English Español
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Which Came First & The Truth About The Made Or Born Puncher; "the punchers conundrum"?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012

    Which Came First & The Truth About The Made Or Born Puncher; "the punchers conundrum"?

    Are punchers made?

    Or are they born?

    That is the question; is it not?

    This thread should lay rest to the claim and also what's really behind it and any resistance to accept the truth about it.

    OK, let's get stuck into it.

    There is both, some heavy and light stuff here; so be prepared.

    Philosophically and in other ways all punchers are born otherwise they wouldn't exist.

    And there "may" actually be a genetic disposition that provides an advantage to such activities, particularly since fighting for survival is - as they say - in our blood.

    That said, the punching "force "and/or "impact" and/or "energy" transferred as a result of punching; is actually and always will be a function of "velocity", and "momentum" - of which ("momentum") "torque" has a special relationship with.

    That stands no matter how much anyone hopes, wishes, or pretends it is not the case.

    If you disagree then construct a letter and take your case up with NASA, the Jet Propulsion Lab, Passenger Airline design engineers, Formula Teams (yep the drivers' bodies are "mass" related objects that are subject to the above-mentioned quantities) and the general scientific fraternity that includes the living legend Stephen Hawkings and also the deceased but allegorical Albert Einstein.

    Denying science - whether it be because you don't understand it or not and/or whether it's because you think boxing is, magically, an activity that's exempt from science when no other sports are - is exactly the same as pretending the Earth is flat and/or placing your head in a hole in the ground.

    That said, after careful consideration of the claim that "punchers are born" - of which I previously stated - they were not, I have come to the conclusion that (if we suspend the lack of formal evidence for the claim that "punchers are born") both views can be correct - even though;

    A) The claim that "punchers are born" could actually only ever be (properly) proven with the very same science that is denied for advocates of the "punchers are made" claim and also those that think boxing is, magically, an activity that's exempt from science - when nothing and no other sports are.

    B) Unlike the "punchers are made" claim; no rational explanation and/or proof seems to exist and/or be offered/provided to support the claim that "punchers are born" and not made.

    Therefore at this point in time point "B" appears to be no more than a belief system; not dissimilar to many myths.

    Not in the least as currently there are quite literally millions of both, eminently clever people and physics/scientific examples in the world (and beyond) that all stand to show that almost anything that is a function of "velocity", "mass", "momentum", and "torque" can be understood to a point where improvements upon design and practice can easily be defined and validated.


    For example, light is frequently said to have no "mass" - yet gravitational lensing (something that Albert Einstein and his general theory of relativity correctly predicted more than 100 years ago {even before computers and probably punchers were "born"}) - relates to how Albert Einstein detailed how space-time (and therefore light and the path it takes) reacts and behaves around a "massive" object, such as a black hole and/or cluster of galaxies.

    Light, black holes, and galaxy clusters, are immensely more complex than bacteria riddled life support systems for DNA that may exist on the Earth and throw their weight around, calling it boxing.

    In essence this means that Spacetime itself (which is the fabric of space and time; that we live, love, jiggy-jig, box, and "punch" in folks) effectively bends and curves around an object with significant "mass".

    It's (both what Spacetime is and how it can be bent) a concept that can (and in some sense does already) have total dominion of your mind if you stop to consider it.

    The concept - whether you trust and like it or not - already has absolute dominion and control over not just our pathetic little Earthly bodies - but also all objects - whether or not they're "massive", highly "charged", moving at high "velocity", and probably even if they're "quantum" and "sub atomic" too.

    And it's a concept that is proven.

    Here's a way to understand it better.

    Let's just say you have four "In-Denial Flat Earthers" that are pretty strong and also holding a really big blanket - that's at least 40 feet squared - apart at each corner, and then - both separately and also successively - someone else throws in a bowling ball, and then after that a basket ball.

    You would see the difference of both the blanket sagging and each ball's non linear path taken.

    But the blanket sags due to the "mass" of the ball, and even though this is not a "dream" experiment using balls that are imaginarily "born or bound" to move blankets better, as the basketball moves around the blanket's sagging surface that in turn affect and effects the ball's path.

    So you now have an interactive relationship between the basket ball and the blanket that you can - if you like - pretend is due to some balls being "born or bound" to better predetermine their own paths.

    Pretending like this may make you look like you know what you're talking about; in the presence of others that know no better. It may also bring comfort to the fact that in the back of the mind is a sneaking suspicion that there really is a far more complex and reliable explanation responsible for it all, that if brought out and discussed, could possibly lower your social standing and expose previous claims, whilst also impacting perceptions, including those related to self-definition.

    What happens when Dora the Explora throws in the bowling ball?

    The interactive relationship that previously between the basket ball and the blanket is - despite still obeying the same physical laws - now more pronounced with the bowling ball and its additional “mass”, isn't it?

    Let the blanket be the fabric of Spacetime.

    Let the basket ball be Earth.

    Let the bowling ball (and its extra "mass" to the basket ball) be a black hole or galaxy cluster.

    * Let the StormCentre be your friend and the only entity that can exist outside be the fabric of Spacetime.

    OK, let's keep moving. . . .

    Imagine if, as either the basket ball or the bowling ball was tracing out its above-mentioned trajectory, one of the guys at one corner also shot a ball bearing (or something else spherical and smaller) across to the other opposite corner.

    Even if the ball bearing travelled over the blankets' surface in a straight line along the vertical plane, that is, directly from one corner to the other; it would still never - along the horizontal plane - travel in a straight line; due to how the "mass" of the ball interacted and also both affected and effected the fabric of the blanket.

    Large planets, let alone black holes or galaxy clusters, do the very same thing to the fabric of space and time; Spacetime.

    And the fact that light - originating from behind these large and "massive" black holes or galaxy clusters that sit in and influence Spacetime - has been proven to bend around them (just like light through a magnifying glass) stands as both a testament and proof to the fact that Albert Einstein (whom was probably a little smarter than anyone here in the forum; me included) was right and that, if physics and the below and above-mentioned quantities work out there deep in Spacetime, then they're probably quite safe when used here in relation to a fist in a glove that may also be attached to a human being.

    So . . . in the same way - as Albert Einstein and his general theory of relativity correctly predicted more than 100 years ago - light rays from a background source behind a massive object like a black hole and/or cluster of galaxies can become bent, distorted and amplified as they pass around a black hole and/or cluster of galaxies - due to how bowed (inward, like the blanket) and distorted (like the blanket) the Spacetime actually is around the black holes and/or clusters of galaxies; thus providing an alternative and proven theory for gravity.

    Because, just as the above experiment showed each ball's trajectories and paths not only differ (due to their "mass") but also change the overall fabric-shape of the blanket - in turn influencing the ball's paths - which in turn then again influences the fabric-shape of the blanket again - and, on and on it goes; Einstein had correctly theorized that perhaps significant "mass" and/or "massive" objects influence and bend the fabric of space and time - constituting another way to consider what was (and is) commonly called gravity.

    Just as the blanket (Spacetime) bent near an object with some considerable "mass" and one that was moving (because of what we, on Earth, call a gravitational influence), so too Albert Einstein wondered if a suitably "massive" object deep in space might have the same influential effect on Spacetime.


    Upon his first release of such concepts Albert Einstein was - in a not too dissimilar way that some deny the application of science to a much less complex task such as boxing because it possibly scares and discomforts them - scoffed at.

    Probably the best challenge to the concept came from a man called StormCentre - remember from above *.

    The StormCentre whilst not necessarily opposed to such progressive concepts and theories has always fought for freedom, what's right, and the rights of the common man, and with that in mind and as the masses were magically mesmerized StormCentre said; "well, Albert this is all very well and good but how do you propose to substantiate this groundbreaking, audacious, and remarkable claim - particularly given most here are Earthbound folk, some also myth loving, and it seems that your concept appears to have no real-world difference in both action and observation to what the common folk call "gravity"?"

    Ah but Albert Einstein was clever.

    Einstein had not only just merely wondered about his general theory of relativity and both its introduction of a concept like Spacetime and the subsequent implications that all had, not just for gravity - but also the scientific community as a whole and also existentialism; but he had also correctly theorized about his brilliantly conceived general theory of relativity.

    In turn, and in response to StormCentre's aforementioned question about substantiation, Albert slowly turned to StormCentre and then calmly stated . . .

    Albert Einstein: "You my dear friend . . StormCentre . . . have for centuries wrapped yourself around this mortal Earth and also represented the people upon it in many ways. As such I respect you and appreciate both your question and how it serves the needs of the people that are in many ways confined to this vulnerable planet that resides approximately 8 light minutes from our sun. In light of this, here is my answer to your question and request for substantiation . . . . . . due to my general theory of relativity and its feature of warping Spacetime . . . "light" should bend around suitably "massive" objects, and in doing so the theory will both validate and differentiate itself from the generally accepted - but flawed - concept of "gravity".

    The StormCentre then nodded his head in approval of Einstein's audacious claim and confirmation; instantly recognizing that it was nothing less than both an existential revolution and also a timeless masterpiece created by a scientific-genius-overlord whose progressive, scintillating, unique, and brilliant thoughts will surely - at least on the Earth - echo through all eternity until that time when the Sun finally exhausts all fuel, swells, and consumes the Earth.

