Steadfast opinions and Interests

[joeandthebums]

The majority of activity here of late seems to stem from member's holding deep-rooted opinions on particular subjects.

This is not always a negative. I've spent some time thinking if I myself hold any opinions that almost regardless of discussion I would not alter.

In the bigger boxing landscape there are plenty, but on a specific issue I really can't think of one.

-----

So I have two questions, firstly, do you have an opinion that you do not believe anybody could persuade you from?

Secondly, is there one topic that you hope somebody addresses over the next twelve months?

-----

To answer first, mine would be a detailed look at Roy Jones Jr's career, in particular the period after he signed a contract with HBO.

Of interest would be potential opponents, business aspects with regards to opponents and career trajectories of those fighters.

[billeau2]

The majority of activity here of late seems to stem from member's holding deep-rooted opinions on particular subjects.

This is not always a negative. I've spent some time thinking if I myself hold any opinions that almost regardless of discussion I would not alter.

In the bigger boxing landscape there are plenty, but on a specific issue I really can't think of one.

-----

So I have two questions, firstly, do you have an opinion that you do not believe anybody could persuade you from?

Secondly, is there one topic that you hope somebody addresses over the next twelve months?

-----

To answer first, mine would be a detailed look at Roy Jones Jr's career, in particular the period after he signed a contract with HBO.

Of interest would be potential opponents, business aspects with regards to opponents and career trajectories of those fighters.

I would be hard pressed to see Ali in a bad light...as a kid, and I was a smart kid, I hated Ali thinking him a braggert. Then I saw how he was treated and began to understand his situation. Then I became capable of seeing him as a fighter, and wow.

Ali was not perfect for sure, he gave into nation of Islam on some things, said some racist things, etc. But the courage he showed and grace under pressure, along with his personality make it hard for me to see his flaws objectively.

[Bundana]

"I would be hard pressed to see Ali in a bad light"

That's how I feel too! I was a teenager during Ali's first reign, and he was my first big hero. I like to think, he's the best heavyweight ever, and it would be difficult to convince me otherwise. But then again, if I'm being completely honest, I must admit I'm sometimes wondering, if someone like Lewis might be too big (and too good) for him. Luckily we'll never find out!

[Humean]

So I have two questions, firstly, do you have an opinion that you do not believe anybody could persuade you from?

That fighters from earlier eras of the twentieth century were no where near as good as later fighters.

Secondly, is there one topic that you hope somebody addresses over the next twelve months?

I have nothing in particular in mind but any sort of details about older fighters. Always too much discussion about how some fighter is ranked 'All-Time' and rarely much information of any kind about these old fighters who are so highly rated, nor about the opponents they defeated.

[robertzimmerman]

The majority of activity here of late seems to stem from member's holding deep-rooted opinions on particular subjects.

This is not always a negative. I've spent some time thinking if I myself hold any opinions that almost regardless of discussion I would not alter.

In the bigger boxing landscape there are plenty, but on a specific issue I really can't think of one.

-----

So I have two questions, firstly, do you have an opinion that you do not believe anybody could persuade you from?

Secondly, is there one topic that you hope somebody addresses over the next twelve months?

-----

To answer first, mine would be a detailed look at Roy Jones Jr's career, in particular the period after he signed a contract with HBO.

Of interest would be potential opponents, business aspects with regards to opponents and career trajectories of those fighters.

Hi mate,

Great post.

I'm one of Roy's biggest fans, and nobody could ever try to tell me that Roy chose the path of least resistance and was only content to fight subpar mandatories. (no disrespect intended to those fighters)

That's a common misconception.

I've seen numerous videos, links and book excerpts etc, that prove that Roy tried to fight guys such as: Frankie Liles, Evander Holyfield, Dariusz Michalczewski (in the U.S.) and Bernard Hopkins in a rematch.

Roy seems to get a raw deal on here as well as other boxing forums. But people didn't realise what was happening behind the scenes. The other thing that bothers me, is that when people say he has a poor resume. Yet if you analyse it objectively, it's actually very good. It's also worth noting that HBO kept on giving him contract renewals, they had an approved list of fighters, and after he'd unified at LHW in 1999, he had mandatory obligations from all three of the main organisations.

If you want a debate or you wish to see any of the above evidence, I'll gladly send you the links.

You might be better off submitting this thread in the Non stop section though, or a specific thread wishing to specifically discuss Roy's career. While I do enjoy this section, to be fair, it's not very active.

If you do decide to post a thread in the other section, let me know and I'll contribute straight away.

Merry Christmas.

[Elroy1]

For me it's nut baggery...

I feel that nut baggery is a disease to boxing.

Boxing faces a 2-front war with the general public, there are those that wish to ban boxing for it's barbarity and there are commerical pressures on boxing such as MMA for example that seek to lessen it's repute and disrupt it's revenue..

But those are all secondary problems for boxing..

Nut baggery is the primary issue.

Almost every empire/nation state in history that has fallen has only done so once it has FIRST eroded from within itself...

We can see this in nut baggery like a cancer eating away at otherwise healthy minded people, leaving them uttely wasted..

It is a similarly very powerful meme, exactly like the religious memes that permeate the world.

And just like those memes, this one destroys boxing the longer it lasts.

And just like the religious supporters, they are busted, they KNOW they are busted but also like the oil and cigarette companies, they will milk every last drop out of it and perpetuate the myths for as long as possible until it becomes unviable at all to do so.

I feel that it is impossible to have sensible discussion about boxing and even to properly honour boxing history until nut baggery is totally eliminated.

