The actual skill level of Jim Braddock

Being vindicated by practitioners of the craft would be relevant to the claim that YouTube popularity is somehow associated with accuracy *if* your YouTube popularity comes from practitioners of the craft.

My point with kung fu movies is that they're popular because they're action packed and visually impressive, not because they have good technique.

That is why I mentioned several non-fictional examples of action-packed, visually exciting, technically limited videos that are also popular.

The common factor is being action packed and visually impressive, not being fictional, IMO.

Great. But how does that show that YouTube popularity is related to the boxing acumen of the creator, if your audience isn't mostly boxing experts? This sounds like you're putting forward a separate metric from YouTube popularity.

Well, I wouldn't consider Classic forum popularity to be an accurate gauge of expertise in boxing either. At least not without heavy qualifications.

I couldn't replicate your results with really good boxers, so I doubt I could replicate them with bad boxers.

My whole argument was that your superior editing talents might be responsible for your success. The only way to test that would be for *you* to edit a video about a bad boxer, making a serious attempt to make him look exciting and impressive. Somebody like Kimbo Slice, who is generally agreed to be exciting but not very good.

Good point. How heavily does his audience overlap with yours, and how do you know?

 

You are still arguing against a strawman. You really need to reread the quote you responded to with this.

Remember when you said you would dig through my posts to find where I said that YouTube popularity directly concludes accuracy? You also said you would get back to me about that. You never did. Because you couldn’t find it. Because it doesn’t exist.

I suggest giving up your obsession for argumentation and start adhering to your better senses. Because if two long posts can’t get through to you, then why continue?

I keep telling you that something is Y, and you keep going on as if I said X. You want to argue with me about my work, my space, something that I’m far more familiar with than you ever will be, then you’re gonna have to come correct.

You’ve disguised your greed for argumentation points with genuine inquiry. Which I was able to quickly and easily identify from that very first overzealous strawman you made. You’re not trying to learn or level with me. You’re trying to counter, blindly, at the cost of reading comprehension and common sense.

 

You think I'm going to ruin all the work I've ever done by making a Kimbo Slice edit with the feeling and themes of him being a great champion boxer? Are you out of your mind? You think my work (thousands of hours), and I, are some play things for this little debate you have going on in your head? You are out your goddamn mind. That's like Apple creating a shitty product to make a point to some zero experience bozo. Or Spielberg intentionally creating an awful movie to answer a dumb, shallow point made by a critic who never held a camera. You think I'll serve 41,000 people ****, to make a point to Cross_Trainer on ESB? You must be out of your mind. This reflects the shallow drama mindedness of this forum, and of you.

You're the one who wrongfully interpreted my personal beliefs as a scientific claim.
You ****ing do it.

Almost everyone who knows my work, knows Wylies work, and vice versa.
I know from the conversations that occur about our work. And because we both release our content to the same demographic on the same platform.

 

Well Galento knocked Louis down. It wasn't exactly a Herculean feat.

Braddock doesn't seem like a bad boxer per se, but he wasn't particularly skilled either.

 

Yeah, not particularly skilled at all. He looks like an awkward, durable tough guy with a bunch of bad habits and technical lapses, who packed a wallop when he could be bothered to throw his punches properly. I don't think his style and technique would have served him well in later eras.

 

Perhaps we are arguing over some fairly narrow differences here?

I don't think that anybody is arguing that he was anything other than one of the weaker lineal champions.

 

His argument is that Braddock was completely devoid of skill, and claiming that any portion of his film reels are examples of boxing skills is thereby deceptive.

Any other boxing champions we can say the same for?

 

Knew you were reading this thread (Shout out S) tool . So predictable. LOL.

 

Rez , why are you letting this guy bug you .. I think both of your videos are reflections of the film makers .. Your's brings good spirited joy about a courageous warrior. He on the other hand choose to invest his time on a hatch job. You won hands down.

 

@klompton2 You obviously have a deep passion for boxing history. Presumably you want to share it, maybe I'm wrong, but I find it hard to imagine someone that cares that much not wanting to bring it to others

How much more accessable, is Reznik making that? How many people are likely to be interested in historical fighters thanks to Reznik?