    And in doing so performs its final feat of metamorphosis - as it presents itself to our solar system and its milky way galaxy grand parent as a flamed out dormant giant; ultimately rendering our solar system to be cold, dead and dark - as its solar fabric of space and time will, at that point, no longer be systematically lit and as such it will therefore continue in that dark, dormant and quiet state for - what would be to Earthlings quite literally - eons.

    That is until the next collection of gases ignite deep in Spacetime, and the same game of scientific and biological chance takes place there too, and beats the odds so that the that life forms that exist both within and upon any planets that process creates may eventually evolve and invent a sport similar to and as grand as boxing; in order to enjoy and risk the life they are scientifically provided against all odds.

    With his response Albert Einstein had more than satisfied StormCentre's question and concerns, as just the fact alone that anyone could conceive such a test to complement their brilliant theory was itself cause for relief and celebration.

    Not in the least as Einstein's theory, and substantiation was monumental in other terms also - terms that struck at the very heart of "Newtonian Mechanics"; as "light" was and is commonly thought of and proven to have no "mass".

    And, "gravity" my friends has no effect on any object without "mass".

    So, "light" would then only bend if the fabric of Spacetime itself was bent and/or observed to bend.

    See the genius of the theory and claim?

    It was beyond revolutionary.

    And that's even if you put aside the fact that Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity and its ingenious feature of warping Spacetime was, in essence, actually created by an organism living on the face of the Earth whom was - by comparison to what the theory and especially Spacetime really represented and influenced - so insignificant that it was probably immeasurably insignificant.

    Sir Isaac Newton's accepted theories of the day back then (called "Newtonian Mechanics") were - despite being much simpler and very heavily ingrained into both the scientific and general society - symbolically representative of several insurmountable dead ends whenever "Newtonian" gravitational theories tried to explain how and why light - considered to have no "mass" - should behave around massive objects.

    It was a conundrum that Sir Isaac Newton himself and also large sections of the "traditional cardigan brigaded" scientific community were most unpleased and uncomfortable with; to the point where they often frowned upon Einstein's elegant solution to it - even though they secretly feared and quietly respected it.

    And, in some ways that mixed and inconsistent response was not too dissimilar to logic, fact, and also science in (some parts of) boxing; including the belief that all there is to know is only which exists and is discussed in most gyms.

    Roughly at about 1915 or within the years after (that came) before 1936, Einstein finally published his gravitational theory and labeled it the "General Theory Of Relativity".

    Einstein's "General Theory Of Relativity", in no uncertain terms, proposed that Sir Isaac Newton’s gravitational theory was flawed - taking particular aim at Newton's suggestions and inferences that proposed and treated both space and time as being separate and not constant.

    At the time, such claims on Einstein's part were both received and akin to claiming the Catholic church is merely an establishment within which unclothed and erect priests shroud secrecy around wicked happenings that introduce young alter boys to backwardly and unnatural cult-like acts within the dimly lilt rooms of various chambers; which we all know would never happen in a church.

    After all, it was Galileo - the Italian astronomer and one of the greatest engineers, philosophers, physicists, scientists, and mathematicians of any time - whom played a role within the scientific revolution during the Renaissance that simply can't be spoken of highly enough.

    As, he sadly found himself confined, locked up, and practically left to go blind whilst peering through his telescope from a cell in the 16th century.

    This fate was unfairly bestowed upon him, for not only accurately reporting on observations of one of Jupiter's moons and how it appeared to circulate around Jupiter - but also for audaciously extrapolating from that observation and using the results to answer questions of varying day's length, calendar, and unexplained moon observations/travel; which all eventually led him to the extremely unpopular but revolutionary belief that (heavily clashed with the Catholic church) the sun - not the Earth - was actually at the center of our "universe" and the Earth merely revolved around it.

    Up until that point (and still for some time after it) the Catholic church had actually depicted and publicly advised - in no uncertain terms, and also via religious and other strong overtones - that the Earth was at the centre of the universe.


    Because God had made it so

    So, you see science has; stood the test of time, redefined the most widely and strongest beliefs, and proven itself, far more than any sport has - even one as brilliant as that we all love; boxing.


    That is unless you believe that component of the boxing establishment - that defensively imparts information on matters of human movement and competition - has existed longer, has better intellectual fundamentals, and is a tougher competitor to defeat for science, than religion - including it's (previous/clearly flawed) views on space and evolution - was.

    I think not.

    As, the Catholic church is not easy and/or quick to change its views; regardless of whether or not they’re unsound, highly inappropriate, conflicting, and/or manifestly dangerous.

    As you would imagine most of the aforementioned scientific community that were unpleased and uncomfortable with Einstein's "General Theory Of Relativity" (despite secretly fearing what it meant for their livelihoods, and also quietly respecting the absolute genius of it) actually sought great relief from the fact that Einstein's theories were largely seen as being almost as difficult to scientifically prove as it was to understand.

    Unfortunately this relief didn't last long.

    As Einstein worked on the "General Theory Of Relativity" he had also showed a smart guy called Arthur Eddington how his theory explained what is referred to in astronomy as the "precession" of the perihelion of various planets.

    What it really means is how planets, such as Mercury and Jupiter, sometimes appear to be - for reasons not entirely explained by the Earth's and also their own orbits (which was also not completely understood in those days) - in odd places in the sky and/or jump about.

    It was a big problem for science, and many others of the day.

    None so much as religion though.

    Due to the fact that Churches often consider and sell themselves on having the last say; particularly with respect to God's work.

    And the Catholic church could not explain how and why - if God had made the Earth at the centre of the universe, let alone the solar system - these (increasingly) strange planetary sightings could be both accounted for and predicted.

    To have pretended and posed itself to both understand and also have the last word on matters of; the Earth, space, the solar system, and also the entire vastness of the universe that God created in a day or so, and then not be able to answer such questions, was embarrassing indeed.

    We see similar things here in boxing and with claims related to it.

    However, back then the churches inability to explain such significant matters and the imposition of what that actually meant if they had been grossly misleading their readers and followers were not quite as easily galloped away from as they may be today with some boxing related matters.

    As a result people wondered - if the church could get such matters wrong - does God really exist.

    And as with all misleading myths - particularly those from which a profit is derived - the last thing their authors needed was the (sometimes) easily fooled believers asking questions and demanding answers and explanations.

    In essence the church and (some) others of the day didn't understand, "velocity", "force", "momentum", "energy" and many other scientific principles that defined not just how large "masses" - such as planets - moved through Space(time) but also how they influenced each other, including the sun; which, itself, exerts unfathomably tremendous "forces" across space and also the solar system to both accelerate and decelerate the Earth and other planets, so that they sweep equal volume with their (sometimes changing) elliptical orbits, regardless of the "speed" that the sun sets for them and all other planets.

    You see - just like finding resolve in the flawed view that a gloved fist is too complex for science - the Catholic church had denied the fact that if God (really) created the universe then - contrary to the view the church provided and preached - he didn't bother to tell the Pope how and why.

    This led the church to overlook fact and science, thinking it knew all.

    The problem with that was that the Catholic church were then clearly unable to explain, as well as they preached.

    Ultimately they got themselves (and their underwear) into a big knot; fearing the big questions and even - at times - running from them.

    And it all came about because of science and the fact that they were completely unable to explain why planets, such as Mercury and Jupiter, sometimes appear to be in odd places in the sky and/or jump about; when God had created the Earth at the centre of the universe - precisely as the Geocentric universe maps of the day (see above links) that the Catholic church clearly showed.

    This conundrum is not dissimilar to what we have in boxing now in relation to punchers being "born" or "made", and the view that "velocity", "force", "momentum", "energy" and many other scientific principles do not apply to boxing.

    The fact that all the planet's elliptical (not circular as the Catholic church thought) orbits have moved at different speeds - with varying “velocities”, “torque”, “centrifugal force”, “centripedal force” (imposed on the sun), and “angular momentum” - meant that as one planet overtook the other it could appear in different parts of the sky for unexplained reasons.

    Along with extreme obstinance and an utterly inane inability to understand its own weak stances and cheaply peddled arguments that were pushed upon millions and millions of commoners that - more than likely due to the extreme poverty they were caste into - fell for the hope attached to the ruses that the Red Sea could part and a virgin give birth to a God; the above was but one scientific reason for the Catholic church’s oversights.

    Some in boxing may just be equally and similarly foolish, but thankfully not all; science is coming.

    The fact that - contrary to their preached beliefs at the time - the Earth was not the centre of the universe, and the sun actually was at the centre of the solar system; didn't help them either.

    Neither did the fact that - just as a tyre spins on the road - there is "slip" between the Sun and Earth, as the Earth punches through Spacetime each day and year; hence the different terms "solar day", and "day".

    Same for the (overlooked) fact that the Earth and other planets also - in addition to their orbits of varying elliptical shapes - rotate about on their axis (that is not always roughly vertically aligned like the Earths either; as some planets in our solar system - such as Uranus {which exhibits almost a 98 degrees axial tilt} and Venus {which exhibits a 178 degrees axial tilt} effectively lay on their sides) - as they traverse around the sun and through their elliptical orbits; which, coincidentally, can only be reliably understood via comprehending, "velocity", "force", "momentum", "energy" and other scientific principles.

