Boxrec: Good for boxing?

FightFax is the bomb diggy.

It's good for the modern fighter. A lot of the past greats have incomplete records. But for the modern fighter it's a great source. well I think also good for past fighters completed records or not...at least there is something for us to reference I think overall boxrec is great for boxing...just being what it is, it is bound for bugs, inaccuracies and imcompletion

it is great for fighters records. i don't use it for anything else

we should have a wiki verison of boxrec or boxrec himself provides it... it much easier to provide datas with the help of boxing fans around the world..

A large database of known and unknown fighter records and stats is great. The fact that it is a large database, one has to expect some inaccuracies and bugs. However, it is better than not having one at all AND it is up to date. The moment Floyd Mayweather decisions Hatton, it will be updated 2 minutes later. It's very good for boxing. Inaccuracies are expected.

That is a ridicilious question of course its good for boxing, probably the best website for boxing.

the best part about boxrec is being able to see what the scorecards were for certain fights that ended in knockout.... FOR INSTANCE: when mike tyson was knocked out by james buster douglas, a judge actually had tyson winning the fight, and another judge had it even. meanwhile the third judge had douglas up 88-82

Boxrec is statistical not emotional. You go to the site for the statistical side of the sport, the emotional side is discussed here.

how can it not be good when its stating facts. unless some of it are false, but i dont think so, otherwise they would have closed down. it's up to the readers to look for additional info, in books, youtubes and forums like these.

....It has it's flaws and obviously it's rankings mean next to nothing but it's a fantastic thing for boxing fans. I love it.

It's good for boxing because it provides the official records of every boxer active or retired. I agree that it's not comprehensive and their are some innacurate records at times but that happens because there are a lot of boxers. I can't find anything negative with it.

You get idiots casting aspersions on a fighter based solely on his record, which they study on boxrec.com. They see a red box with the letter "L" on boxrec and automatically assume he's no good. That's not the site's fault at all but it offers a short cut for people who can't be bothered to actually watch a fight. All in all, Boxrec is a valuable source of information, whatever your motives are.

Its better than nothing which, at this point, is the alternative. Personally, i like boxrec and dont find many problems with it. And without boxrec, if Cintron were to follow the path described, who would even know him? It wouldnt matter that they didnt know he was major welterweight because they wouldnt know who he was.

boxrec its great for boxing. apart from its p4p list xD, i don´t see anything bad from that site. i have learnt a lot from it and its just really fun to search on the site. =P

Ridiculous thread huh... Listen, I just head the phrase "boxrec warrior" on another thread, and it is totally true. When people dig up all the career information on a fighter that they dislike, we'll call him fighter x, they are able to dig up the career record of every single person x fighter fought. Then they are able to look at the end of record of every fighter that x fighter fought, and who they fought against. Do you know how good Genaro Hernandez was? How high his status was in the 130 division before Floyd beat him? It seemed to be top-notch in the division. However, boxrec tells you that he was beaten by the two fighters on his resume that are big-name fighters (De La Hoya and Mayweather Jr.), and his biggest win came against an old Azumah Nelson. But, it is hard to say who the major players were in that division at the time, without actually having been there... Do you think in 20 years people are going to be like, "Hey! That Kermit Cintron was quite the player at 147 for a while in 2007!" if he ends up losing to Paul Williams and then doesn't do much with his career after? Hell no they won't, but that does not accurately reflect the actual feeling that most boxing fans had. That is why I made this thread. Real Talk, but see we don't apply to that, we ARE watching closely the fights of our era, we will look back and say that about Kermit Cintron but the casual fan wont, probably wont even know what he looks like.. for ME I say yes it's great but for those those casual fans it wont really make a difference, I definitely understand your logic.. 100

off course its good for boxing. what a ridiculous thread. I don't see any negatives with it. Ridiculous thread huh... Listen, I just head the phrase "boxrec warrior" on another thread, and it is totally true. When people dig up all the career information on a fighter that they dislike, we'll call him fighter x, they are able to dig up the career record of every single person x fighter fought. Then they are able to look at the end of record of every fighter that x fighter fought, and who they fought against. Do you know how good Genaro Hernandez was? How high his status was in the 130 division before Floyd beat him? It seemed to be top-notch in the division. However, boxrec tells you that he was beaten by the two fighters on his resume that are big-name fighters (De La Hoya and Mayweather Jr.), and his biggest win came against an old Azumah Nelson. But, it is hard to say who the major players were in that division at the time, without actually having been there... Do you think in 20 years people are going to be like, "Hey! That Kermit Cintron was quite the player at 147 for a while in 2007!" if he ends up losing to Paul Williams and then doesn't do much with his career after? Hell no they won't, but that does not accurately reflect the actual feeling that most boxing fans had. That is why I made this thread.

pretty much anything that has to do with boxing is for the sport, its very informative about the fighters records. Exactly if Boxing didn't have a site like Boxrec the fucking sport would be in the dark ages.

It's kind of taken the fun out of boxing, in a way How has it taken the fun out of boxing? Being able to access a fighters record and being able analysis it, could be consider more fun that not knowing anything about a particular fighter.

It's kind of taken the fun out of boxing, in a way care to elaborate on your opinion bro? I would like to know why you feel that way, I always thought BoxRec was very informative regardless of the flaws but I'm curious to know why you feel like that, just asking by the way.. 100

It's kind of taken the fun out of boxing, in a way