This is probably the most serious and pressing issue in all of boxing today and I will never change that opinion, because essentially, the sport of boxings very continued existence depends on its elimination.

[Scott9945]

For me it's nut baggery...

I feel that nut baggery is a disease to boxing.

Boxing faces a 2-front war with the general public, there are those that wish to ban boxing for it's barbarity and there are commerical pressures on boxing such as MMA for example that seek to lessen it's repute and disrupt it's revenue..

But those are all secondary problems for boxing..

Nut baggery is the primary issue.

Almost every empire/nation state in history that has fallen has only done so once it has FIRST eroded from within itself...

We can see this in nut baggery like a cancer eating away at otherwise healthy minded people, leaving them uttely wasted..

It is a similarly very powerful meme, exactly like the religious memes that permeate the world.

And just like those memes, this one destroys boxing the longer it lasts.

And just like the religious supporters, they are busted, they KNOW they are busted but also like the oil and cigarette companies, they will milk every last drop out of it and perpetuate the myths for as long as possible until it becomes unviable at all to do so.

I feel that it is impossible to have sensible discussion about boxing and even to properly honour boxing history until nut baggery is totally eliminated.

This is probably the most serious and pressing issue in all of boxing today and I will never change that opinion, because essentially, the sport of boxings very continued existence depends on its elimination.

No matter how many times you repeat it, the term "nut baggery" will never get over. It sounds almost as lame as the buffoon who is always saying it.

[Elroy1]

No matter how many times you repeat it, the term "nut baggery" will never get over. It sounds almost as lame as the buffoon who is always saying it.

It matters not what it is labelled.

The term was not coined by me but by another realist on another site (Rusak, east side boxing, circa 2012/13)

It is a decent label as it readily conveys the mental incapacity of it's adherents and collectively groups together the many different facets like racism, nostalgism, nationalism, popularism, profiteering, indoctrination and ******ation that are all merely different aspects of the same phenomenon.

You can argue the toss about the said term all you want but it's really just a quick way to incorporate all those things under the same umbrella that everybody understands..

Instead of lengthy pointless discussions about WHY someone like yourself is an idiot, they can just point at you and say something like..

"Oh, you mean Scott? Isn't he one of those nut bags??"

And immediately you can be dismissed without any further ado over nothing.

It's a question of expediency!

[sonnyboyx2]

Of the posts so far on this thread, i mostly agree with them all. Boxing is a subject/hobby were attitudes are hardened and no matter how much evidence, is put in front of someone, you can never change their attitude. Dwelling on something, along with time. Alters a person's opinion. Myself, 35yrs ago Marvin Hagler was my favourite fighter. 22yrs ago Lennox Lewis was my favourite fighter. But as you age and grow older with the sport, you also stop idolizing fighters. You look at your one time idols and kind of accept their pitfalls, those pitfalls that you knew of, but refused to accept years ago. You see them pitfalls as weaknesses, which need to be addressed and brought up, when that fighter is pitted against another fighter in a mythical match-up. As you grow older, you look on the sport differently. You accept all boxers as almost equal of each other. You appreciate their bravery, their guts and their dedication. Sorry to say, but Muhammad Ali was not the greatest. He was only the greatest in his own mind. Many boxers throughout history were just as great as Muhammad Ali, if not greater. Ezzard Charles, Sugar Ray Robinson, Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao, Roy Jones & Evander Holyfield to name but a few, all achieved just as much, if not more. But because of "DEEP ROOTED" opinions, it is difficult to put any fighter above Muhammad Ali on any boxing forum, because as Joeandthebums says, "Opinions are difficult to Alter".. Yet i myself have moved with the times, i no longer see Larry Holmes as the greatest, Marvin Hagler as the best middleweight since Sugar Ray Robinson. Lennox Lewis as my idol etc etc... As for Joes two questions:-

1/. i don't think i will ever be persuaded Lennox is a Top 10 ATG Heavyweight. He is just outside that elite 10.. What i don't need to be persuaded of with Lennox Lewis, is that he must have the hardest most powerful, right-hand in heavyweight history. A truly devastating punch which he never landed enough.

2/. The topic i would like to see addressed over the next twelve months. is " Trolling" and in particular Billeau2.. The guy has made over one hundred posts in a row, none to do with boxing, then all just Trolling... it has to be addressed or the forum will cease to exist.

[billeau2]

Hi mate,

Great post.

I'm one of Roy's biggest fans, and nobody could ever try to tell me that Roy chose the path of least resistance and was only content to fight subpar mandatories. (no disrespect intended to those fighters)

That's a common misconception.

I've seen numerous videos, links and book excerpts etc, that prove that Roy tried to fight guys such as: Frankie Liles, Evander Holyfield, Dariusz Michalczewski (in the U.S.) and Bernard Hopkins in a rematch.

Roy seems to get a raw deal on here as well as other boxing forums. But people didn't realise what was happening behind the scenes. The other thing that bothers me, is that when people say he has a poor resume. Yet if you analyse it objectively, it's actually very good. It's also worth noting that HBO kept on giving him contract renewals, they had an approved list of fighters, and after he'd unified at LHW in 1999, he had mandatory obligations from all three of the main organisations.

If you want a debate or you wish to see any of the above evidence, I'll gladly send you the links.

You might be better off submitting this thread in the Non stop section though, or a specific thread wishing to specifically discuss Roy's career. While I do enjoy this section, to be fair, it's not very active.

If you do decide to post a thread in the other section, let me know and I'll contribute straight away.

Merry Christmas.

You probably also know the influence Roy's father has on his career. In a piece written in Sports Illustrated it was revealed that his dad managed Roy in a fashion where he took the path of least resistance.