    And, same for the fact that the Earth;

    A) Is travelling through its elliptical orbit at - on average (as its "velocity" and "angular momentum" increases and decreases throughout every year so that {like a clock's big hand on a clock's circular face} it sweeps out an equal area between it and the sun regardless of how far away or close both it and its elliptical path may be to the sun; in accordance with Kepler's law of planetary motion and Einstein's theories) - at around 67,000 miles per hour.

    B) Is - at the equator - spinning at around 1,000 miles per hour; which means (we're just considering the equatorial line with the greatest radius now; not all the possible longitudinal and latitudinal locations) depending on where you are in your day on Earth you may be travelling through our elliptical orbit doing either 68,000 miles per hour - or 66,00 miles per hour - or any number in between.

    C) Is a component of our solar system, which itself - along with its "velocity", "torque", and "angular momentum" - whirls around our galaxy's center at approximately 490,000 miles per hour. As you can see, despite how we consider increasingly large size scales, and despite how the involved speeds become absolutely enormous; the above quantities and terms still apply.

    D) Is a component of our solar system, which itself is a component of our milky way galaxy. Now, given that galaxies within our neighbourhood are themselves speeding towards a deep space structure called the "Great Attractor" (which is a region of deep space that's approximately 150 million light-years {6 trillion miles} away from us - considered to have a mass 100 quadrillion times greater than our sun - calculated to span of 500 million light-years across itself - consists of both the visible and dark matter that we can cannot see - and considered to be a super-"massive" black hole that easily devours galaxies) at a "velocity" of nearly 1,000 Kilometers per second; there was a lot that the Catholic church overlooked when disregarding science and, perhaps, only thinking it could perform the simple tasks like calculating how a punch works.

    Coincidentally, and with respect to the above point "B"; today, space agencies like NASA routinely both, use terms such as, "velocity", "torque", "force", and "angular momentum" and take advantage of the higher "velocities" and the "torque" at the Earth’s equator as they launch their rockets into space. By doing this and launching rockets from the equator - or there about - NASA, America, and other countries use less fuel and/or launch bigger payloads for the same amount of fuel because - before the rocket or satellite even starts to launch - it's already achieved a "velocity" of roughly 1000 miles per hour (or 1675 kilometres per hour); which makes it easier to reach the orbital "velocity" that's usually required for geosynchronous orbits - 28,000 kilometres per hour.

    These points "A" to "D" are, these days, relatively simple and straightforward for science and terms such as, "velocity", "torque", "force", and "angular momentum".

    Anyone thinking differently may possibly benefit from reading the above points "A" to "D" again and also considering how anything on Earth - as simple as a few skeleto-muscular levers - could be beyond science and terms such as, "velocity", "torque", "force", and "angular momentum".

    So, as you can see, claiming that Gabriel Rosado would beat a prime Ali or Tyson is - by serious orders of magnitude - actually far, far, less outrageous than claiming science can't evaluate a punch with the above/below terms and principles; as it's scientific child's play.

    So, science knocked religion out and iced it so severely cold that it - these days - prefers to "forget" about that part of its history when both it and God mucked up the cake mix when "everything was created in a day" or so.

    In essence the Catholic church has, today, galloped away from this aspect of its history just as it did, years ago, with the questions related to how/why various planets appeared all over the place in the night sky.

    What's the chances a gloved fist connected to a boxer is more complex and out of the reach of, "velocity", "force", "momentum", "energy" and other scientific principles, now?

    It doesn't matter of you still think it is, cause we have only just warmed up.

    Above was the easy score for "velocity", "force", "momentum", "energy" and other scientific principles.

    Roughly at about 1915 or within the years after (that came) before 1936, Einstein finally published his gravitational theory and labeled it the "General Theory Of Relativity".

    At that point in time Newton’s above-mentioned "Newtonian Mechanics" and its associated theories had (with the help of the great astronomer, philosopher, and mathematician Johannes Kepler) accurately detailed/predicted elliptical planetary motion.

    But despite this giant leap forward Isaac's Newtonian Mechanics still largely failed to explain the "precession" for the planet Mercury, and reliability issues like these with theories and in science almost always meant there was a serious bug in the theory that would almost certainly come back and embarrassingly haunt you later.

    And that was truly frightening in exactly the same way as if your fighter always got seriously knocked out whenever he fought a guy that was (said to be) a "born puncher".

    And, all this was all the more reason Sir Isaac Newton was - for at least that time being within which he frantically tried to privately evaluate the limitations of his own Newtonian Mechanics and how it fell over whenever attempting to explain and/or predict the "precession" for the planet Mercury - disinterested with Einstein's theories and their potential to pull the carpet right out from under both his and also the scientific establishment's feet.

    You see - even aside from the above-mentioned Catholic churches' historical bungles and deceptions - Newton knew that a theory - particularly a neat one - that explained everything - including what his Newtonian Mechanics did and could not; effectively elevated its author to a God like status.

    Not in the least as the bible - unlike science - is flawed when it comes to both dinosaurs and the universe.

    For that, it relies only on blind faith and closed shutters when peering back on its own history; as there is no other answer an institution that has the track record of the church can give in the face of such evidence.

    But, yes, of course, punchers are born and not made.

    Moving on . . .

    However, Sir Arthur Eddington - whom was British, quite well respected, and also an astronomer, physicist, philosopher, astrophysicist, and mathematician - in early 20th century, simply loved the elegance of Einstein's theories and ideas, and as such he thought they fitted in nicely and explained several phenomena; including that which Newtonian Mechanics could not.

    The paring of Eddington and Einstein would probably prove to be the final nail in the coffin;

    A) Not only for Isaac Newton's dream that his "Newtonian Mechanics" theory would overcome its inherent limitations and finally evolve into becoming the elusive scientific theory of everything.

    B) But also for the widely held misconception (that, in some places, still exists today) that "time" itself is both an individual and sacred quantity - one that could not be slowed down, sped up, altered, and/or permanently intertwined and/or associated with any other quantity that humans on Earth were aware of.

    At about 1919 - whether Einstein had finally published his gravitational theory and labeled it the "General Theory Of Relativity" by then or not - you could arguably say that by then Einstein's "General Theory Of Relativity" had significant inertia behind it, amongst the scientific fraternity; whether they admitted it or not.

    The paring of Eddington and Einstein was partly responsible for this; as was the fact that Eddington - unlike Einstein - was British, and as such he leant credibility to Einstein's theories that - truth be told - really needed no credibility lent to them.

    And, naturally - as you would expect - in order to maintain what little remained of the above-mentioned comfort that the scientific community of the time had previously derived from (purposefully or otherwise) interpreting Albert's "General Theory Of Relativity" to be a theory that was almost as difficult to scientifically prove as it was to understand; some scientists still questionably hid behind their (ever fading) skepticism about Einstein's proposal.

    As not only did they still cling to the flawed claim that Newton's related planetary motion theories were both reasonably proven and simple to understand (which, in the area Einstein was pioneering, they were not) - but they also found new comfort in associating mock and/or fake naivety with the claim that predicting the precession of Mercury simply wasn’t enough for them to acknowledge (the German) Einstein as a replacement for (the English) Newton.

    The reality was that fake naivety and such close minded views were, really, not very scientific at all, and the science establishment knew it very well; as they felt the sands of hypocrisy slowly but surely shifting beneath their feet.

    After all, science, physics, and engineering, had really got to where it was (both then and now) by being a philosophy that was strictly open minded and accepting of new theories - provided that the new theory accurately and reliably solved problems and answered questions, whilst also explaining/proving phenomena, by not only predicting future events related to that phenomena - but by also defining the phenomena in a manner that reliably coincided with observations.

    The scientific community at this point must have simply thought that the German Einstein - that they didn't wish to at all acknowledge as a champion scientific stalwart - would simply go away.

    How misunderstood and little they really knew.

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, the scientific community was then, still, almost completely unprepared for the tectonic shock wave that was about to ricochet through their community, vocation, lives, and bowels.

    As, what Einstein had been sitting on - with his General Theory Of Relativity - was nothing less than the elusive scientific pot of gold at the end of the astrophysical rainbow; it was that revolutionary.

    As Einstein toiled away on his theory his introduction of it to Eddington proved that it was clever of Einstein to employ someone else whom was smart and respected to both champion and test the ideas Einstein had.

    As such, in 1919, Arthur Eddington envisaged an experimental way to substantiate that Einstein's theories - and also its hyper-existential concept of both relativity and Spacetime were real - and to do this he took advantage of a solar eclipse that occurred in that year which involved the Sun passing in front of a cluster of stars called the "Hyades cluster".

    The experiment was not without risks for Arthur though, as if it failed in any way - so would have his career for obvious reasons; including that related to supporting Einstein and running against the (questionable) views of the scientific establishment.

    However Eddington was deeply inspired by Einstein's theories and in particular their wide reaching and seemingly limitless implications for man and all he does, experience, think, and dream of.

