This is an open invite. New video show

[Combat Talk Radio]

I'm starting two new weekly video shows: one that focuses on politics and lifestyle, the other focusing on boxing.

It's the boxing one that's on the table. Target is sometime in December for the first show. Would be in the evenings. You need GOOD internet and if you're going to use your phone, it needs to be on your wireless, not mobile.

This isn't just about discussing the most recent fight(s) (that's part of it). This is a debate forum. A topic is presented, we debate it, with facts (not emotions). 15 minutes, but some may go longer depending on how deep the topic is.

Anyone who participates has to agree up front: they focus ONLY on the facts. Not what they "want", not what they "feel", not what they "wish". The facts.

Once they accept the facts they're free to respectfully discuss what they'd like to see happen, and why. But at no point will you ignore or dismiss the facts of the matter.

This also means, you can't just straight hate on a fighter without data to back it up. If the data doesn't support your fighter, you accept that. You'll get the topic sent to you before the video so you can (and should) do research.

By the time it's done, the goal is to have a greater respect for each other as boxing fans, AND open your perspectives beyond what your heart's telling you.




Now that you've heard the pitch...

IF you've got the balls to debate me on that forum AND show your face doing it (because videos WILL be shared on BoxingScene), PM me and I'll add you to the guest list.

[MUNG]

u mean i wont be able to be a fairly anonymous annoying online troll anymore, worrying

[anonymous2.0]

Can I wear a mask on the video? I got one of them horse masks

[MUNG]

Can I wear a mask on the video? I got one of them horse masks

yes but u will have to make a horsey noise after each point u make

[Combat Talk Radio]

u mean i wont be able to be a fairly anonymous annoying online troll anymore, worrying

No anonymity, no. Troll? Sure...you can troll as long as you have data to back it up.

Like if I say "Jeff Horn beat Manny" - that's on RECORD. It's irrefutable. Doesn't matter whether people think it was a robbery/gift/etc. Jeff Horn beat Manny.

If I say "Crawford has not defended against a credible opponent at 147", that's fact.

If I say "Floyd beat almost 30 current and former world champions", that's fact.

If I say "Manny Pacquiao has the best resume of the current active fighters" that's a debatable topic. Because you still have Carnelo out there and he has more names.

If I say "Carnelo's resume is P4P level" that's irrefutable. He's now held titles at 154, 160, 168 and 175 - at times simultaneously. That's what P4P people do.

What's debatable is whether he should have won against GGG in the first fight, whether him dropping WBC was a duck, whether he has judges/refs on his side (Angulo fight, Floyd fight, Golovkin 1, etc), whether he does or doesn't have power, etc.


If I say Ward has a solid resume, that's fact. What's debatable is whether he was truly tested during his career.



So the topics are open for people who can keep their emotions in check and keep the facts in focus. But no, you can't just troll off anonymously.

[TheMyspaceDayz]

Wilder is an alien that was sent to gain control of a large weak minded fan base through boxing. That’s step 1 of his plan.
Fury unknowingly threw a monkey wrench into step 2, which wouldn’t have been pretty.
I have the facts to back this up.

[Earl-Hickey]

Who's deciding what's facts and what's opinions

[Thunderstruck]

Who's deciding what's facts and what's opinions

He’s an idiot just his layout tells you this.Hes tasted the ball soup of every one of his favorite fighters .

[_Rexy_]

I'd be more than willing to do it as long as the barber shops are still open

[Combat Talk Radio]

Who's deciding what's facts and what's opinions

1. Is it in the history books?

2. Can you verify through reputable, non-biased sources?

Then it's fact.

Take Golovkin. Him unifying is in the books. Canelo beating the unified champion is in the books. There's no room for debate.

What IS debatable (and opinion), is whether Golovkin would have done any better 2-3 years before that.

What's not debatable is that Carnelo has ONLY ever lost to The Best Ever, so it's highly unlikely an earlier fight would have gone significantly different.

Just one example.