Why is it everytime someone thinks an old time heavy was good they are accused of having "an agenda"

To be honest this is exactly the sort of thing that I am talking about.

Anybody who holds a radically different opinion to you, is dismissed as a troll.

Not because they conduct themselves in a disrespectful manner, or because they ferment argument while providing little real contennt, but because they disagree with you!

 

Really?

What motivates a group of observers to slobber over grainy footage of Buddy Baer mauling some nobody on a 20 fight losing streak, and then extrapolating this performance to prove that Baer would not only hold his own in the modern era of the division but beat both combatants in this weekend's title fight?

Do you really want to talk about biased?

 

Spot on.

Some of the legends of yesterday have some of the worst form imaginable.

You can get novices that have better technique.

 

Perhaps the fact that said footage provides a new insight into his style?

 

There are some posters here with opinions so strange, that I can't take them seriously. I don't think they are trolling, though - they just don't know any better.

You, on the other hand, is a bit different. You have a way with words that tells me, that you aren't exactly stupid - so I believe you DO know better.

Which is why I don't understand, how you can argue (for example) that Carnera is a more well-rounded boxer than Bowe - not to mention your claim that Max Baer had "God given reflexes"! I mean, who comes up with something like that if not to troll people?

 

While these are minority opinions, they are not exactly unique to me.

The fact that a position is popular, does not necessarily make it right, or the people who disagree with it disingenuous.

 

perfectly said Janitor

 

Janitor has been on this site for about 15 years and I always found him to be one of the most knowledgeable posters on ESB and we lost quite a few great great posters over the years.

Janitor has always been well respected and a gentleman - deep boxing knowledge

 

Surely, the essential point of focus is on any given case being made, however outlandish the viewpoint might be? If someone is trolling, then are they really going to take the time to present a case, which on paper, looks to have been, at least, reasonably well thought out? Probably not.

If it can be established that a rare viewpoint is being put forward with a genuine case then it is only a matter of arguing against that case. If the viewpoint is as far fetched as one might initially consider it, then the case shouldn't be too hard to dismantle.

In other words, play the ball and not the man. To simply accuse the advocate of a minority position of having an agenda or being a troll, is not an argument.

 

Ok I'll play this game.

The popular opinion on Michael Jordan is that he is the best basketball player of all time or at the very least bare minimum top 5. A vocal minority of hardcore fans of players such as Allen Iverson or Paul Pierce may claim that they were better than Jordan but statistically, we know this is flat out false. In this case, the minority opinion is in the minority for a reason. Because it's ridiculous and anyone with even a casual knowledge of basketball knows it's ridiculous and could dismantle any argument within minutes. Anyone claiming such players were better than Jordan despite being knowledgeable of their carewrs and statistics would be called disingenuous at best and trolls at worst.

But if the argument were someone like Kareem Abdul Jabbar for instance, again its a minority opinion but the trained eye, statistics, and information available shows that it's actually not that crazy of a discussion.

Similarly, Ali or Louis being regarded as having the best resumes at heavyweight is popular for a reason. Mayweather, Pep, or Whittaker being regarded as possibly the greatest defensive wizards of all time is not by chance or fanboyish claims. If someone were to argue Ruslan Provodnikov had better defense than them, you'd laugh. It's not dismissed because it's a minority opinion, but its a minority opinion for a reason.

We all have freedom of speech and the right to our own unique opinions no matter how strange they may be. But we also reserve the right to call out inconsistent or illogical statements.

 

Yeah, you would think so - but it depends on who you're talking to.

Remember the Tua vs Corbett thread from some years back?:
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/david-tua-versus-jim-corbett.546116/

Janitor posted in this thread more than 100 times - completely immune to any common sense! So no - even the silliest notions can't always be dismantled through argument.

If you have followed Janitor over the years, you will have noticed, that it's more important to him that his posts sound clever - rather than the argument itself. As I have said before, he has a way with words, and is obviously proud of his debating skills. Which I fully understand - but sometimes it just becomes too much, imo.

 

Well put. It's not only difficult to accurately gauge the motivation behind an anonymous post on the internet, it's also pretty pointless.

If someone is putting together an argument for the aforementioned Buddy Baer to be an ATG heavyweight, it doesn't really matter whether that is their genuinely held belief, or they are taking a contrarian view for shits and giggles. The argument will stand and fall on its own merits or lack of them.

Before the internet was a thing, playing devil's advocate did not necessarily translate into being a dick. In certain situations it could be beneficial in establishing the credibility of a pre-existing view. It's not like any discussion has to reach a definite conclusion with winners and losers.

 

I do take your point. However, there's no accounting for stubbornness and you don't need to have changed someone's mind to have won the argument.

Posters, who decide to dig a trench with their heels, so as to protect their already shattered justifications are, more often than not, the losers in the debate; whether they admit to being beaten or not.

 

Indeed. I have often found viewpoints which, for whatever reason, are presently deemed less popular (or altogether unpopular), to be a most useful catalyst for learning. The more bizarre perspectives can play on one's curiosity and encourage a closer look at a thing.

 

Again, you are sort of revealing your own ideological entrenchment here.

Tua was a contender who consistently failed whenever he stepped up against somebody in the top ten.

Corbett whatever you think of him, is a former lineal heavyweight champion, who has appeared in top 20 all time heavyweight lists in the not too distant past.

Wouldn't it be strange if there weren't some people who favored him?