    As such Eddington's idea and also his design of the aforementioned solar eclipse experiment to test Einstein's theories was both clever and simple, thus proactively circumventing the scientific communities' traditional method of shunning Einstein's ingenious theories because they were, supposedly, too complicated for the problems they solved.

    Truth be told Albert Einstein actually assisted Arthur to devise the test, but there was no need to tell the scientific community that.

    The idea was that when the Sun was entirely behind the Moon and the eclipse was in place, light from the stars within the "Hyades cluster" - that were themselves located behind the Sun - would then be visible; due to the fact that the Sun's otherwise all-blinding rays would be at that time suitably attenuated by the solar eclipse.

    It was clever stuff that relied on practices the scientific community themselves had not only used before - but actually harked on about for years in relation to how simple and reliable they were.

    Furthermore it would allow for accurate photography and analysis of the star clusters in question to take place; which was critical to substantiating Einstein's theories.

    Not only that, but the resulting photographs could then be later scientifically compared with other photographs taken of the star cluster that were captured when the Sun and eclipse were not in the way - in order to measure the deflection angle of light (from when the Sun and eclipse were in the way) and then compare that with Einstein’s predictions of how Spacetime warps when objects as massive as the sun are present.

    What they should have seen - had Albert Einstein's "General Theory Of Relativity" been correct - was different distances between the stars within the star cluster and also different positions of the star cluster itself, that can be explained by the theory.

    And they did.

    However - just as we see here in some circles with science and boxing - some people (but not necessarily the scientists that were previously in denial though, as they knew what the results and the presence of the independent Eddington really meant) still - after Eddington's experiment - chose to remain skeptical about Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity; claiming that the experiment was poorly conducted and/or retrofitted fitted with predetermined data.

    This both, was expected, and came from those within the scientific and religious communities whom had the most to lose if Einstein was proved correct.

    In turn another experiment was conducted in 1922 that involved even more accurate measurements than the 1919 Eddington/Einstein Solar Eclipse General Relativity Experiment; which was eventually published in 1923 yielding more conclusive and undeniable proof that directly supported Einstein's theories.

    With it Einstein had effectively turned the scientific fraternity, the world, and the universe as we knew and now know it, upside down - not in the least as he had redefined both "gravity" and "time", and one implication of that was that time slowed down when objects travel fast; a claim that was proved later in history when separate jets fitted with atomic clocks circled the globe at different speeds and had their clocks compared for any discrepancy.

    The discrepancy was precisely as Einstein tens of years ago predicted.


    For anyone reading this and at this point is still wondering what all this and also redefining gravity and time really does have to do with boxing; ask yourself why your shoulders and arms grow tired when training and boxing, and why - to properly relieve them and relax - your hands must fall to your sides; "gravity".

    Why also do your hands drop both after delivering punches and when they're retracted?


    And wherever there is gravity and an object is immersed within that Spacetime "fabric" and/or "field" there will also be the quantities of, "velocity", "energy", "force", and "momentum".

    Denial of such facts is both useless and silly, as that led the Catholic church to think God made a universe with the Earth at its centre.


    Still, even though the scientific and religious establishments could not defeat and/or disprove the results of the second "Eddington/Einstein Solar Eclipse General Relativity Experiment" conducted in 1922, and also that conclusive test before it in 1919, the implications of Albert Einstein's "General Theory Of Relativity" were quite literally so profound, and challenging to common sense and logic, that many within the scientific community at the time found the associated concepts difficult to grasp and accept.

    Just as we see here in some circles with science and boxing.

    What's that you said?

    Did you think or say that the application of "velocity", "mass", "momentum", and "torque" - whether it be to boxing or anything else on the Earth - is probably not as complex and/or as profound in its results as Albert Einstein's "General Theory Of Relativity" is?

    If that's what you said/thought, then you're right.

    Only naivety allows one to think otherwise.

    You see, only when you read just a little of the path that science and engineering has travelled, and also of the historically significant fights (sometimes simultaneously with multiple highly powered fraternities) it has successfully endured to get where it is today - only then can you appreciate that a punch - no matter how mystical it has been thus far represented and magically discussed - is but a scratch in the underpants of that which science and engineering has already (a thousand times over) knocked out, decimated, and substantiated.

    Only a close minded fool unaware of history, supporting flat Earth beliefs that have us all living in little yellow submarines - until we sail off the end of the world, would think otherwise.

    But, the fact is, that Einstein, Eddington and a few others have now conclusively proven that we all don't live in little yellow submarines.

    Fact is, as;

    A) Not only the science, physics, math, engineering and principles that BrownSugar above refers to.

    B) And also that which my algorithm thread uses.

    C) But also that which Albert Einstein's "General Theory Of Relativity" refers to.

    All show . . . . that . .

    Contrary to the belief that we all live in little yellow submarines; we actually all live in a "Spacetime" continuum that acts as if it were the same fabric within the abovementioned blanket experiment whenever objects of solar or greater "masses" are nearby.

    As profound as this all is ladies and gentlemen, please let me say that this is not even the highest point of proof and evidence that I could write that substantiates the view that claiming;

    1) Punchers are born and not made.

    2) The laws/principles of science, engineering, physics, biomechanics, "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", and "torque", don't apply to boxing and boxing skills.

    Is - like the Catholic churches Geocentric universe that held Earth at its center - unproven rubbish.

    Not in the least as, when you train for boxing, all you are doing - provided you are instructed and monitored correctly (actually even if you are not) - is exercising the laws of science, engineering, physics, biomechanics, "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", and "torque" - in a manner according to how those laws work and also allow you to improve the boxing skills that apply.

    Whether those skills be punching or anything else that falls under the banner of the definition of boxing.

    Such a claim (on my part) is orders of magnitude far less audacious than that which Einstein made approximately 100 years ago.

    Furthermore, such a claim - particularly for science, engineering, physics, biomechanics and StormCentre - is by far, orders of magnitudes much less complex and easier to substantiate (as the algorithm thread has started to, and will do) than that which Einstein made approximately 100 years ago with his "General Theory Of Relativity".

    Interestingly - and here is the real kicker - I do not see the same history and evidence behind the claim "punchers are born and not made"; despite the fact that genetics (a sub-division of medicinal science and physics) and genetic engineering (a sub-division of medicinal science, physics and engineering) have both been around as modern scientific practices for a few decades now - themselves dating back to a time that can probably be traced back to the origin of biology, medicine and genetics in the middle 1800s.

    For the "punchers are born and not made" theory, we can make some guesses though, and you can see that we do that outside of this section of this post.

    For now lets just finish up with how strong the proof is behind Einstein's "General Theory Of Relativity", which - along with all the proven and currently accepted practices Sir Isaac Newton introduced with his "Newtonian Mechanics" that were themselves not entirely swept away with Einstein's "General Theory Of Relativity" - underpins all the laws of science, engineering, physics, biomechanics, "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", and "torque"; as they apply on this Earth and also to anything on it - including humans, all sports, and throwing a punch.

    Within Einstein's above-mentioned "General Theory Of Relativity" he also predicted what was called the Einstein ring.

    Perhaps the Einstein ring can be considered to be a fully blown version of the above experiment Eddington conducted that proved the existence of Einstein's "Spacetime", "Relativity" and other related Relativistic Phenomena theories.

    These theories are not insignificant.

    The Einstein ring theory stated that if a sufficiently bright and/or "luminous" object happened to be located behind a suitably "massive" object, then the observer would see a bright ring representing the bright object behind the suitably massive object; as the light from the bright object would be scattered due to the "gravitational lensing" effect his "General Theory Of Relativity" detailed and predicted.

    A similar effect on Earth can be seen by viewing a burning candle through the base of a wine glass; as a white ring will usually be visible within the glass at a radius that's often less than the glass' base.

    Here is a picture of what I mean.


    Affirmation of the Einstein ring theory finally came when the tensors for an “Einstein ring” were mathematically solved to the satisfaction of the scientific community.

    A tensor is a geometrical representation of four-dimensional space-time that's also a curved, and it can be any size and anywhere out in deep space; even far beyond that where we currently navigate and control deep space probes.

    As you can imagine the calculations related to Einstein ring tensors and theory are not insignificant.

    Furthermore, when laying the tensor math problem out the laws of physics must be expressed in a way that doesn't violate their independence as it applies to the actual coordinate system being used to describe points in any area of space-time where relativistic or other inertial reference frames exist.

    So, as you can see, by comparison, analyzing a punch is child's play for some engineers and also science, engineering, physics, biomechanics, "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", and "torque".

    What is much harder to do is getting people whom don't understand to believe and have the same faith in the proven sciences in the same way they do with the myth, creativity, and mystique that they are perhaps (too) familiar with.

    To solve particular problems such as mathematically proving the Einstein ring theory was possible - which was important because there was no real point spending money and observatory time searching for an Einstein ring in deep space if it was not mathematically possible; years of complex calculations and checking first took place.

    Furthermore, if the Einstein ring theory was mathematically possible then Einstein and Eddington could probably count on the following;

    A) The pure math physicists and their respected fraternities supporting them whilst the remaining skeptics amongst the wider scientific community hung their hopes on the chance Albert and his groundbreaking theories would fail.

