My message to the NSB section:

Get off your high horse, will you. I became a hardcore boxing fan in late 2006. Since then, I have watched every fight I can, and always kept up with the latest news. Watching/following boxing is one of my main hobbies. BUT I never watch old fights. I have never seen a full Robinson, Ali, Leonard, Whitaker etc. fight. The reason is that I simply can't watch spoiled fights. Knowing the result takes almost all the fun out of it for me. And I don't give a rat's a.ss how Floyd, Manny or any other active boxer rates historically. I only care about who is the best NOW. Does that make me less of a boxing fan than you? I'd say it does make you less of a fan, and not by a small amount. That doesn't mean you aren't a big boxing fan though.

Okay, so you admit you never watched a fight pre 2006. So I got no problem with that at all. But what I do have a problem with is when you only watch current boxing then why do you make references to boxing history? http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13823803#post13823803 I'd say it does make you less of a fan, and not by a small amount. That doesn't mean you aren't a big boxing fan though.

Ok so this thread is........ All I know is I've been watching boxing since I was a kid, love the sport and enjoy boxingscene because it's a place to voice my opinion and here others. Jeez alotta people been bi!!!in on here lately

Try Joyce Carol Oates on Boxing and you won't be able to say that truthfully anymore............... Rockin':boxing: I have always been puzzled as to why Oates was regarded as an "authority" on boxing. I think she did a book or two on boxing. She was "THE" expert for a short period , a year or two and then faded away. I recall that she said the greatest influence on her apart from her grandmother was Alice in Wonderland....... That tells me enough, she stayed in wonderland........ I tried to get through one of her "boxing" books (she only wrote a couple I think) and dumped it after about 20 pages. (It may have been 10 pages, gloomy and poorly written according to my exacting standards, which were formed on 19th cent. literature where writers were meticulous and neat and whose language was exquisite and correctly applied). And I am reading in one way or another for about 12-15 hours a day-every day. I have a large amount of books, and stopped collecting when I discovered the Ebooks on the computer quite a few years ago. But Oates...... worse even than Ondaatje, and that's saying a lot.

Do what I do, have conversations with people who are knowledgeable and can have a mature discussion. The problem isn't the trolls or the little kids that don't know sh1t, it's the fact that it's the internet and we give them a voice. Anyone can say anything on the internet, so just avoid the trolls and idiots, and choose to have conversations with people you respect.

Okay, so you admit you never watched a fight pre 2006. So I got no problem with that at all. But what I do have a problem with is when you only watch current boxing then why do you make references to boxing history? http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13823803#post13823803 I never commented on the ability of any old boxer, and never compared them to the active ones. I made that short remark because, as you can see from my previous post, the "older is better" attitude of some boxing fans really annoys me. You don't see it in any other sport. I also follow soccer, and I have never heard anyone say something like "you don't know soccer if you haven't seen the 1958 World Cup Final with Pelé", or "Messi or Ibra ain't sh.it, they couldn't even lace Maradona's shoes".

Lacedup and Blackbart have TOTALLY missed the point of the OP: Dude is saying that having knowledge of boxing history helps you understand and appreciate the current sport. Probably. Read the first couple of lines and skimmed the rest. Sorry if I misunderstood something.

Lacedup and Blackbart have TOTALLY missed the point of the OP: Dude is saying that having knowledge of boxing history helps you understand and appreciate the current sport. Precisely. There's a clear division in views from new age fans and those who know its history but sometimes its good to have different view points on a topic. That being said, "Sorcery at Caesars" is an interesting read about Hagler/Hearns.

Lacedup and Blackbart have TOTALLY missed the point of the OP: Dude is saying that having knowledge of boxing history helps you understand and appreciate the current sport.

Get off your high horse, will you. I became a hardcore boxing fan in late 2006. Since then, I have watched every fight I can, and always kept up with the latest news. Watching/following boxing is one of my main hobbies. BUT I never watch old fights. I have never seen a full Robinson, Ali, Leonard, Whitaker etc. fight. The reason is that I simply can't watch spoiled fights. Knowing the result takes almost all the fun out of it for me. And I don't give a rat's a.ss how Floyd, Manny or any other active boxer rates historically. I only care about who is the best NOW. Does that make me less of a boxing fan than you? Okay, so you admit you never watched a fight pre 2006. So I got no problem with that at all. But what I do have a problem with is when you only watch current boxing then why do you make references to boxing history? http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13823803#post13823803

Alls I know is the first punch ever thrown in history was not by a boxer. .

Okay here is what I think: The problem here is that at least 50 % of the people posting here do not know boxing history. Yet they claim that they "know boxing" when the truth is you only "know boxing" if you know boxing HISTORY. And you don't become a boxing historian by talking about Pacquiao and Mayweather all day long and act as if you know how to place them in boxing history. Because how can you place them in boxing history when you do not KNOW boxing history? You only know boxing history if you have studied it - meaning you watch all the old fighters and you read books or articles about boxing history. So instead of babbling for hours and days and months and years about Mayweather-Pacquiao-Pacquiao-Mayweather-Mayweather-Pacquiao, people here should just realise that they have to study the history first. Watch the old fighters, all of them. Read books, there are tons of them and I didn't read a single boxing book in my life where I said afterwards "That book was rubbish". Because no matter what book it is, it always involves different eras and different fighters. So if you read a Gene Tunney book, there will be lots of stuff about Dempsey and Harry Greb and maybe even about Harry Wills. So you can never go wrong with a boxing book, no matter which one it is. NSB is a place for current boxing. We have a Boxing History section for those wishing to discuss that. You are welcome any time.

Okay here is what I think: The problem here is that at least 50 % of the people posting here do not know boxing history. Yet they claim that they "know boxing" when the truth is you only "know boxing" if you know boxing HISTORY. And you don't become a boxing historian by talking about Pacquiao and Mayweather all day long and act as if you know how to place them in boxing history. Because how can you place them in boxing history when you do not KNOW boxing history? You only know boxing history if you have studied it - meaning you watch all the old fighters and you read books or articles about boxing history. So instead of babbling for hours and days and months and years about Mayweather-Pacquiao-Pacquiao-Mayweather-Mayweather-Pacquiao, people here should just realise that they have to study the history first. Watch the old fighters, all of them. Read books, there are tons of them and I didn't read a single boxing book in my life where I said afterwards "That book was rubbish". Because no matter what book it is, it always involves different eras and different fighters. So if you read a Gene Tunney book, there will be lots of stuff about Dempsey and Harry Greb and maybe even about Harry Wills. So you can never go wrong with a boxing book, no matter which one it is. Get off your high horse, will you. I became a hardcore boxing fan in late 2006. Since then, I have watched every fight I can, and always kept up with the latest news. Watching/following boxing is one of my main hobbies. BUT I never watch old fights. I have never seen a full Robinson, Ali, Leonard, Whitaker etc. fight. The reason is that I simply can't watch spoiled fights. Knowing the result takes almost all the fun out of it for me. And I don't give a rat's a.ss how Floyd, Manny or any other active boxer rates historically. I only care about who is the best NOW. Does that make me less of a boxing fan than you?

Don't even get me started, LOL. There are a ton of ex-fighters that know the game as few of you ever will, yet they could tell you little about the history of the sport............. Rockin':boxing: I agree with that. But this thread is not about the fact that there is a line that separates those who stepped into a ring and those who never did. The topic of this thread is about something else.

Add "Four Kings" by George Kimball and "At the fights" by Colum Mccann as required reading

what are you some kind of historian?

:werd::repost::fing02: Correct. Sometimes I wish there was a whole seperate forum for constant Floyd-Pac talk...a simple sticky topic won't do!