The definitive way to gain respect as a knowledgeable poster

An intelligent argument between two people is one thing, but one person just posting "queer" is anything but intelligent. You're smarter than that.

 

Cheapass website.

 

Dude..if he keeps responding with the same bullshit ("stafford has na agenda, agenda na na na na na") instead of offering intelligent rebuttals I shall keep responding with "queer".

If you feel the need to publically reprimand me on this issue instead of sending me a PM then I'll simply turn on you and we'll go down the long drawn out pissing match routine again.

Up to you.

 

Not as happy as I would be if you found something other to do than wreck this forum with your endless, desperate and selfish need for attention.

 

This is the example of a post which "wrecks the forum". How ironic.

 

Not even close, but nice try. Your endless trolling and reveling in pissing contests are what do it.

 

Dude...you seek ME out all the time. Why else would you say "stafford" instead of my name? Don't try to play innocent here. Own it.

 

Nope. You come looking for a fight when I'm not even talking you.

You revel in this shit. Hell..this very topic was created to, yet again, draw negative attention to you.

This USED to be a fun place to post, but folks like you have ruined it.

I am having a hard time even describing how much you suck.

 

When you're not even talking to me you're usually giving me a subtle dig.

Anyway this back and forth is childish. You can dish it out but you can't take it without sulking and saying the forum is being destroyed and all sort of other rubbish.

If it's not fun to post here anymore, then leave! Who's stopping you?

 

Bullshit, you almost always are looking for a fight and will use any excuse for it.

You are like a pathological liar....you will say anything.

There still a few folks I enjoy talking to on here, unfortunately your trolling and pissing contests often ruin it. As far as I am concerned, you are nothing more than a selfish asshole who doesn't care how shitty the forum gets as long as you get attention.

Now I know you will keep this going on and on because your childish need for attention will never let you stop without the last word, but this is my last post in this shit topic which you created just for this purpose.

 

No, they are not.

 

Good riddance.

 

The forum would benefit from Sly & BWJ just putting each other on 'ignore', I think.

 

Agreed. Refresh my memory on how to do that?

 

Erm....pass, Im afraid.

 

I worked it out and it is done. There'll be no more BWJ-D&D pissing matches.

Now let's have some fun around here. :giggle:

 

For one, don't misplace your irritation towards BJ on me. That's weak.

For two, a friendly rebuke is way different than a reprimand. I'd have to be in a position of authority to give a reprimand, and I don't feel that way here. I think everyone on the forum gets a say because they ARE the forum, and that includes me.

Now if you want to "turn" on me, that's your call, dude. Do what you like, say what you like, and don't give it a second's thought.

I'm beyond holding my thoughts back because it might hurt a friend. In fact, saying how I feel is probably better all around because maybe I'm right and maybe I'm wrong---and it doesn't hurt my feelings if I'm wrong on something.

Unless, of course, you'd rather I baby you and patronize you. THAT would be something for you to be disrespected about---not a longtime forum compadre giving you a playfully-intended rebuke because you sound like a ninny for saying "queer" over and over again.

 

Takes two to tango.

 

learned anything about 1981 yet, EXPERT?

keep us posted

 

I would like BWJ and Sly to both post... Sly because it's fun to yell at him and underneath his insane nonsense, he is a genuinely sweet guy and BWJ because he has a lot of good observations about the game that are wasted by his allowing himself to get to irritated about the whole thing.

Both guys bring things to the table and I enjoy them (though they obviously do not enjoy each other, LOL) ... perhaps mutual avoidance, like a pair of badgers in the wild, is the best medicine here, as hut alluded

 

Fair enough dude. It's all moot anyway...bwj is on ignore now (used the tools in the User CP menu) and will stay that way for the remainder of my posting career on this site. I have no idea why I didn't think of doing this sooner.

Now I can post in peace without reading the posts from that irritant.

 

It's all good man.


"insane nonsense" is code for "he doesn't prefer pre-90s fighters to contemporary fighters as he should to be part of the old boys club"

 

I wonder if the site is loading slowly for anyone else. Awhile ago, it wouldn't let me view the forum.

 

Probably the best way to get this "boxing respect" is to it the way Ron Borges did. Pick a winner where nobody else did, luck-out on a hail-mary pick. For Borges, it was Holy vs Tyson. Now Borges, who is a largely irrelevant figure, is a sage, a wizard, an all-seeing, all-knowing seer.

 

What bothers me about both sides of the spectrum is that even the most knowledgeable boxing fans seems to get fooled into thinking that a boxer's skill, resume, and yes even legacy somehow place them above simple mechanics. For example, fighter XYZ beat A, B, and C convincingly, and fought in one of the most talented era of boxing, and thus "would easily beat anybody around today at welterweight".

Styles are everything. JMM proves this time and again against Pac, those two being perhaps the best modern example of what I am saying. Even if there is some truth to arguing A beats B based on their record, or based on who has the better left hook, or better defense, etc., if you put anybody in there with the wrong style then most of that goes out the window.

Do you guys remember the Augustus/PBF fight? Floyd won, with a little difficulty, and did get busted up a little bit. But he struggled more than you would think against Augustus because the style matchup was such that it negated a lot of Floyd's advantages, despite Floyd being a FAR, far superior pugilist. But then a short time later, Augustus got in with little Leonard Dorin, and lost every fucking round in a bout that almost looked like it was a joke. Leonard Dorin. I have never seen Augustus look so inept in the ring, ever. Dorin, who was never anything special IMO just had the PERFECT anti-style for Augustus. He embarrassed Emmanuel Augustus.