    B) The above four-dimensional space-time tensor calculations (which help locate and define a suitable light source object in space - as where is East, West, North and South out there?) holding up to, at least, the initial tests related to defining what an Einstein ring should look like when the deep space telescope (with 1/1000th of a degree movement) sweeps past multiple galaxies light years away. As it's unlikely that the first suspected "massive" object, star cluster, constellation, or galaxy, candidate that was found, would just happen to be found and viewed for the first time "in focus" and appearing as if it was not just a bunch of mundane star clusters a squillion miles away.

    C) A Schwarzschild metric being accurately calculated, to assist with the discovery of the Einstein ring in deep space. (More in this below).

    In the event that you still think the Einstein ring theory - let alone his "General Theory Of Relativity" - in no way demonstrates how the below points "A", "B" and "C" are not true and beyond science . . .

    A) Punchers are only born, not made.

    B) A puncher can't be made.

    C) That science, engineering, physics, biomechanics, "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", and "torque", can't be successfully applied to a punch.

    Please Google/research Schwarzschild radiuses and metrics and/or read this . .


    As that (lightly) discusses the aforementioned Schwarzschild metric that - when used in conjunction with Einstein's above discussed mathematical tensors that themselves represent a geometrical representation for four-dimensional curved space-time in deep space - together work to predict and demonstrate that a suitably "massive" object - that is also spherical - alters light’s trajectory in the manner Einstein predicted.

    Not bad for a patent clerk that only had his mind, pen, and paper eh; Albert Einstein?

    It doesn't stop there though as - unlike an optical lens such as a magnifying glass - with Einstein's ring theory (itself a part of his remarkable General Theory Of Relativity that more than confirms physics, mechanics, "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", and "torque", can easily be successfully applied to a sport and/or boxing-punch, and also far more complex events in the universe) and in particular its "gravitational lensing" effect; it was predicted that the maximum curvature of light always occurs nearest to the gravitational lens' center.

    With an optical lens - such as a magnifying glass on Earth - the maximum curvature of light always occurs on the outer edges of the lens.

    Furthermore - with Einstein's gravitational lensing effect - the minimum curvature of light (again, unlike an optical lens such as a magnifying glass) always occurs furthest from the gravitational lens' center.

    With an optical lens - such as a magnifying glass on Earth - the minimum curvature of light always occurs on the inner/centre sections of the lens.

    Therefore, as result a gravitational lens (unlike a magnifying glass) actually has no single focal point, but instead has a donut shaped focal line.

    A good question may be; how would you - with respect to Einstein's gravitational lensing effect and also his theory of General Relativity, and also as you search for proof that an Einstein ring exists in deep Space(time) - know for sure what to look for and that you had found it, without the science detailed here; even what you're looking for didn't reside in deep space and require the above tensor and other calculations?


    Imagine tapping these guys - that do all this discussed above - on the shoulder and saying; "yep that's good, but you can't tell me how a boxing punch is a function of the laws of physics such as, "velocity", "force", "momentum" and "torque".


    Therefore, should the aforementioned, light source and the suitably "massive"/spherical lensing object that both reside in deep Space(time), and also the Einstein ring observer all lay in the same straight plane; the original star and/or light source will most likely appear as a ring around the massive (gravitational) lensing object in Space(time).

    And, if the spherical light source, the massive/spherical lensing object, and the observer do not all lay in the same straight plane; the original star and/or light source can appear - provided, that is, all 3 objects are not too misaligned - as an arc (segment), or a ring around the massive (gravitational) lensing object.

    Still not convinced that a punch is not beyond science, and that a punch can't be described a function of the laws of physics such as, "velocity", "force", "momentum" and "torque"?

    Well, consider all this then; the above is just how you approach the mathematical - and simple math at that - proof, only for when the light source-object and also massive gravitational lensing object, are spherical.

    Distant galaxy and star clusters - both of which can be light sources and also gravitational lensing objects within the Einstein ring theory - are rarely spherical.

    Yet all the above quantities (such as, "velocity", "force", "momentum" and "torque") and both all previously mentioned science and engineering principles all still hold for even those complex calculations; including how they predict real-world/universe gravitational lensing features in deep space.

    Remember too, all galaxies and star clusters are themselves always moving - both as a whole and separately - too; so this must be taken into account also.

    Makes both the analysis of a punch and also the unproven claim that "punchers are born and not made", seem almost completely insignificant doesn't it?

    More often, where the gravitational lensing "mass" is complex in nature - that is, when you have a galaxy group or even a galaxy and/or star cluster that is itself acting as the gravitational lens; rather than just a single "massive" and spherical object, as with the above-mentioned Eddington - Einstein experiments that employed solar eclipses - it will not only fail to cause a neat and spherical distortion of Space–time - but, in turn then, the light source itself can also resemble multiple partial arcs that are all scattered around the gravitational lens.

    When this happens the observer can observe multiple distorted images of the same source, where the count and outline of these multiple distorted images depends upon;

    A) Not only - as before with spherical light sources and gravitational lenses - the positions of the light source, gravitational lens, and also the observer.

    B) But also, the cumulative shape of the gravitational lensing(s)' aura and/or the lensing silhouette of the actual gravitational lensing object(s); whether the actual gravitational lensing objects are star clusters, or otherwise, including clusters of galaxies.

    As you can see this is a tremendous application of the above-mentioned science and terms that some are saying has not proven itself and/or achieved enough for boxing, let alone the definition of a simple punch.

    Clearly the scope for complexity along with any limits of; science, engineering, physics, and also all the terms of, "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", and "torque", would - if anywhere - be residing right here within these calculations and scientific practices.

    Not in the least as these calculations and practices - including the General Theory Of Relativity, Einstein's Ring, Schwarzschild Radius/Metric and also Gravitational Lensing - all heavily rely upon and also use all those same above-mentioned quantities and terms; "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", and "torque".

    The very same quantities and terms that some would have us believe do not apply to the movement of a human, or parts thereof, that's confined to the Earth and engaged in sport like boxing; even though the very same quantities and terms themselves have not only stood the test of time and ultimate scrutiny in the above practices - but also done so whilst being applied under far, far, more rigorous and complex circumstances - where usually the simplest thing is dealing with a substance that's as intangible and fast as light is, deep in space where there is no left, right, up, and down.

    Most punches would never accelerate 1/1000th the speed of light, and they would rarely travel faster than 40 miles per hour.

    The speed of light is around 670 million miles per hour.

    Furthermore, lights' "mass" - despite it largely being considered to be "massless" - can also be (and is both reliably and Relativistically, according to Einstein's theories) modeled to increase as speed increases.

    This is because most objects' mass (unlike light) approach infinity as their speed approaches the speed of light (C); due to the fact that as an object increases its speed and approaches that of light (C), it also gains kinetic energy (E), and therefore according to the Einstein's famous below equation the object's mass must also increase.

    E = mC2 Where "C2" represents "C" squared.

    Furthermore, in the above experiments and tests where light was deflected around both the sun and also deep space star/galaxy clusters, in order to substantiate what Einstein postulated pertaining to gravity being an effect caused by Spacetime distortions; we have an infinitely more complex and successful example of the application of the terms above that are said to not apply to boxing and a punch - "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", and "torque".

    For instance, within the above experiments and tests where light was deflected around both the sun/eclipse and also deep space star/galaxy clusters - as the "yet-to-be" gravitationally lensed light originated from its distant light sources, stars and/or galaxies - propagated through deep Spacetime - then bent (around/through the gravitational lensing "mass" object) to create the effects Einstein predicted; all as a direct result of the fabric of Spacetime being distorted from the "massive" gravitational lens-object (as Einstein predicted) - the light's "velocity" itself would have not only remained constant - but the light itself would have also exhibited "acceleration" via its "angular momentum", and therefore a "torque" component would also exist.

    Think about that, the light's "velocity" remained constant but it also "accelerated".

    Yes, it is true.

    These considerations would have been (reliably) born out within the above-mentioned mathematical calculations and predictions that successfully allowed both astronomers and Einstein ring discoverers/observers to know what to look for in terms of the donut and/or arc segment shaped signatures and results; that were literally harder than finding a needle in a haystack - as there are less grains of sand on all Earth's beaches combined than stars and planets in the universe!

    Just incase anyone cares to check the StormCentre on the above claim about light exhibiting, "velocity", "acceleration", "angular momentum", and "torque" as it traverses through a gravitational lens; here is proof.

    Light can be modeled as photons or plane electromagnetic waves, and it propagates along what is scientifically referred to as "null geodesics" which effectively allows light to have the remarkable characteristic of travelling not just along a curved path (as viewed from a close or distant observer) - but also in a manner where they exhibit time propagation delays. As unreal, bizarre, and weird as this (and all above) may sound, this stuff is nothing but elementary bread and butter for those extragalactic astronomers, astrophysicists, engineers, scientists, and cosmologists that work with Einstein's theories and all above discussed phenomena.

    In short, the way;

    1) "Light".

    2) "Velocity".

    3) "Force".

    4) "Energy".

    5) "Angular momentum".

    6) "Momentum".

    7) "Torque".

    8) These above theories.

    9) All above discussed phenomena.

    Behave and apply to everything on the Earth and also most beyond it, is not only there all around us every day - but it/they are also routinely measured and used on a daily basis, including throughout all the astronomical telescope observatories, deep space arrays, NASA activities, and many other scientific laboratories.

