View Full Version : Boxrec morons


sonnyboyx2
09-29-2009, 04:25 AM
it crosses my mind each time i read threads about fighters from pre 1995 the vast majority of posters know absolutely nothing about any fighters before that period, so what they do is go to boxrec quickly look up a fighters record and base their whole argument from there, even tho they have never ever seen fight-footage of any fighters on the guys record, they trash that fighter as "He fought no-one" or "who did he beat" they also believe that any fighter who fought Pre 1960 and was filmed in Black & White or the old flicker film was nothing more than a tomato-can who could not bust a grape...The best way to deal with these Morons is as soon as you realize that they are a "BOXREC MORON" never read any of their posts again, that way the Forums become alot more enjoyable and the views read much more appreciable.

Spray_resistant
09-29-2009, 04:34 AM
it crosses my mind each time i read threads about fighters from pre 1995 the vast majority of posters know absolutely nothing about any fighters before that period, so what they do is go to boxrec quickly look up a fighters record and base their whole argument from there, even tho they have never ever seen fight-footage of any fighters on the guys record, they trash that fighter as "He fought no-one" or "who did he beat" they also believe that any fighter who fought Pre 1960 and was filmed in Black & White or the old flicker film was nothing more than a tomato-can who could not bust a grape...The best way to deal with these Morons is as soon as you realize that they are a "BOXREC MORON" never read any of their posts again, that way the Forums become alot more enjoyable and the views read much more appreciable.

Its a helpful tool if you want to fact check. I am glad it exists because I cannot remember every opponent everyone fought. I also like their p4p rankings better than Ring's though I agree it has some problems. That will always happen when you mix math with real life.

Bundana
09-29-2009, 05:07 AM
Another Daisy Marie fan... me too!

JAB5239
09-29-2009, 05:45 AM
Its a helpful tool if you want to fact check. I am glad it exists because I cannot remember every opponent everyone fought. I also like their p4p rankings better than Ring's though I agree it has some problems. That will always happen when you mix math with real life.

It is a valuable tool if you know what you're looking at. Records are not solely indicative of a fighters abilities or accomplishments though. Without understanding the era's or circumstances many past greats fought in, looking at records alone can be not only useless, but detrimental about learning and understanding about fighters you have no previous knowledge about. We've all seen clowns on here trying to dismiss Joe Louis' comp because many had multiple losses. You have to dig deeper than just the records to understand why many of those fighters had multiple losses. I've seen people on here slam Ray Robinson and claim he wouldn't be **** today because he had 19 losses. Its ridiculous. Without knowing about the competition and era nobody can properly judge a fighter. There are some excellent posters on here that I learn from everyday, including yourself Spray. But Sonny makes a good point about the morons who don't take the time to learn about fighters before jumping to conclusions. It gets annoying at times.

WhoreUs
09-29-2009, 06:15 AM
boxrec is an excellent tool though.

a lot of good info.

Spray_resistant
09-29-2009, 06:35 AM
It is a valuable tool if you know what you're looking at. Records are not solely indicative of a fighters abilities or accomplishments though. Without understanding the era's or circumstances many past greats fought in, looking at records alone can be not only useless, but detrimental about learning and understanding about fighters you have no previous knowledge about. We've all seen clowns on here trying to dismiss Joe Louis' comp because many had multiple losses. You have to dig deeper than just the records to understand why many of those fighters had multiple losses. I've seen people on here slam Ray Robinson and claim he wouldn't be **** today because he had 19 losses. Its ridiculous. Without knowing about the competition and era nobody can properly judge a fighter. There are some excellent posters on here that I learn from everyday, including yourself Spray. But Sonny makes a good point about the morons who don't take the time to learn about fighters before jumping to conclusions. It gets annoying at times.

The problem is too many try to talk about fights they have never seen and come to an assumption about a fight because they used boxrec to find out who won and by what means. They then make the rest up from there. Also win loss records are way too highly regarded without consideration of who a fighters fought, so records can be very deceptive if someone knows nothing of a fighters level of opposition.

Brick Tamland
09-29-2009, 06:43 AM
I don't need to go on boxrec to know Marquez beat Pacateater twice.

