Analyst: One who analyzes, or who is skilled in analysis
One not need be a paid professional to qualify as an "analyst". Every poster here on some level fits that description. There is no pre-requiste to actually be "correct" though in having the title of "analyst". Jim Kramer on CNBC is an analyst, yet he was still recommending Citi and Countrywide when everyone else had sense enough to short the financial stocks. So just because one calls themselves an "analyst", that in no way qualifies their opinion as more credible than anyone elses.
The thing I find most interesting is that you seem to want to take credit or somehow have your opinion deemed as "credible" because you refer to yourself as an "analyst", yet you refuse to identify yourself in order for others to examine your body of work. In my opinion, if you wish to remain anonymous and not have your work evaluated by others, then I wouldnt expect to be given the benefit of the doubt as to your qualifications as an analyst. No different than if a poster identified themselves as a "world class trainer" to qualify their opinions, however refused to identify themselves or name one world class fighter they trained.
I identify myself as a promoter and an advisor, and feel that I am qualified to debate most boxing issues. And my name and reputation is available for all to see. Does that make me more credible? Maybe, maybe not. But at least the reader can openly evaluate my credentials in making that determination.
Just my $.02
Edit: And Shane is WAY too slow to even think about hitting Floyd in the head with lead shots. Going to the chest, mid-section, and arms is IMO absolutely the right call. The head shots will only come at the end of combos, or Shane will be swinging at air all night long.
The poster who said "hit him on the arm" was spot on as well. Look at Roy Jones vs. Eric Harding for reference. Jones pounded on Hardings' arm for 4 or 5 rounds till Harding couldnt even throw it anymore.
One not need be a paid professional to qualify as an "analyst". Every poster here on some level fits that description. There is no pre-requiste to actually be "correct" though in having the title of "analyst". Jim Kramer on CNBC is an analyst, yet he was still recommending Citi and Countrywide when everyone else had sense enough to short the financial stocks. So just because one calls themselves an "analyst", that in no way qualifies their opinion as more credible than anyone elses.
The thing I find most interesting is that you seem to want to take credit or somehow have your opinion deemed as "credible" because you refer to yourself as an "analyst", yet you refuse to identify yourself in order for others to examine your body of work. In my opinion, if you wish to remain anonymous and not have your work evaluated by others, then I wouldnt expect to be given the benefit of the doubt as to your qualifications as an analyst. No different than if a poster identified themselves as a "world class trainer" to qualify their opinions, however refused to identify themselves or name one world class fighter they trained.
I identify myself as a promoter and an advisor, and feel that I am qualified to debate most boxing issues. And my name and reputation is available for all to see. Does that make me more credible? Maybe, maybe not. But at least the reader can openly evaluate my credentials in making that determination.
Just my $.02
Edit: And Shane is WAY too slow to even think about hitting Floyd in the head with lead shots. Going to the chest, mid-section, and arms is IMO absolutely the right call. The head shots will only come at the end of combos, or Shane will be swinging at air all night long.
The poster who said "hit him on the arm" was spot on as well. Look at Roy Jones vs. Eric Harding for reference. Jones pounded on Hardings' arm for 4 or 5 rounds till Harding couldnt even throw it anymore.
Comment