    As such these principles and terms cannot be denied, dismissed, or called inapplicable by any sane man.

    By comparison the analysis of a punch is child's play.

    This is why;

    A) Both the real and effective "mass" of a punch - along with applicable "velocity", "acceleration", "momentum", and "torque" figures, have already been detailed and/or given to you in my algorithm thread.

    B) Anyone seeking to claim the above terms doesn't apply to boxing does not state their case and prove it in that thread.

    Moving on . . .

    In alignment with the above discussed four dimensional curved Spacetime and tensor mathematical calculations and also the predictions that pertained to Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity, the Einstein Ring, the Schwarzschild Radius/Metric and also Gravitational Lensing; which were themselves "only" theoretical calculations that predicted and/or substantiated how;

    A) It was scientifically possible to observe Einstein's Gravitational Lensing, and therefore confirm his General Theory Of Relativity.

    B) Einstein's Gravitational Lensing might appear when observers, the object(s) forming the gravitational lens, and also the light source itself, were misaligned; allowing for observers - that may actually be seeing (a distorted version of) proof of Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity without knowing it - to not simply think they had focused their telescope on the wrong part of deep space.

    Remember, where the gravitational lensing mass (and light source, or both) is complex in nature (such as when you have a galaxy group or cluster acting as the lens) that situation will not only fail to cause a (neat) spherical distortion of space–time (as the simple math predicts) - but the (viewed) light source itself can also then ultimately appear to resemble multiple partial arcs that are all scattered around the lens - potentially looking like another sector of Space(time) and/or typical reflective glare from a star/cluster.

    C) And where - in Space(time) - the gravitational lens and also the light source itself actually resided; in a reliable and repeatable, and coordinate-featured way so that scientists could leave the observatory, come back, know where in deep space to re-focus the telescope, and find the same phenomena.

    D) And what quantities and dimensions of the above terms, including light itself, should be observed.

    E) And precisely where - in Space(time) - each relevant light source/path actually was; in a reliable and repeatable way so that scientists could leave the observatory, come back, know where in deep space to focus the telescope, and not only find the same phenomena - but also measure any observed and predicted change.

    F) And what values/quantities of the above-mentioned phenomena could reasonably be expected to be observed and measured; when/if the pertinent objects and phenomena do actually change in any way.

    G) And what equipment would be necessary to design and perform such experiments.

    What was now (some 30 or so years on from when Einstein first published his General Theory Of Relativity) needed - as good and obviously reliable as both the above theory and math was - was independent observations that further confirmed the theories and their sensational implications; from new and more sophisticated telescopes and arrays - telescopes such as the Hubble Deep Space Telescope.

    So, for a while now with this post - starting from just after Eddington proved via a solar eclipse experiment that Einstein was not completely looney - with the above four dimensional curved Spacetime and also the tensor mathematical calculations and predictions that all pertained to Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity, the Einstein's Ring, the Schwarzschild Radius/Metric and also Einstein's Gravitational Lensing, we have been wasting our time discussing something that (sans the above-mentioned Eddington - Einstein experiments) was really "only" the complex but nevertheless still "theoretical" considerations and calculations that predicted and/or substantiated not just the above points "A" - "G" - but also all of the above.

    So, that's theory.

    How does the practice hold up?

    Let's take a look.

    In 1979 VLA (the Very Large Array) astronomers confirmed the first Einstein Ring via an optical observation. That observation was joyously made by (seemingly) peering at a quasar (one of the universes' brightest objects) that was, at first, thought to be two quasars.

    Later, at the VLA, it was deduced and confirmed (via the above calculations and theories) that the light source was actually the same single object; misleadingly appearing as more than 1 object for the above stated reasons, including that in the above point "B".

    This is what they saw . . .


    So far it looks like, "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", and "torque" are doing alright and laughing at the "punchers not being made" claim and/or any thought that they don't apply to any sport, or action within it.

    Let's continue . . . .

    After that quasar and VLA related observation that categorically confirmed the Einstein Ring, the Hubble Space Telescope came into existence and assisted with further gravitational lensing photographs, of which some of the more spectacular are as follows;

    The “Einstein Cross”; a quasar that is lensed four times by a massive galaxy sitting in front of it.


    The "Einstein Smiley Face”, which is an example of the above-mentioned Einstein Ring, but in this case there is not just 1 gravitational lensing effect taking place - but 3 gravitational lensing(s) - all acting on a galaxy sitting behind the 3 massive objects responsible for the triple gravitational lensing.


    Think of the theoretical predictions and calculations, and also the (successful) applications of "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", and "torque", in that one; with 3 gravitational lensing(s)!!!

    Bit more than those related to a punch eh?

    Here's another one; the “Einstein Five Star” gravitational lens. Which is the same quasar as mentioned above, but this time it's gravitationally lensed (no less than) five times; with another galaxy also gravitationally lensed three times.

    That's 8 gravitational lensing(s) all at once.


    Another application of these phenomena is also black hole detection.

    As their name suggests, black holes cant be seen directly due to the fact that no light escapes directly from them, and for that reason they can be detected via the aforementioned gravitational lensing principles due to their massive nature; in doing so, as a by product of the exercise, we again confirm all above-mentioned theories.

    This is what gravitational lensing around a black hole looks like.


    These days with spacecraft and NASA exploration Albert Einstein’s above-mentioned theories - including those related to Spacetime, Gravitational Lensing, and also both these theories' prediction and reliance on Spacetime's curvature when near "massive" objects - can be tested via space related radar observations as they apply to planets.

    A gentleman named Irwin Shapiro, in 1960, before the above deep space Hubble Telescopes and VLA arrays were commissioned, also suggested that one accurate way to possibly test Einstein's Gravitational Lensing theory (and therefore also prove Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity) was to send an electromagnetic (radar) pulse out to a probe that was, at the time, orbiting around Mars - then allow the electromagnetic pulse to travel back to Earth again from the probe

    In effect the experiment would ensure the electromagnetic pulse made one of its passes close to the sun so that a measurement could be made how the, not insignificant, "mass" of the sun affected the radar pulse.

    This was not dissimilar to the above discussed Eddington - Einstein experiment that substantiated the presence of curved/distorted Spacetime by observing and measuring light that was effectively bent around both the sun and an eclipse; as light and radar pulses are both electromagnetic waves.

    In order for the experiment to take place mathematical calculations and activities - similar to those detailed above that relied on science and physics, including principles related to "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", and "torque", for the purposes of theoretically confirming gravitational lensing was possible - had to be first completed and checked; otherwise the design of the required equipment, and also the exact/preferred position within the solar system of every object within the experiment (including the probe and all planets) could not be precisely known.

    Bit more complex than a punch eh?

    Once all that was done for Shapiro, the radar pulse first had to be sampled and measured without having the sun in the way of its signal path.

    From there the comparison could then be made from when the sun was in its path, and as the radar signal was then deflected by the sun (due to Einstein's Gravitational Lensing theory) it should also exhibit a delay (in conjunction with the above-mentioned "acceleration", "velocity", and "angular momentum" characteristics) that could all be measured and checked with the aforementioned calculations and theories.

    This experiment - that, as above-mentioned, took place some time before the above images were taken by the VLA and Hubble Telescope - further substantiated that Einstein's theories were correct, and in doing so also confirmed that all above-mentioned quantities, terms and scientific principles were sound.

    What this means, in the very least, is, with respect to "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", and "torque" and/or any of their counterparts and associated scientific principles - magnitudes of the resulting numbers aside - there is absolutely no difference between an object;

    A) On Earth constituted by a gloved hand and forearm connected to a human body; that may be set in motion; whether it constitutes a punch or not.

    And . . .

    B) A non-stationary and/or stationary distant galaxy, star cluster, and/or "massive" object that's capable of playing a part in any of the above-mentioned theories.

    History now shows us that it was not enough for Einstein and his Relativity Theory to be theoretically or experimentally substantiated merely by (accurately) forecasting both the "precession" of Mercury’s perihelion, and also its orbit; even though those matters were - at the time - quite problematic for science and not well predicted by the accepted Newtonian and other theories.

    As a result of this Einstein and Arthur Eddington suggested that the gravitational lensing (and along with it Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity) could be substantiated by measuring the light from a star (namely its deflection) that was behind the sun whilst a solar eclipse occurred.

    A few years after that came Irwin Shapiro's above detailed radar experiment where radar signals were sent back and forth from Earth and a space probe, to measure the signal delays both with and without having a massive object like the sun in the way; that was capable of bending the (electromagnetic) signal as if it were (electromagnetic) light from a star.

    All these experiments eventually substantiated that gravitational lensing and Einstein's other theories - including his General Theory Of Relativity and it's bizarre but correct suggestion that Space and Time are actually one single conjoined continuum called "Spacetime" - actually work.

    Extrapolating this, we can also now say with conviction that what we call "gravity" is actually the fabric of Spacetime distorting and warping (like the basket ball and large blanket held at all 4 corners thought experiment, discussed within the opening discussion of this post) when in the presence of "massive" objects.

