My message to the NSB section:

[Salardo]

Get off your high horse, will you.

I became a hardcore boxing fan in late 2006. Since then, I have watched every fight I can, and always kept up with the latest news. Watching/following boxing is one of my main hobbies.

BUT I never watch old fights. I have never seen a full Robinson, Ali, Leonard, Whitaker etc. fight. The reason is that I simply can't watch spoiled fights. Knowing the result takes almost all the fun out of it for me.

And I don't give a rat's a.ss how Floyd, Manny or any other active boxer rates historically. I only care about who is the best NOW.

Does that make me less of a boxing fan than you?

Okay, so you admit you never watched a fight pre 2006. So I got no problem with that at all. But what I do have a problem with is when you only watch current boxing then why do you make references to boxing history?

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13823803#post13823803

[WilkinsOlajuwon]

Lacedup and Blackbart have TOTALLY missed the point of the OP:

Dude is saying that having knowledge of boxing history helps you understand and appreciate the current sport.

[RawDawgHasSpokn]

Lacedup and Blackbart have TOTALLY missed the point of the OP:

Dude is saying that having knowledge of boxing history helps you understand and appreciate the current sport.

Precisely. There's a clear division in views from new age fans and those who know its history but sometimes its good to have different view points on a topic. That being said, "Sorcery at Caesars" is an interesting read about Hagler/Hearns.

[LacedUp]

Lacedup and Blackbart have TOTALLY missed the point of the OP:

Dude is saying that having knowledge of boxing history helps you understand and appreciate the current sport.

Probably.

Read the first couple of lines and skimmed the rest.

Sorry if I misunderstood something.

[Black Barty]

Okay, so you admit you never watched a fight pre 2006. So I got no problem with that at all. But what I do have a problem with is when you only watch current boxing then why do you make references to boxing history?
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...3#post13823803

I never commented on the ability of any old boxer, and never compared them to the active ones. I made that short remark because, as you can see from my previous post, the "older is better" attitude of some boxing fans really annoys me.

You don't see it in any other sport. I also follow soccer, and I have never heard anyone say something like "you don't know soccer if you haven't seen the 1958 World Cup Final with Pelé", or "Messi or Ibra ain't sh.it, they couldn't even lace Maradona's shoes".

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Do what I do, have conversations with people who are knowledgeable and can have a mature discussion.

The problem isn't the trolls or the little kids that don't know ****, it's the fact that it's the internet and we give them a voice.

Anyone can say anything on the internet, so just avoid the trolls and idiots, and choose to have conversations with people you respect.

[Spray_resistant]

I think what you want is people to stop rambling on as if there are only 2 fighters in the sport of boxing, been a fan since about 97 and occasionally take some time out to watch vids from older fighters but that is a alot of content to research and just don't have the time for it while keeping up with the current crop of fighters.

[edgarg]

Try Joyce Carol Oates on Boxing and you won't be able to say that truthfully anymore............... Rockin'

I have always been puzzled as to why Oates was regarded as an "authority" on boxing. I think she did a book or two on boxing. She was "THE" expert for a short period , a year or two and then faded away. I recall that she said the greatest influence on her apart from her grandmother was Alice in Wonderland....... That tells me enough, she stayed in wonderland........

I tried to get through one of her "boxing" books (she only wrote a couple I think) and dumped it after about 20 pages. (It may have been 10 pages, gloomy and poorly written according to my exacting standards, which were formed on 19th cent. literature where writers were meticulous and neat and whose language was exquisite and correctly applied). And I am reading in one way or another for about 12-15 hours a day-every day. I have a large amount of books, and stopped collecting when I discovered the Ebooks on the computer quite a few years ago.

But Oates...... worse even than Ondaatje, and that's saying a lot.

[Rockin']

I have always been puzzled as to why Oates was regarded as an "authority" on boxing. I think she did a book or two on boxing. She was "THE" expert for a short period , a year or two and then faded away. I recall that she said the greatest influence on her apart from her grandmother was Alice in Wonderland....... That tells me enough, she stayed in wonderland........

I tried to get through one of her "boxing" books (she only wrote a couple I think) and dumped it after about 20 pages. (It may have been 10 pages, gloomy and poorly written according to my exacting standards, which were formed on 19th cent. literature where writers were meticulous and neat and whose language was exquisite and correctly applied). And I am reading in one way or another for about 12-15 hours a day-every day. I have a large amount of books, and stopped collecting when I discovered the Ebooks on the computer quite a few years ago.

But Oates...... worse even than Ondaatje, and that's saying a lot.

yeah, I'm with you. I never cared to finish the one that I started. She had no real insight, just outside perceptions.

Ondaatje? Isn't he that cat who just won the strawweight WBJ(world boxing joke) interim oriental world super duper regular title? I didn't realize that he was a writer too........... Rockin'

[Chiboxing123]

Ok so this thread is........ All I know is I've been watching boxing since I was a kid, love the sport and enjoy boxingscene because it's a place to voice my opinion and here others. Jeez alotta people been bi!!!in on here lately