Dynamite Kid
09-29-2009, 06:47 AM
I cant stand people that base their arguments on Boxerec without having seen the fights, why would you want to talk about the history of Boxing having not tried to educate yourself on past fights/fighters.

sonnyboyx2
09-29-2009, 06:47 AM
It is a valuable tool if you know what you're looking at. Records are not solely indicative of a fighters abilities or accomplishments though. Without understanding the era's or circumstances many past greats fought in, looking at records alone can be not only useless, but detrimental about learning and understanding about fighters you have no previous knowledge about. We've all seen clowns on here trying to dismiss Joe Louis' comp because many had multiple losses. You have to dig deeper than just the records to understand why many of those fighters had multiple losses. I've seen people on here slam Ray Robinson and claim he wouldn't be **** today because he had 19 losses. Its ridiculous. Without knowing about the competition and era nobody can properly judge a fighter. There are some excellent posters on here that I learn from everyday, including yourself Spray. But Sonny makes a good point about the morons who don't take the time to learn about fighters before jumping to conclusions. It gets annoying at times.
well said JAB

Brick Tamland
09-29-2009, 06:53 AM
I cant stand people that base their arguments on Boxerec without having seen the fights, why would you want to talk about the history of Boxing having not tried to educate yourself on past fights/fighters.

van Persie couldn't lace my boots.

Roger Mellie
09-29-2009, 06:58 AM
it crosses my mind each time i read threads about fighters from pre 1995 the vast majority of posters know absolutely nothing about any fighters before that period, so what they do is go to boxrec quickly look up a fighters record and base their whole argument from there, even tho they have never ever seen fight-footage of any fighters on the guys record, they trash that fighter as "He fought no-one" or "who did he beat" they also believe that any fighter who fought Pre 1960 and was filmed in Black & White or the old flicker film was nothing more than a tomato-can who could not bust a grape...The best way to deal with these Morons is as soon as you realize that they are a "BOXREC MORON" never read any of their posts again, that way the Forums become alot more enjoyable and the views read much more appreciable.
I know what you're getting at,but I have to disagree. A persons love of boxing is a personal thing. There isnt a p4p list on what a super dooper fan you may be. The sport needs fans of all kinds,and if you are saying that you would like to make discussing it exclusively the domain of the anoraks,then the sport is doomed.

Boxrec is a superb tool for people of all levels of knowledge of the sport, and a so called 'BOXREC MORON' is a step up on the knowledge from someone who has only just taken an interest in or fallen in love with the sport.

I can only speak for myself,but I only feel totally sure(maybe not even that) of what I am talking about when discussing fighters that I have actually seen fight during my lifetime. Grainy footage of fights from the 1920's to late 1960's dont really give you much to go on,and most literature seems to be written through a haze of dewey eyed nostalgia. So I really dont see that it helps all that much. You can get a sense of what was going on at the time,but you can never really feel it.

It will be a tragedy if this site gets turned into a star-trek convention style dorkfest moderated by a bunch of psychotic trainspotters lurking in the shadows,waiting to attack anyone new,and whose only crime might be not knowing what Joe Louis ate for breakfast!

Boxing needs every single fan it can get.

Benncollinsaad
09-29-2009, 08:09 AM
I never judge a fighter by what says on boxrec. I use it to get basic info on a fighter, then I look for that guy's fights on youtube or somewhere else.

sonnyboyx2
09-29-2009, 08:17 AM
I know what you're getting at,but I have to disagree. A persons love of boxing is a personal thing. There isnt a p4p list on what a super dooper fan you may be. The sport needs fans of all kinds,and if you are saying that you would like to make discussing it exclusively the domain of the anoraks,then the sport is doomed.

Boxrec is a superb tool for people of all levels of knowledge of the sport, and a so called 'BOXREC MORON' is a step up on the knowledge from someone who has only just taken an interest in or fallen in love with the sport.

I can only speak for myself,but I only feel totally sure(maybe not even that) of what I am talking about when discussing fighters that I have actually seen fight during my lifetime. Grainy footage of fights from the 1920's to late 1960's dont really give you much to go on,and most literature seems to be written through a haze of dewey eyed nostalgia. So I really dont see that it helps all that much. You can get a sense of what was going on at the time,but you can never really feel it.

It will be a tragedy if this site gets turned into a star-trek convention style dorkfest moderated by a bunch of psychotic trainspotters lurking in the shadows,waiting to attack anyone new,and whose only crime might be not knowing what Joe Louis ate for breakfast!

Boxing needs every single fan it can get.

i disagree with you, if all debates on a boxers career are based on what the fan has read into on Boxrec then that fan does not have the knowledge to discuss the fighter or his fights... Fighter A may have been knocked from pillar to post for 14rds by Fighter B and in the 15th round fighter A score a one-punch KO Boxrec will only say Fighter A won KO15 eg.(Tate vs Weaver) yet the Boxrec Moron will claim on the forum-topic that fighter A was the better fighter because he KTFO Fighter B which is so far removed from the actual facts of that fight... it is far better to be honest and say (like some do) that they have never actually seen that fight and ask how it unfolded or comment on what they have seen of those two particular fighters.

as for the old B/W footage today, there is very little of it that is "grainy" most is very good quality and well worth taking the time to watch, especially if the commentator is Dumphy, Andrews, Cosell, Carpenter who all had a vast knowledge of the history of this great sport and told it like it happened unlike the vast majority of commentators and analysists today,