    If not and this is false then, even aside from all the above proof and history, we then need to explain and go where no physicist and scientist has gone before us - including those mentioned above and also those that exist today - and explain how light has mass, and how that mass - unlike all other relativistic considerations - does not infinitely increase as it approaches 300 000 Kilometers per second.

    For that is the legacy and footprint that Einstein left imprinted on the Earth and in scientific circles.

    For more than 20 years people have been trying to disprove his claims, whilst, at the same time, thousands of others have successfully used them time and time again, as above shown.

    Punching is no more exempt from science and physics than the Earth is flat.

    These days gravitational lensing is regularly used to detect silent black holes (whose event horizon is not emitting radiation and/or behaving like both a quasar and their accretion swirling disks) and dark matter; due to the fact that any direct observations of those deep space phenomena are almost completely impossible.

    Einstein's theories and those terms/quantities such as "momentum" discussed above/below always work in these applications too.

    Given the absolute and longstanding reliance that the above-mentioned practices and theories have on scientific and physics terms such as, "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", and "torque"; in order to accurately and reliably define, explain, and predict all the aforementioned phenomena; I think it's fairly safe to say that any activity related to sport on Earth - whether it be combat related sport or not - is not beyond the terms and science that is sometimes dismissed by those that may not appreciate it.

    The event horizon and accretion disk of black holes are immensely more hostile than any nature and solar based event experienced on Earth could ever be; let alone something as inconsequential as sanctioned violence between 2 conscious animals that live on the face of the Earth and are at the beckoned call of its temperamental weather system.

    Punches are - just as every inhalation you have taken as you have read this post - both subject to and a function of; "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", "torque", and all the above well proven scientific principles.

    As such, punchers can made.


    However, because StormCentre is a nice StormCentre he's going to look at both the term "punchers are born" and also how it is usually phrased, and treat it in an Etiological and Etymological sense, insofar as how these 2 disciplines may apply to both words and morphemes that can be and are representative of linguistic form and culture.

    In essence I am going to try and find a way for the "punchers are born and not made" players to be right even though there is;

    A) Nothing evidence wise, tangible, and solid to suggest they are.

    B) A mountain of insurmountable evidence to suggest that the term "punchers are and/or can be made" is correct, including that which is discussed above related to "velocity", "mass", "momentum", "energy", "torque", and all the above well proven scientific principles.

    The way the "punchers are born" term is loosely thrown around is in some sense the reason why we can consider it in an Etiological and cultural sense.

    People like to say it for many reasons, whether they understand its implications or not, and some of those reasons I believe include the fact that claiming "punchers are born" makes boxing more mystical and less understood, and as such it ensures that things that they believe in and are familiar with (being relatively undefined) remain that way.

    It's the traditional cultural resistance to change and all things new, issue.

    If a reliable and accurate philosophy creeps in when no-ones looking that stands everything on its head, then that could make things uncomfortable and render some without the requisite knowledge required to continue in the same vein and with the same status; whether "they" be boxing trainers, writers, spectators, or social commentators.

    Now, lets look at the term "punchers are born" from an Etymological sense, considering that Etymology can apply to both words and morphemes that can also be culturally accepted linguistic forms.

    Boxing has its own culture does it not?

    The term "punchers are born" is usually phrased in a mutually exclusive manner to the "punchers are made" claim; meaning that if punchers are born - then they're not made.

    This is the first major and fatal Etymological and technical flaw that the term "punchers are born", and all those that advocate it, has.

    My previous claims of punchers not (necessarily) being born was (really) in opposition to the term "punchers are born" being phrased in a mutually exclusive manner - although I concede I never explicitly made that point.

    See the Etiological and Etymological considerations along with how the phrase(s) "punchers are (or are not) born" even got to me.

    None of us are exempt from linguistic form and culture and its benefits and downfalls.

    So, how could punchers be born?

    Particularly, since - we know from above - that they can be made?

    Well, if one has a genetic disposition to punching, then they (possibly) could have an advantage over others that don't possess that genetic "code" and advantage within their DNA.

    By the way, such a characteristic (genetic and/or a DNA disposition to punching) has not - to my knowledge - been discovered yet; meaning it may not exist.

    And I do know a few molecular biologists, which is where all the groundbreaking DNA stuff usually goes down and/or is heard of.

    Genetic engineers and molecular biologists are usually not too many doors or companies removed from each other, if at all.

    Getting back to how punchers could possibly be born, and also the subject and analysis of punching.

    Since punching is - (as the above scientific part of this post shows) beyond any doubt at all - a function of "velocity", "mass" "momentum", and "torque" (pretty much as BrownSugar states in another post); aside from that which just constitutes negativity and desperate hope that unpopular facts are not real, without offering any tangible proof to support such disconsolate views; there can really be no doubt that punchers both can be and are made.

    Additionally, we often see grown men enter boxing gyms that are useless punchers; that later develop into real knockout machines.

    So, from this we know that - if punchers are truly born as is claimed without evidence - then not only are all punchers not born - but some are actually made.

    This view - that suggests some punchers are made - not only aligns with the scientific dissertation above and also what we see in real life and the gyms - but it also exposes how fatally flawed any mutually exclusive view is that suggests punchers are born, and not made.

    So, right here at this point we know that the only way punchers can realistically be born is if actually birthing them does not exclude the proviso that "punchers are made"; as the "punchers are made" claim is far more sturdy and established than it opposite counterpart.

    So, the claims that "punchers are born" and "punchers are made" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    At least as not as their linguistically phrased and emphasized claims often suggest.

    But are the claims that "punchers are born" and "punchers are made" not necessarily mutually exclusive, regardless of what end you approach them?

    By that I mean if it is somehow true that punchers can never ever be made if indeed they are born - does that necessarily mean then that if punchers are actually made (as the facts show) then they can't also be born?

    Or is it that, if punchers can never ever be made if they are indeed born - then the same holds from the opposite direction and as such the condition of punchers actually being made (as the facts show) excludes punchers from ever being born; in the same way that "born" punchers above excluded "made" ones?

    Lucky Dino has an infinite amount of storage space on The Sweet Science website server for these discussions eh?

    That said - because I above committed to the futile pursuit - it is now fair to also suspect and claim (with the disclaimer that there really is no proof to support such a claim) that some punchers may possibly be born too; whether or not such a condition excludes any other related to "made" punchers.

    But, then, as touched on above; to date, we also have no way to really prove that punchers are born (please, anyone, offer tangible proof as opposed to hunches and/or intermittent subjective/selective historical interpretations) either.

    So how do we progress this line of thought without entering the realm of fantasy and dream?

    As such it seems the claim/inference that "punchers are born and not made" - by and large - seems to work nicely to;

    A) Express views and feelings about how amazing and impressed some people feel when a guy can deliver big time "power" in a punching/boxing activity; Randall Bailley and/or Ike "Bazooka" Quartey?

    B) Discount any understanding of the complexities associated with precisely understanding what actually happens and takes place when "mass" is in motion and possessing "velocity", "force", "torque" and "momentum"; whether it be from a punch and/or an anatomical body engaged in boxing, or not.

    C) Ensure the continuation of hunches and "theories" (particularly with respect to the above-mentioned mutually exclusive considerations; "if punchers are born then they're not made") that are, not entirely dissimilar to religions, in how they often historically created explanations to; explain things that were/are unknown, deny truth, and place both them and their creators in a better social position than accepting the truth would do.

    Along with - or better put - hand in hand with this tradition usually goes a denial of science and fact. It has always been this way, and as we can see from the above dissertation, such habits and anthropological patterns have persisted throughout history. Boxing is no exception

    D) Discount the fact that punchers can be and are made.

    E) Circumvent explaining how - if punchers can be and actually are made (as they are) - they are actually routinely made in gyms.

    F) Circumvent explaining how - if punchers are only ever born - then how do mature fighters that arrive at gyms and display useless attributes somehow become converted into fighters that people call (both, "born" and "made") "punchers"?

    G) Discount the fact that if punchers are not ever made and only ever born; then why - for the last few hundred years that man has been fighting and boxing - has a trend of "born punchers" and their statistically preferred physiques and other attributes not yet been identified?

    After all, such analogous attributes that both, favor/serve certain wild animals in relevant survival activities and also exhibit natural selection characteristics certainly exists in those settings; so why not in humans that are born punchers?

    I hope you're smiling as much as I am.

    See how the myths can creep in even though there's not only no tangible basis for them - but also a plethora of evidence to the contrary?

    Perhaps there is a genetic disposition for punching and "born punchers", and we just haven't found it yet.

    Perhaps the genetic disposition for punching dates, and can be traced, back to the Geocentric universe - back when the Catholic church had the sun swinging around the (centre-of-the-universe located) Earth in circular orbits; along with a neatly placed location in space for both "angels and demonic beings" that was, at times, remarkably close to the path of the sun's orbit.


    Perhaps it is that the above-mentioned genetic disposition for punching and "born punchers" - that we haven't yet found - is actually a disposition that (counter-intuitively to the linguistic Etymology commonly associated with the term "punchers are born") actually assists with the "making" of punchers; meaning that punchers are both "born" and "made"?

    If that is so then I certainly have not yet seen anyone clearly state this and offer genetic proof of the disposition that would, if true, affirm the term "punchers are born"; as if it were a new gravitational theory that debunked Einstein.

