My message to the NSB section:

[Salardo]

Okay here is what I think:
The problem here is that at least 50 % of the people posting here do not know boxing history. Yet they claim that they "know boxing" when the truth is you only "know boxing" if you know boxing HISTORY.
And you don't become a boxing historian by talking about Pacquiao and Mayweather all day long and act as if you know how to place them in boxing history. Because how can you place them in boxing history when you do not KNOW boxing history? You only know boxing history if you have studied it - meaning you watch all the old fighters and you read books or articles about boxing history. So instead of babbling for hours and days and months and years about Mayweather-Pacquiao-Pacquiao-Mayweather-Mayweather-Pacquiao, people here should just realise that they have to study the history first.

Watch the old fighters, all of them. Read books, there are tons of them and I didn't read a single boxing book in my life where I said afterwards "That book was rubbish". Because no matter what book it is, it always involves different eras and different fighters. So if you read a Gene Tunney book, there will be lots of stuff about Dempsey and Harry Greb and maybe even about Harry Wills. So you can never go wrong with a boxing book, no matter which one it is.

[PainfromUkraine]

Correct. Sometimes I wish there was a whole seperate forum for constant Floyd-Pac talk...a simple sticky topic won't do!

[WarMaidana]

what are you some kind of historian?

[Rockin']

Yet they claim that they "know boxing" when the truth is you only "know boxing" if you know boxing HISTORY.
.

Don't even get me started, LOL. There are a ton of ex-fighters that know the game as few of you ever will, yet they could tell you little about the history of the sport............. Rockin'

[WilkinsOlajuwon]

Add "Four Kings" by George Kimball and "At the fights" by Colum Mccann as required reading

[Salardo]

Don't even get me started, LOL. There are a ton of ex-fighters that know the game as few of you ever will, yet they could tell you little about the history of the sport............. Rockin'

I agree with that.
But this thread is not about the fact that there is a line that separates those who stepped into a ring and those who never did.
The topic of this thread is about something else.

[Rockin']

I didn't read a single boxing book in my life where I said afterwards "That book was rubbish". .

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

[Black Barty]

Okay here is what I think:
The problem here is that at least 50 % of the people posting here do not know boxing history. Yet they claim that they "know boxing" when the truth is you only "know boxing" if you know boxing HISTORY.
And you don't become a boxing historian by talking about Pacquiao and Mayweather all day long and act as if you know how to place them in boxing history. Because how can you place them in boxing history when you do not KNOW boxing history? You only know boxing history if you have studied it - meaning you watch all the old fighters and you read books or articles about boxing history. So instead of babbling for hours and days and months and years about Mayweather-Pacquiao-Pacquiao-Mayweather-Mayweather-Pacquiao, people here should just realise that they have to study the history first.

Watch the old fighters, all of them. Read books, there are tons of them and I didn't read a single boxing book in my life where I said afterwards "That book was rubbish". Because no matter what book it is, it always involves different eras and different fighters. So if you read a Gene Tunney book, there will be lots of stuff about Dempsey and Harry Greb and maybe even about Harry Wills. So you can never go wrong with a boxing book, no matter which one it is.

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?

[LacedUp]

Okay here is what I think:
The problem here is that at least 50 % of the people posting here do not know boxing history. Yet they claim that they "know boxing" when the truth is you only "know boxing" if you know boxing HISTORY.
And you don't become a boxing historian by talking about Pacquiao and Mayweather all day long and act as if you know how to place them in boxing history. Because how can you place them in boxing history when you do not KNOW boxing history? You only know boxing history if you have studied it - meaning you watch all the old fighters and you read books or articles about boxing history. So instead of babbling for hours and days and months and years about Mayweather-Pacquiao-Pacquiao-Mayweather-Mayweather-Pacquiao, people here should just realise that they have to study the history first.

Watch the old fighters, all of them. Read books, there are tons of them and I didn't read a single boxing book in my life where I said afterwards "That book was rubbish". Because no matter what book it is, it always involves different eras and different fighters. So if you read a Gene Tunney book, there will be lots of stuff about Dempsey and Harry Greb and maybe even about Harry Wills. So you can never go wrong with a boxing book, no matter which one it is.

NSB is a place for current boxing.

We have a Boxing History section for those wishing to discuss that. You are welcome any time.

[MindBat]

Alls I know is the first punch ever thrown in history was not by a boxer.


.