Boxrec morons

[Roger Mellie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)..

[StarshipTrooper]

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]

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.

[StarshipTrooper]

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

PS. JK about the buzzard part GJC

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

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

Poet