Why do people clown folks who find info on Boxrec ?

**El Castigador** · 02-20-2010, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by jimmy webb

I don't get it, some of y'all clown other members and accuse them of finding infos on Boxrec.

What's wrong with looking up stuff on Boxrec ? That's the reason the site was created. Even Lawyers and Doctors don't have all the information in front of them when asked a legal or medical question.

Some of us might have better memory than others, that's good, but looking up stuff on Boxrec is not some sign of weakness.

Boxrec is a good tool for all boxing fans, new and old alike. Some of the info on it might not always be accurate, but, how many other boxing sites can provide that kind of info like Boxrec can.

Boxrec comes in handy when trying to see what fights are around youyr area or the undercards of certain fights.

**catalinul** · 02-20-2010, 06:10 PM

It's one thing to look at dates,records,venues,orders,etc.

One thing is to make predictions for a fight, suse compubox to make a point or look at the official scores and think you know how a fight went by using boxrec

**ny123** · 02-20-2010, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by jimmy webb

I don't get it, some of y'all clown other members and accuse them of finding infos on Boxrec.

What's wrong with looking up stuff on Boxrec ? That's the reason the site was created. Even Lawyers and Doctors don't have all the information in front of them when asked a legal or medical question.

Some of us might have better memory than others, that's good, but looking up stuff on Boxrec is not some sign of weakness.

Boxrec is a good tool for all boxing fans, new and old alike. Some of the info on it might not always be accurate, but, how many other boxing sites can provide that kind of info like Boxrec can.

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.

**Eaner0919** · 02-20-2010, 06:13 PM

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

**Spray_resistant** · 02-20-2010, 06:14 PM

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.

**jimmy webb** · 02-20-2010, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by ny123

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.

But that has nothing to do with using Boxrec.

The thing is, people automatically assume that a person's boxing knowledge is not up to par(according to whatever standards they live by) just because a person had to look it up in Boxrec, rather than having the info right then and there.

Which is total b.s., okay, so I don't know all the names of PAC's opponents, so f**kin' what.

**jimmy webb** · 02-20-2010, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Eaner0919

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

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.

**-The Glove-** · 02-20-2010, 06:19 PM

Some people have too much time on their hands, or not enough hobbies or a women.

**Vasyl�s dad** · 02-20-2010, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by jimmy webb

I don't get it, some of y'all clown other members and accuse them of finding infos on Boxrec.

What's wrong with looking up stuff on Boxrec ? That's the reason the site was created. Even Lawyers and Doctors don't have all the information in front of them when asked a legal or medical question.

Some of us might have better memory than others, that's good, but looking up stuff on Boxrec is not some sign of weakness.

Boxrec is a good tool for all boxing fans, new and old alike. Some of the info on it might not always be accurate, but, how many other boxing sites can provide that kind of info like Boxrec can.

Chavez - Whitaker was really a draw eh?

Why do people clown folks who find info on Boxrec ?