Why do people clown folks who find info on Boxrec ?

[mookiep]

Some ppl make entire arguments about fights and fighters on here who they clearly have never seen based on results they read on boxrec.

There was this one clown who was mocking the widely accepted notion of Wlad being a defensive fighter because out of his 53 wins he has 47 kos.....that is perfect example of boxrec being misused.

true statement. Just had this guy tell me vitali lost the fight with lenox because of how he looked after it.

[Spray_resistant]

You're not getting my point. There have been times where I was having a debate with a fellow member and it took me some time to respond because I didn't have enough info to respond back.

When I do finally respond they say stuff like " where'd you find your info, boxrec, lmao" It's ******, as if I'm suppose to know every lil tidbit about every fighter.

If you are talking about fights and not just records or random info then you shouldn't be getting your info entirely from boxrec because it doesn't tell the whole story.

You have to watch the fight to have a serious discussion no exceptions because someone could have gotten spanked for 11 and the fighter getting schooled could have landed a big shot and boxrec will say W ko12 for that fighter.

[M.I.C.]

They also clown those who use youtube, and thing is, well, couldn't they actually watch the fight, interviews, reports, tv shows, etc.. on youtube. Seem's it is a great source of information to me.

[PensionKiller]

People clown people who use boxrec as if they have seen a fight.

I use it to get height and reach etc and even some fights.

I don't watch many fights world wide to talk, but I use the facts if needed but do not try and act like I saw the fight.

[PensionKiller]

They also clown those who use youtube, and thing is, well, couldn't they actually watch the fight, interviews, reports, tv shows, etc.. on youtube. Seem's it is a great source of information to me.

Youtube is a good source for fights I do have access to. Well the internet.

Streams can be poor though.

[-Spinal-]

everyone on this site has used boxrec before the problem occurs when people use this as a substitution for actually watching the fights and then comment on a fight being discussed without any knowledge of what actually happend. an example of this is when people try to discredit clottey by saying that he lost to baldomir which is true but if you actually watched the fight you would know that clottey was on his way to victory up until he was dqed for leading with his head.

I think where it gets funny is when they look at the pure record of someone and act like they have seen the fight

for example

I have had people on here state that Pernell Whitaker lost against JL Ramirez when most who actually know the game will know that Whitaker was largely robbed in that fight

to use as a fact finder is great but to use then act like you watched the fight is a whole notha issue

Good posts by both.

[t.boone.pickenz]

Some ppl make entire arguments about fights and fighters on here who they clearly have never seen based on results they read on boxrec.

There was this one clown who was mocking the widely accepted notion of Wlad being a defensive fighter because out of his 53 wins he has 47 kos.....that is perfect example of boxrec being misused.

im remember that *******

[Spray_resistant]

im remember that *******

Yeah, it was in the thread where he and LarryX were arguing.

[M.I.C.]

We'd all be sad if boxrec was gone regardless of how hardcore boxing fans we claim to be

[Ryn0]

It's only people who look at Boxrec and because they see a L or W over one guy or another they make assumptions based off the record.

For example, seeing Danny Green with KO 1 over Roy Jones would make one of these people assume Danny Green is better than Roy Jones and better than guys that lost to Jones or couldn't KO him like Hopkins, Calzaghe, Griffin etc.