe a rook here, a few pawns there, perhaps even his queen - he would out of nowhere swoop down like a deadly hawk and defeat me every time without fail. for a while i used to think he was some kinda cheat -- i mean how does he suddenly beat me as easy as he does even when i would seem to be ahead -- but the man was no cheat, he was simply that sharp. i only played him a few times and never saw him after those bombardments but the questions of how he did this to me would spin around in my mind for years. i would later come to find that in truth every move that i would make was not made by me but instead by him. yes i would take my bishops or whatever and move them around myself but only ever because he would draw me out to do so. he would leave open say a rook for me to take from him (and i would like a dummy) or put a bishop in the line of my queen to make me move around my pawns in front to make her safe (and i would like a dummy) and by way of this he would deliberately manipulate my distribution of material to ultimately make a defensive lapse for that one final blow. every move i made was shepherded by his invisible hand and he would walk me into invisible traps i had no idea were even there. this lesson i would translate to boxing but also for the many other facets of life. because truly life is like boxing and boxing is truly like chess. this i think is the real prize to take from the sport, not the fame or money, but the revelation of strategy.

Point and Counterpoint

Boxing is a game of point and counterpoint- move for move like a chess match. All great fighters are great counterpunchers, even those that seem to be always going forward and pressing the action. There are a few reasons for this, chief among them that it is very hard to hit and hurt a guy that is defensive and looking not to be hit and hurt. It is also difficult to walk straight to somebody, through his hands and their abilities, while it can be comparatively easy once the avenue is opened.
Take Tyson at his peak as an example; the book on him was to jab and move, keep him on the outside. That would have been suicidal as there is one thing a very short heavy learns and learns well its to slip a jab. Coupled with Tyson's speed of foot and the way he cut the ring and punched he'd have walked through the jab. Holyfield fought him perfectly (?!!!!) by offering a jab and then landing a hook, uppercut or right as tyson tried to come in, and then tying up. Tyson began to wait out there and got picked apart. His error was in not anticipating the second punch- the one that would land-and making provisions for avoiding it.
So the whole point of this is to toss around ideas on how you would make somebody react as you would want them to react. Suppose you are trying to get inside a tall jabber or a mover, or away from a slugger. If one of them is a 6'3" heavywt with a 78" reach, good jab, right, doesn't fight much inside (holds and slaps) or work the body, moves pretty good but isn't Ali. The other guy is 6'1" and about 212 (17lbs lighter than the first guy) a good boxer and sharp puncher, fights equally well inside and out, moves well a good all around fighter. Call it Sharkey v. Pinklon Thomas

[Xwetie]

This is really interesting, hard to catch up with the numbers on the chessboard though!