Do good fighters need to deeply understand what they are doing?

[Ghost]

To illustrate my question i will take mike tyson as an example, most people know who he is and will relate to the question more easily with it.

In my opinion mike was a great fighter, not saying the best thats not the points. He exhibited the toughness, meanness and douwnright aggression in combat required of a figher.
Given the training in MMA im sure he would have done well and would have fought well in the street due to his state of mind, be that almost psychotic or not its the kind of mentality that makes a formidable opponent.
I DONT WANT TO GET INTO YEAH BUT THIS GUY WOULD BEAT HIM.
Im only stating that as a fighter he was, in his time, a formidable opponent that many people would think twice about going hand to hand with.

Did he fully understand what he was doing? im not so sure, im not going to say he is thick. have no idea of his real intellegence level, but from listening to him speak you dont get the impression that he would have fully understood his boxing. more that he was a product of training.

So my question is, although it obviously is a big advantage to fully understand what you are doing, do you think that its necessary and do you agree with my analysis of this being 1 type of fighter.
I think this is the case, i think tyson was a good fighter, not the best but "up there". I dont think he would ever make a good instructor though.ever.
If you do agree do you think this is the most common type of fighter?

[Tom Yum]

Did he fully understand what he was doing? im not so sure, im not going to say he is thick. have no idea of his real intellegence level, but from listening to him speak you dont get the impression that he would have fully understood his boxing. more that he was a product of training.?

Absolutely. There is no doubt that Tyson understood what he was doing. The man may not be a Shakespeare when it comes to prose...but he'd been fighting in the street before he stepped into the ring. He was in touch with his fight instincts, all though he sometimes lacked self-control. Tyson also understood the technical side of the game.

Evidence?

Tyson spent a great deal of his late Amateur and early Professional training evenings watching fights with Cus. They'd go early into the morning observing, analyzing and appreciating different boxers and their attributes.

This information is available on most video documentaries about Tyson.

So my question is, although it obviously is a big advantage to fully understand what you are doing, do you think that its necessary and do you agree with my analysis of this being 1 type of fighter.
I think this is the case, i think tyson was a good fighter, not the best but "up there". I dont think he would ever make a good instructor though.ever.
If you do agree do you think this is the most common type of fighter?

I started a thread asking members if Tyson would make a good coach, whether for boxers or boxing-work for MMA/K-1 type fighters. The response seemed to be that Tyson did not have the kind of heart required to be a good instructor.

In my limited experience, a good instructor wants you to be the best and that means sacrificing his own time & energy to make you potentially better than himself - "intangible generosity."

To bring a man to a level you want him requires that you understand something about him - his psyche, his beliefs and formulate a system that will motivate him to dig deep. Not sure if Tyson exhibits this kind of understanding. It also takes heart, maturity and a balance of patience-persistence.

The motivation of the student has to meet or exceed that of the instructors to teach. And if the the student is around a bunch of unmotivated students, it can change the dynamic as well.

[Garland]

I think at a certain point DURING the fight...thinking may get in the way.
**** the "may"...it will.
Thinking is for chumps.