Boxing knowledge question/experiment

After all this time I had no clue you were Roger Mayweather.

 

So you're saying the posters at Eastside and nobsboxing are, "too" knowledgable for your liking? More knowledgable then the posters we have here at fightbeat?

 

Pleading the 5th on that.

Fightbeat has cooler people, too. It strikes the right balance of love for the sport & irreverence for me.

 

I think people should just stick to discussing fighters they've actually seen fight.

A lot of posters - you can tell - are simply plagarizing the writings of some historian, or worse, Ring Magazine.

They're comparing the romanticized and idealized historical account of some fighter from the 30's, to a fighter they watched drunk in a bar on tv - it's pretty easy to see how many would categorically pick the old-timers to win.

What's interesting is that it was after Hopkins was written up in the same stylized fashion as many old-timers, in Ring magazine, as one of the top 10 middleweights of all time that he begun to get respect from the old-time crew. It's true. They just eat up that sentimental writing about a fighter, they adopt the writers' phrasing and terminology, and basically, they're full of shit as a result.

 

Sounds like a pretty solid rule, yes.

 

Word.

I hate people that hate on old timers just for the sake of it and say stuff like Joe Louis would have lost to Ray Mercer and that type of nonsense.

Both extremes are just as bad.

 

I admit I'm guilty of hateration, but I respect skills.

 

:bears:

 

When it comes to analysing fights I respect those who pit their predictions against mine and come out on top. At SecondsOut that didn't happen because I won the Prediction League at a canter. Over here a select few have come out on top or are currently above me so respect to guys like Salaco, *Z* and Reed. The rest are in my wake.


:)

 

I've said before but if I could limit myself to fights where I've actually seen a couple full fights of each fighter I'd be way further up in the league than I am. Which admittedly's a deficiency in my boxing knowledge, but if I've seen both fighters enough I can pick a fight.

Not as good as REED, but pretty good.

 

I think everyone brings something different to the table here. I appreciate everyone here for different reasons. Just about everyone here probably knows more about boxing history than I do, I'm not much of an old tape watcher. That is why I stay out of the old timer threads, If I don't know, I'm not the type of guy to just comment just because, if I don't have anything to add, I just stay clear.

So, with that said, most of you have more boxing knowledge than I do, I think I have a fairly good grasp on evaluating fighters stengths and weaknesses, and have done pretty well at picking fights. Nothing special about my knowledge of boxing really, I just love watching it period.

I'm not going to say that I am better poster or know more about boxing than anyone else. That is just messed up.

 

When you acknowledge Khan as the fantastic boxer he is I shall let you join us at our high table ::

 

Predictions are a 50/50 business in my experience, especially if we are using it as a way of measuring if someone is knowledgeable... You pick a winner, you have a 50/50 on being right... I'm pretty sure if I handed a list of upcoming fights to my girlfriend (who wouldn't know a jab from an enswell) and said "here... pick whichever guy you think will win", she'd have a good chance of ending up with a similar success rate to any of us...

You could get the most knowledgeable boxing lunatic on Earth, a guy who has seen a million fights, trained 10 world champions, had a title shot in his younger days, any credential you want and at the end of the day he's probably going to be right maybe 50 to 60 percent of the time

 

I don't agree with that, it's definitely an advantage to know who the guys are that are fighting.

 

::

 

Steve_Dave is actually the Gayge fighter Stephan Bonnar.


True Story.

 

Stop hitting on me.

 

Khan is a harbinger of the roboto horsemanned fistic apocalypse

 

::

 

Yeah, that has proven to help in my experience

 

I say everyone on here is more knowledgeable than me when it comes to boxing, but i'm getting better.

 

If a guy picks "Fighter A W12" and the guy wins by first round KO, he's still "right"

Unless the predictions are easy -- Manny Pacquiao vs. Leonard Dorin, or something -- you are going to have plenty of smart guys ending up totally wrong

 

Walcott didn't suck, but he wouldn't beat RJJ in 1000 tries, wouldn't be competitive with Michael Spinks, etc.

God forbid you say that to an old timer though, "he was tough as nails":doh:

 

dude, seriously, who said that to you?

 

But then you have people who thought Arturo Gatti would beat Floyd Mayweather. You can watch all the fights you want, if that was your take heading into that fight, you know nothing about boxing, nothing.

Similar thoughts on some other fights that have happened, like Cotto-Pacquiao, and others. Sometimes the 40% consensus is just stupid takes, on fights that are 99-1.

 

You want to come roll with me. I'll bring the oils.

 

Yeah, a little.

 

NewBOBski hacked my account.

 

That's true