Boxrec morons

[sonnyboyx2]

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]

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]

Another Daisy Marie fan... me too!

[JAB5239]

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]

boxrec is an excellent tool though.

a lot of good info.

[Spray_resistant]

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]

I don't need to go on boxrec to know Marquez beat Pacateater twice.

[Dynamite Kid]

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]

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]

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.