At the end of the day, there's got to be something that's going to make someone care about boxing history, and that's pretty going have to be something on an emotional level. Few people are just going to wake up and start hunting for rare fights, or reading old newspapers, or even buy a book on someone they've never heard of. You need something to make it accessable.

Whatever issues you might have with him, can you atleast concede this value of Reznik's videos?

 

So we're still doing this?

OK. I thought we settled what you meant a couple pages ago. I'm not even sure what you're accusing me of arguing in bad faith about. But I'll walk down memory lane and explain why I read your posts the way I did.

(All highlights mine.)

Let's start at the Greb thread, where you were arguing with mrkoolkevin. You'd been criticizing mrkoolkevin's videos on Youtube, just like you criticized Klompton2's video in this thread. (https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...harry-greb-shadow-boxing-video.614135/page-10)

mrkoolkevin didn't see what Youtube popularity had to do with boxing acumen. He said as much:

In your reply to the above post from mrkoolkevin, you explicitly connected your Youtube "likes" with your "ability to decipher what is and isn't impressive in boxing".

Looked pretty clear to me.

People "like" Reznick's videos --> People agree with Reznick's content selection --> Reznick knows what's highlight worthy --> Reznick knows what's impressive in boxing.

Now fast-forward to this thread.

Klompton2 posts a video full of technique analysis, in a thread dedicated to "the actual skill level of Jim Braddock". You post the following:

So again, in a thread about fighters' technical skills, you bring up Youtube likes and dislikes.

mrkoolkevin even protested that your video didn't convince anyone that Braddock was skilled, which was the point of the thread.

And then klompton2 made the same accusation -- that your videos were misleading about actual boxing skill:

You replied to Klompton2's sentence I highlighted above, which means that your post was a reply specifically to that point. Here is what you said:

So Klompton2 didn't believe your videos accurately reflected Braddock's real skills. Once again, your response was to point to Youtube comments. You even hammered it in by saying that Klompton2 had "[met] reality".

That's where I entered the picture. Here was my post in full:

Based on what you'd written throughout the thread, and in the past Greb thread, I think I interpreted your posts very reasonably.

And, lo and behold, I got very close to your actual position. That's what's most puzzling about all this. In one of your next posts, you explained what you meant. It was basically what I said:

So what, exactly, are you so upset about? That I didn't use your exact words? (Which you hadn't used until this post.)

In rereading the above, it looks like I pegged your beliefs pretty darn accurately. Your posts are using Youtube popularity (likes, comments) to demonstrate boxing knowledge. You bring your Youtube popularity up when your knowledge is questioned. You bring your opponents' Youtube popularity up when you're attacking them. You added a qualifier in your last post that you're talking about "strong correlation", and guess what? That's exactly what forum argument and discussion are for. To clarify things.

So no, Reznick. I'm not playing some intellectually dishonest game with you.

In fact, I've not only tried to be polite throughout, but I've also spent a healthy chunk of my spare time digging through multiple defunct threads at your request.

 

If you don't like drama, I think you're going about this the wrong way.

Look, Reznick. If I'm some shallow forum bozo and you're Steven Spielberg, then your challenge to make a better video makes even less sense. It would prove nothing. The only way it would be relevant is if I had your talent in video-making.

That's the whole point of my Kimbo Slice example. It wasn't some dastardly attempt to force you to make a Kimbo video.

Thank you. That is very interesting.

 

No, he was basically a small, slow, not particularly powerful come forward stalker who would have been utterly outgunned in any later era where such fighters were a dime a dozen, and a hell of a lot harder punching and resilient.

Can you imagine Braddock vs Tua? Ouch.

 

Well whatever his other limitations, Galento was clearly one of the hardest punchers of the era.

Let's look at the list of men who knocked Louis down:

Schmeling
Braddock
Gallento
Baer Jr
Walcott
Marciano

Clearly all men who were punchers of some sort of repute.

Braddock himself is the only one that you would even question!

 

Tua seems to depend rather heavily on the imagination, when it comes to beating world class opposition!