There is no psychotic trainspotters as you claim waiting to assasinate new members, only boxing fans who know what the subject is about and like to read other members constructive points, not derrogatory remarks from someone who does not know what color skin Joe Louis had never mind what he had for breakfast, yet is there to ridicule and trash anyone who does not fall into line with his "Boxrec theory"

Roger Mellie
09-29-2009, 08:32 AM
i disagree with you, if all debates on a boxers career are based on what the fan has read into on Boxrec then that fan does not have the knowledge to discuss the fighter or his fights... Fighter A may have been knocked from pillar to post for 14rds by Fighter B and in the 15th round fighter A score a one-punch KO Boxrec will only say Fighter A won KO15 eg.(Tate vs Weaver) yet the Boxrec Moron will claim on the forum-topic that fighter A was the better fighter because he KTFO Fighter B which is so far removed from the actual facts of that fight... it is far better to be honest and say (like some do) that they have never actually seen that fight and ask how it unfolded or comment on what they have seen of those two particular fighters.

as for the old B/W footage today, there is very little of it that is "grainy" most is very good quality and well worth taking the time to watch, especially if the commentator is Dumphy, Andrews, Cosell, Carpenter who all had a vast knowledge of the history of this great sport and told it like it happened unlike the vast majority of commentators and analysists today,

There is no psychotic trainspotters as you claim waiting to assasinate new members, only boxing fans who know what the subject is about and like to read other members constructive points, not derrogatory remarks from someone who does not know what color skin Joe Louis had never mind what he had for breakfast, yet is there to ridicule and trash anyone who does not fall into line with his "Boxrec theory"
I never said that trusting solely in boxrec would fill you with knowledge. Its true that there were some great scribes and commentators around at that time,and probably better than the ones we have today,mainly because they had to rely on the quality of their writing or commentary without the aid of all the technology and communications we have today.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes,there are idiots that will go running to boxrec to back up a pointless argument,but by the same token there are also plenty of Boxing sNobs that will pour scorn on someone for not knowing an obscure factoid.

The best posters on this site are the ones who have good knowledge,but more importantly a feel for the sport,and a sense of positive enthusiasm for it.

Dynamite Kid
09-29-2009, 08:56 AM
i disagree with you, if all debates on a boxers career are based on what the fan has read into on Boxrec then that fan does not have the knowledge to discuss the fighter or his fights... Fighter A may have been knocked from pillar to post for 14rds by Fighter B and in the 15th round fighter A score a one-punch KO Boxrec will only say Fighter A won KO15 eg.(Tate vs Weaver) yet the Boxrec Moron will claim on the forum-topic that fighter A was the better fighter because he KTFO Fighter B which is so far removed from the actual facts of that fight... it is far better to be honest and say (like some do) that they have never actually seen that fight and ask how it unfolded or comment on what they have seen of those two particular fighters.

as for the old B/W footage today, there is very little of it that is "grainy" most is very good quality and well worth taking the time to watch, especially if the commentator is Dumphy, Andrews, Cosell, Carpenter who all had a vast knowledge of the history of this great sport and told it like it happened unlike the vast majority of commentators and analysists today,

There is no psychotic trainspotters as you claim waiting to assasinate new members, only boxing fans who know what the subject is about and like to read other members constructive points, not derrogatory remarks from someone who does not know what color skin Joe Louis had never mind what he had for breakfast, yet is there to ridicule and trash anyone who does not fall into line with his "Boxrec theory"



Bolded part and the rest of the paragraph is basically the truth.

mickey malone
09-29-2009, 10:28 AM
Very handy for memory lapses, which we're all guilty of at times.. It gets worse as you get older apparantly.. GJC is the only exception to the rule, as he can relive aswell as actually remember what most of us, need to check up on (sometimes lol)..

Ziggy Stardust
09-29-2009, 10:33 AM
Agreed: BoxRec is a useful referrence but not something to base one's boxing knowledge on. If someone can't actually see the fight or fights in question at least do a little reading. BoxRec is like looking at the table of contents: It can give you a general idea of what's there but it doesn't tell you anything that would earn you a passing grade in a Freshman college course (try writing an essay for History 101 only looking at the table of contents).

Poet

MANGLER
09-29-2009, 10:34 AM
it crosses my mind each time i read threads about fighters from pre 1995 the vast majority of posters know absolutely nothing about any fighters before that period, so what they do is go to boxrec quickly look up a fighters record and base their whole argument from there, even tho they have never ever seen fight-footage of any fighters on the guys record, they trash that fighter as "He fought no-one" or "who did he beat" they also believe that any fighter who fought Pre 1960 and was filmed in Black & White or the old flicker film was nothing more than a tomato-can who could not bust a grape...The best way to deal with these Morons is as soon as you realize that they are a "BOXREC MORON" never read any of their posts again, that way the Forums become alot more enjoyable and the views read much more appreciable.