    Perhaps people just like to believe what they want, regardless of whether (or not) it is proven and/or correct?

    Or perhaps, it is that punchers are really made as all the evidence suggests?

    You know what?

    Believe it or not, I actually have both men and girl friends who don't hate money and in fact they love it.

    Some of them also love the cinema too.

    Some also love electronic music; clever eh?

    Some of them also love coke.

    But the common point here with them all is that everyone loves having sex.

    Erotic sex.

    This the StormCentre has indeed noticed and noted.

    So, perhaps in order to properly "make" a puncher he must be born first?

    Meaning punchers are only "made" after they're "born".

    Yes that makes sense doesn't it?

    Because you can't "make" a fighter into a puncher unless he is first "born", can you?

    Extrapolating all that and applying some (weird) science we also get what I call "the puncher's conundrum" which is as follows; if in order to "make" a puncher he must be "born" first, then what does that really mean for any theory stating that the act of bringing/birthing a puncher into this world is actually the same as "making" him?

    Do you not "make" a "born (or even a standard) puncher" by actually ensuring he is firstly "born"?

    See punchers are "made" - just as the evidence suggests - but they're not ever "made" without first being "born"; even though being "a born puncher" - as it is often linguistically phrased - seems to discount and exclude both the proven fact and often coined phrase that asserts "punchers are made".

    So that's now clear.

    Punchers - they're a strange breed.

    Lucky it is then that we have imaginary things like "velocity", "mass" "momentum", "energy", and "torque", and a few of the above-mentioned theories and principles to keep us all preoccupied; whilst ever elusive "the punchers conundrum" sorts itself out.

    Last edited by stormcentre; 06-19-2015 at 05:38 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member SuperLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Hong Kong

    Re: Which Came First & The Truth About The Made Or Born Puncher; "the punchers conundrum"?

    Stormcentre, that is one long-winded way to say "made". It was an interesting and enlightening read, though.

    In simpler terms, I'd say that people's potential for "max power" would vary depending on their physique, but that anyone can be a "made" puncher by learning the right techniques. I'd wager that those who are hailed as "born" punchers either happened to "do it right" when they first started out (boxing, street fighting or whatever), or else picked it up really quickly from whoever taught them.

  3. #3
    Senior Member SuperLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Hong Kong

    Re: Which Came First & The Truth About The Made Or Born Puncher; "the punchers conundrum"?

    Stormcentre, that is one long-winded way to say "made". It was an interesting and enlightening read, though.

    In simpler terms, I'd say that people's potential for "max power" would vary depending on their physique, but that anyone can be a "made" puncher by learning the right techniques. I'd wager that those who are hailed as "born" punchers either happened to "do it right" when they first started out (boxing, street fighting or whatever), or else picked it up really quickly from whoever taught them.

  4. #4
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012

    Re: Which Came First & The Truth About The Made Or Born Puncher; "the punchers conundrum"?

    Thanks man.

    Glad you liked it.

    Cause if you take the time to read it all (thanks for that) you will discover that it has; humor, length, accuracy and also a point.

    Which, just also happen to be some of the things that serve well on a first date, or a second . . . or even one with a "born" match.

    In some ways you're right though, as some people certainly tend to both take to and excel in sports far better than others.

    Look in Africa, some of those cats appear as if they are "born runners"; even though there actually is a common anatomical pattern and trait that can be associated with them.

    And, perhaps it is just how well these people do that in boxing, and also how that seems to defy validation/explanation, that itself gives "birth" to the concept that punchers are born and not "made".

    Extrapolating that consideration we have the following possible enigma.

    That the consideration and term associated with the fact that some people whom tend to excel in sports better than others - at least to the extent that it defies validation/explanation - is itself only ever "made" when the consideration is put to work to the point where it trips up on, and tricks, itself that punchers are "born" and not ever "made".

    For the record I (can and usually) do;

    1) Short.

    2) Long.

    3) Accurate.

    4) Unpopular.

    5) Popular.

    6) Humorous.

    7) Myth destroying.

    8) Paragraph numbered.


    Sometimes, occasionally, my posts will have most of, if not all, of the above features in it; like the one above.

    The above post was not designed to win a popularity contest, as if that were the case I could write a story on how Floyd is the worst person alive, and Pac a patron saint that has been unfairly attacked for his actions, and then go about digging up Floyd's past; but that seat in the cinema has already been taken and occupied 500 times over.

    So, instead I decided to;

    A) List all the guys Floyd has not faced ( http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...has-not-fought ).

    B) Write the above post/thread.

    C) And from there I will then (possibly) hit the Pernell V Mayweather comparison up ( http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...ight=algorithm ).

    Finally and hopefully dovetailing all efforts back into the Algorithm thread ( http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...ight=algorithm ).

    The above post and the lack of opposing responses it most likely receives will not only serve as a backdrop to the algorithm (and other) thread(s), and also serve to address other claims too - but it will also offer tangible discussion and evidence on the following;

    1) If fact is important to discussion and vehement claims that anyone makes, then sometimes recounting the detail that is missed is both lengthy and extensive; itself being a function of not only what has been ignored, but also for how long.

    2) Even aside from that above written and posted, it is impossible for punchers to - in a mutually exclusive way - only be "born" and not ever "made"; otherwise boxing can be defined as a purrely opportunistic sport looking for unproven genetic superiority - whilst at the same time it's also caught up in an endless circular loop training competitors that actually have no hope of ever consistently winning at the top level and/or against the, so called, "born" punchers.

    3) That a punch actually is, and can be modeled as, a function of; "force", "mass", "momentum", "velocity" and "energy" - as already successfully shown in the above-mentioned Algorithm thread.

    4) What we are really up against when we make strong claims that also deny what the above relates to, including point 3.

    5) There is more, but I will leave it there for now.

    Mostly though, more than anything with all this and all above-mentioned threads, I am just having fun with the way life, related philosophy, and also both the boxing scene and also things in the forum, plays out.

    It's interesting how things play out and what's unimportant and important to people; social experiment.

    Within the above opening thread/post a not insignificant amount of time is spent discussing both the absence, and importance, of evidence; in some ways to debunk the claim that punchers are "born" and never "made".

    Einstein and his theories and exploits are even used in some ways to bolster that view.

    Now, just to show that StormCentre is unafraid to be wrong and also a fair guy, I will confess that there is a glaring (philosophical, but not absolute) flaw with that view that is embedded in with what is written.

    I wonder if you or anyone can and/or has spotted it.

    Anyway, I mentioned above social experiments . . . .

    Craig and Adam are pretty cool cats. As is Yuriy; how could he not be coming from Russia right?

    This track right here was originally going to be called "Social Experiment" as that is what happened during it's making.

    Enjoy . . .

    And if that's not quite to your liking give this a nudge, it's slightly less deep haus, but still pleasantly abstract.


  5. #5
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012

    Re: Which Came First & The Truth About The Made Or Born Puncher; "the punchers conundrum"?

    One of my favorite fighters/pictures here . . . .


  6. #6
    Senior Member SuperLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Hong Kong

    Re: Which Came First & The Truth About The Made Or Born Puncher; "the punchers conundrum"?

    Quote Originally Posted by stormcentre View Post
    One of my favorite fighters/pictures here . . . .

    I think he was as impetuous and revolutionary as Ali before him. Amazing to watch those funny angles of his, and he could work off a jab when he had to.

  7. #7
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012

    Re: Which Came First & The Truth About The Made Or Born Puncher; "the punchers conundrum"?

    Yes, I have compared him to Ali before, when defending how bombastic he was.

    He was one of the best performers by far.

    Awesome boxer, fighter, risk-taker, and puncher.

    When he trained and prepared properly (which he didn't do for Barrera) he was just too fast, flexible, powerful, dynamic, skilled, and unorthodox for anyone; let alone having it all wrapped up in a truly seamless switch-hitting style.

    Kevin Kelly V Naseem Hamed; now that's entertaining boxing.

    I used to love how Hamed would separate his legs - really wide and square on to his opponent - which is quite a dangerous thing to do - then crouch down - which was even more dangerous - then taunt his opponent - then just launch into the most fundamentally unsound move - such as an uppercut lead; just making it all work - sometimes with devastating effect.

    The guy was a genius fighter for a while there.

    A fight between him and either Floyd, Pacquaio, or Valero at or around featherweight would have been sensational.

    Glad to see Hamed finally got inducted into the hall of fame, he was a brilliant amateur fighter as well; embarrassing many opponents.

    Joan Guzman was another immensely talented boxer that had some of both Hamed and Mayweather traits.

    When he was at the right weight for the above guys, it would have been good to throw him in the mix too.

    Later in his career Joan blew out a bit an missed weight, but from around 2007 (maybe a bit more) and earlier you can look at that guy's fights and both learn, and see, a lot of talent; very clever.

    But yes, Hamed was revolutionary.

    Some of that goes to Brendan Ingle too, as his gym and training methods are pretty special.

    Look at the other fighters from his gym; Witter and Brook - both have some uncanny skills.

    Check the early training YT videos on Hamed; they're as impressive and gloriously mad as Naseem was.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts