Reasons Why Mythical Matches Are Valid In History Section

[Slugfester]

1. Sure they have another section for these, but just look at it--it's a brain graveyard.

2. Mythical matches are between historical figures.

3. Era comparison is a daily thing on boxing forums, so what is wrong with including an era's representatives as examples in hypothetical matches?

4. Mythical bout comparisons are done in fans' minds anyway, and we all know it.

5. The discussions these threads generate are as good as any other. Followed threads branch and morph anyway if the thread lives. If it is followed, it lives.

6. Sides will be taken. They are like a survey or extended poll, delineating unambiguously where the section population stands, and which segment of it stands where and why.

7. You have to defend your position, or be exposed as an emotion slave.

8. Just about everyone already has a strong opinion, unlike discussions about ring size or referees of the past--which means more engagement.

9. Discussions about why old fighters had better chins, how great was Monzon, who had the best pure boxing skills, who should be in the Hall of Fame, etc., etc, generate a cornucopia of speculation as well. There is no less tomfoolery in these threads than there is in mythical bouts threads.

10. We like 'em, and we like 'em good.

[Marchegiano]

Bud the sections are kind of for what happens most. They have fantasy fights here all the ****ing time, sometimes it's all anyone wants to talk about. They do fantasy matches in NSB too. So if you want to start a thread out of category its not really out of place unless you say it is. You can make threads about current active boxers here if you like. I hear, sometimes, on like really rare occasions, you might, maybe, read something about boxing in the lounge even.

Everyone knows when you make a thread in a section it's because you want to talk to the members who use that section.

Unless the mods got hard on that **** and I ain't noticed, no one cares. this is an argument no one will fight.

[Willie Pep 229]

Fantasy fights between fighters from the sane era can make for an interesting discussion, e.g. Dempsey-Wills.

But when you start trying to match Jack Johnson against Sonny Liston the whole thing becomes fantasy. I.e. A waste of time.

My complaint against these cross epoch match-ups is that the conversation never gets anywhere near being interesting. Just loud aggressive opinions which are not, and CAN NOT be based on any facts, or even logic. All they do is open the door to the same old, beaten to death, remarks. "The game has evolved; past fighters were too small; the gloves were different."

How many times are we suspose to read the same remarks, over and over.

These match-ups can only be pure opinion.

At least with fantasy match-ups from the same era, we can examine common opponents and don't need to make outlandish, unfounded speculations about how this would be different, or that would be different. Etc.

[Slugfester]

Bud the sections are kind of for what happens most. They have fantasy fights here all the ****ing time, sometimes it's all anyone wants to talk about. They do fantasy matches in NSB too. So if you want to start a thread out of category its not really out of place unless you say it is. You can make threads about current active boxers here if you like. I hear, sometimes, on like really rare occasions, you might, maybe, read something about boxing in the lounge even.

Everyone knows when you make a thread in a section it's because you want to talk to the members who use that section.

Unless the mods got hard on that **** and I ain't noticed, no one cares. this is an argument no one will fight.

That is good, I am not looking for a fight. There may be a poster who seldom fails to mention the misplacement of mythical matches in the history section, when opportunity knocks. I could have addressed it to so-and-so, but why offend a man publicly when you don't have to? I don't want to make him blush. So I decided to give some reasons.

On another topic:

I like your leader board and keep track of it, though I am not exactly certain of its parameters. I am not sure what "Own" exactly consists of? Is it proving someone wrong or trashing them wittily or....? The only thing I read of yours about it was "top bully," or to that effect. Then, is it senselessly bullying or intellectual domination? Just a friendly question. An exegesis on your scoring system would be most helpful.

[Willie Pep 229]

Blush! Na! I stand by my opinion, it's a silly thing to do.

[Slugfester]

I observe that mythical discussions are generally about AS interesting as the bulk of other threads, since ALL threads branch and morph. Name the thread where you do not hear the same things over and over. Tell me where they are. I might enjoy reading them. They don't exist, right? Interest or knowledge comes from individual posts, not thread titles. We hope to find an interesting post wherever it is. They are usually not concentrated.

Also, are the discussions of mythical matchups better and potentially more educational over here or over in Fantasy Fights? We both know the answer...I hope.

[Marchegiano]

That is good, I am not looking for a fight. There may be a poster who seldom fails to mention the misplacement of mythical matches in the history section, when opportunity knocks. I could have addressed it to so-and-so, but why offend a man publicly when you don't have to? I don't want to make him blush. So I decided to give some reasons.

On another topic:

I like your leader board and keep track of it, though I am not exactly certain of its parameters. I am not sure what "Own" exactly consists of? Is it proving someone wrong or trashing them wittily or....? The only thing I read of yours about it was "top bully," or to that effect. Then, is it senselessly bullying or intellectual domination? Just a friendly question. An exegesis on your scoring system would be most helpful.

I was being tongue-in-cheek when I said that **** about bullying.

It's about making me laugh to be honest. It's bull**** for bull****'s sake, but at the core of it the hope is to loosen folks up a bit so that they are not too insecure to recognize the person they're chatting with had a fine joke, made a good point, or showed a real depth of knowledge in some way. No one says "Hey, good one" then carries on anymore. I just want to see some "good ones"

Can be bullying, can be just explaining, can be just banter. Own a thread, a conversation, or another user, I give 0 ****s.

Giving points doesn't mean I even agree with what's said. I just felt like it was well made or funny or both.

[Slugfester]

I was being tongue-in-cheek when I said that **** about bullying.

It's about making me laugh to be honest. It's bull**** for bull****'s sake, but at the core of it the hope is to loosen folks up a bit so that they are not too insecure to recognize the person they're chatting with had a fine joke, made a good point, or showed a real depth of knowledge in some way. No one says "Hey, good one" then carries on anymore. I just want to see some "good ones"

Can be bullying, can be just explaining, can be just banter. Own a thread, a conversation, or another user, I give 0 ****s.

Giving points doesn't mean I even agree with what's said. I just felt like it was well made or funny or both.

Thanks. Anything you really like I guess, especially humor which stands out enough to be underlined.

[QueensburyRules]

1. Sure they have another section for these, but just look at it--it's a brain graveyard.

2. Mythical matches are between historical figures.

3. Era comparison is a daily thing on boxing forums, so what is wrong with including an era's representatives as examples in hypothetical matches?

4. Mythical bout comparisons are done in fans' minds anyway, and we all know it.

5. The discussions these threads generate are as good as any other. Followed threads branch and morph anyway if the thread lives. If it is followed, it lives.

6. Sides will be taken. They are like a survey or extended poll, delineating unambiguously where the section population stands, and which segment of it stands where and why.

7. You have to defend your position, or be exposed as an emotion slave.

8. Just about everyone already has a strong opinion, unlike discussions about ring size or referees of the past--which means more engagement.

9. Discussions about why old fighters had better chins, how great was Monzon, who had the best pure boxing skills, who should be in the Hall of Fame, etc., etc, generate a cornucopia of speculation as well. There is no less tomfoolery in these threads than there is in mythical bouts threads.

10. We like 'em, and we like 'em good.

- - Dempsey vs Louis the best all time match ever, the reason being the overlap in careers almost became a reality when Dempsey was making a comeback while Joe was early years.

There has to be a joining of the eras for a myth fight to be worth scoring.

John L vs Ali is ridiculous as is Ali vs Lewis, ect.

[Willie Pep 229]

- - Dempsey vs Louis the best all time match ever, the reason being the overlap in careers almost became a reality when Dempsey was making a comeback while Joe was early years.

There has to be a joining of the eras for a myth fight to be worth scoring.

John L vs Ali is ridiculous as is Ali vs Lewis, ect.

How far back does this classic argument go?


Did big men belly up to the bar and claim loudly:

"This new kid Jack Jeffries wouldn't have lasted five rounds with Sullivan"

"That's Jim, not Jack. -- James J. Jeffries!

"Jack, Jim, -- eh, what's it matter, just like the last two, he won't last. -- James J. Corbett, James J. Jeffries, who cares? -- There's only one, the Great John L. "

"You have no clue what's going on. Your Great John L. couldn't compete against the new evolved, scientific boxers today."