Most of the kids on here live n die by boxrec.

Ziggy Stardust
09-29-2009, 10:35 AM
Very handy for memory lapses, which we're all guilty of at times.. It gets worse as you get older apparantly.. GJC is the only exception to the rule, as he can relive aswell as actually remember what most of us, need to check up on (sometimes lol)..

No ****e! When I get to be GJC's age I hope I'm half as sharp as that old buzzard :rofl:

PS. JK about the buzzard part GJC ;)

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
09-29-2009, 10:36 AM
Most of the kids on here live n die by boxrec.

Yeah, and those are the same one's that think because Ray Robinson never fought on HBO or Showtime he must not have been any good :ugh:

Poet

MANGLER
09-29-2009, 10:41 AM
Yeah, and those are the same one's that think because Ray Robinson never fought on HBO or Showtime he must not have been any good :ugh:

Poet

You seen Flawed's thread on the Fab 4 Poet? :lol1:

Ziggy Stardust
09-29-2009, 12:42 PM
You seen Flawed's thread on the Fab 4 Poet? :lol1:

Yep! Typical BS from a flaming ***** :rofl:

Poet

1SILVA
09-29-2009, 06:16 PM
it crosses my mind each time i read threads about fighters from pre 1995 the vast majority of posters know absolutely nothing about any fighters before that period, so what they do is go to boxrec quickly look up a fighters record and base their whole argument from there, even tho they have never ever seen fight-footage of any fighters on the guys record, they trash that fighter as "He fought no-one" or "who did he beat" they also believe that any fighter who fought Pre 1960 and was filmed in Black & White or the old flicker film was nothing more than a tomato-can who could not bust a grape...The best way to deal with these Morons is as soon as you realize that they are a "BOXREC MORON" never read any of their posts again, that way the Forums become alot more enjoyable and the views read much more appreciable.

Excellent point. One must do lots of reading and viewing fight footage before they can make a comment about a fighter's career. It is like someone claiming that Hector Camacho is an ATG by looking at his record because he has wins over washed up fighters like Duran and Leonard. Camacho was never the same fighter after his 1986 war with Edwin Rosario. After that, he became a drug addicted, run first fighter.

GJC
09-29-2009, 06:34 PM
Very handy for memory lapses, which we're all guilty of at times.. It gets worse as you get older apparantly.. GJC is the only exception to the rule, as he can relive aswell as actually remember what most of us, need to check up on (sometimes lol)..
Bless you for that Mickey.
I like boxingrec it is the sort of thing that makes me love the internet but it is a tool and it is useful for jogging failing memories. I've been reminded of fights i've actually been to and completely forgotten! And some fights I remember the fight and key parts of it but can't remember who won lol. So good bless boxingrec for helping me not look more of a fool than I usually do.
But as for being the sole part of an argument it lacks a little bit like getting a recipe but not being able to cook.

Spartacus Sully
09-30-2009, 08:05 AM
Grainy footage of fights from the 1920's to late 1960's dont really give you much to go on,and most literature seems to be written through a haze of dewey eyed nostalgia. So I really dont see that it helps all that much. You can get a sense of what was going on at the time,but you can never really feel it.


You should really check out T4a's post in the video trading block

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310955

its got highlights of fights from 1909-1960 pretty good quality and a wide range of fights its good stuff

KittenFlaps
09-30-2009, 08:32 AM
Its a helpful tool if you want to fact check. I am glad it exists because I cannot remember every opponent everyone fought. I also like their p4p rankings better than Ring's though I agree it has some problems. That will always happen when you mix math with real life.

Agreed. I use it for checking a fighters name when I can't remember how it's spelled, or to remember the name of fighters that the greats fought, but have simply slipped from my mind.

Another great use for it is when betting on undercards and fighters you've never heard of, you can go through their records and formulate a pretty decent idea of who's going to win.

mickey malone
09-30-2009, 08:55 AM
Agreed. I use it for checking a fighters name when I can't remember how it's spelled, or to remember the name of fighters that the greats fought, but have simply slipped from my mind.

Another great use for it is when betting on undercards and fighters you've never heard of, you can go through their records and formulate a pretty decent idea of who's going to win.
So true.... Every time either Darius M--------ski or Ike I-------chi, come into play, I'd be totally fvcked without Boxrec...

"KittenFlaps" !!!!.... Loooooooooool... Superb user name!!.... Cracked up, as soon as I saw it... Totally original.... Cheers!