When a fighter has a very specific fighting style, maybe you could even say an "extreme" style on one edge of the spectrum, they can steamroll a lot of talented opposition until they hit the right "opposite" style, and then even nondescript, B level fighters can take them apart or make them struggle mightily.

Nobody is above this, not Floyd, not SRR, not Henry Armstrong, nobody.

Also, you cannot judge a fighter's true abilities, and certainly not their prospects in future fights, by gauging them on fights where they meet a troublesome style. This last JMM/Pac fight should not be used to predict ANYTHING, any more than the last 2 fights could have been used. The only thing you might say it helps you predict is that a 4th fight would be much the same. You cannot possibly think that Pac would now somehow struggle any more or less with Floyd because he had another rough go with JMM.

To me, what demonstrates a knowledgeable poster is someone who does not buy in to the "aura" of past fighters, or the undefeated record of current fighters, and even when there is admitted fandom or nostalgia involved, you can break down a fight based on styles such that YEAH, I'm sorry, but there are guys out there who probably didn't amount to much who could have beaten Sugar Ray Robinson or Pernell Whitaker or Muhammad Ali. You can neither be completely sure of, nor completely discount someone's chances in any mythical matchup, and you should not let preference for a specific era or the results of a few recent fights cloud this.

But yet we still do it... how many people thought Pac would KO Marquez in 6 rounds or so? Why? Every possible specific observation (Pac has filled out a little, JMM is getting older, Pac can punch from this angle, Marquez has a good overhand right, blah, blah) is FAR overshadowed by the bad style matchup.

Show me someone who can make decent predictions based on style matchups, and who can in an unbiased way pit their beloved fighters against other fighters in mythical matchups based on how the 2 fighters specifically match up head to head, and I consider that person a knowledgeable poster.

 

Great post. I agree 100%

 

Yes. Its why I think Vitali would have beaten a lot of heavyweights with far better resumes or far better reputations.

Stylistically, the guy is as far removed from orthodoxy as they come. Physically, he is a one-off. He doesn't do things wrong he just does them differently.

We've seen this with Pac and Marquez as you allude to.

We've seen it with moderately successful fighters being avoided by much more successful fighters..

...Example: Foreman saying he wanted no part of Jerry Quarry. Foreman had already struggled or been made to look awkward by smaller, inside-counterpuncher sorts.

Styles are key. Everybody else in other sports knows this. You go mountainbiking.....your day out can be ruined by the wrong choice of tires. A $2000 bike reduced to impotency by not having the appropriate tires for the surface in question.

Every chemical in nature has a substance it reacts badly with, or not at all. Acid eats steel, but glass contains it.

For kids who want to understand why some guys will always lose to others, or always have difficulties with certain fighters, the paper-scissors-rock analogy would be a good start. Sometimes you encounter a situation which is just beyond you. The rock smashes the scissors, but the paper covers the rock and the scissors cuts the paper.

And so it is in boxing.

 

no, its code for "he believes he is being clever and displaying superior knowledge by claiming against all logic that Marvin Hagler would have trouble with Manny Pacquiao"

 

My problem is that the accusation of "aura" is pulled out of a hat ANY TIME somebody picks anyone ever to beat Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao... it's sickening

If I'm picking Tommy Hearns to decapitate Manny Pacquaio in a head-to-head matchup... it's because he's 7 inches taller, punches twice as hard and has one of the best right hands ever... it's not because "he fought in 1982!" ... it is PRESENTED that way by others, but almost never by the perosn making the initial observation

I rank fighters all-time like this: say you had a "league" where every welterweight ever to fight (we'll just use welterweight for the purpose of the example, nothing more) participated and everybody had to fight every other guy on the list 5 times... at the end you would have standings... My personal opinion, based on his overall set of attributes, track record, performance, all of it, is that at the end of the "season", Sugar Ray Robinson would finish in first place in that league... but, READ CAREFULLY: I do not think for ONE SOLITARY SECOND that he'd be 1000-0 or anything remotely like that... he'd have double digit losses, it's just that he would have the best record in the "league"

Mythical matchups generally calls for a clear cut "one and done" type of choice... you have to decide who wins this ONE fight... Say Ray Robinson has 5 fights in this league with Sugar Ray Leonard, do I think he's going "5-0"? NO I DO NOT... I do think he's winning more of them than Leonard, but not every single fight... It doesn't have to be Ray Leonard... it could be Luis Rodriguez... Can I see Rodriguez getting a draw or a win or both out of the 5? ABSOLUTELY, I could... it's not that SUgar Ray Robinson NEVER loses... there may even be guys who present a unique problem for Robinson that could maybe go 3-2 on him, but those same guys might go 1-4 against guys that Robinson goes 4-1 with... styles, attributes, strengths/weaknesses, it all makes fights what they are... In a heavyweight league, Ken Norton is middle of the pack with probably 0-5 records against some guys, but he'd very possibly have a winning record against the guy most likely to end up in first place (Ali)

NO FIGHTER EVER is "unbeatable" or "invincible" ... it does not exist... Robinson, Duran, Whitaker, Charles, Jones, Mayweather, Leonard, Hagler, all of them at their BEST would not be undefeated in this scenario... there is no such thing