Need a forun for the fans from way back who were actually there and not just youtube

There is absolutely nothing that prevents you from sharing your live experience in here like others do. This doesn't seem like a legitimate attempt to create a new forum but an insult to young fans and a reactionary post after being outraged about what someone said of Duran.

It's completely unnecessary to put down this forum, after all there aren't many better ones, but you do it all the time. No need to try to alienate any posters that use this forum either. It's for everybody.

I'd suggest you to stop read internet forums if you cannot handle differing opinions, no matter how ignorant they may seem. You can either continue to be outraged at what some unknowledgeable person thinks or appreciate the contributions made to this forum by posters like john garfield, burt bienstock, hhascup and others. I do not think I need to tell you which is the better option.

Though I am in favour of perhaps creating a sticky thread about live experiences as one poster already suggested.

 

I started watching boxing in the mid 70's as a young kid. It's awesome (with a fast internet connection) to watch some of those fights on Youtube in the highest quality video. Sometimes it's like being in the ring. I don't see the drawbacks to it.

 

The old guys just can't hack it when a younger poster puts 'em in their place. Simple as.

 

Well said. If he really wanted a separate forum for him and the other elitists, he would have contacted us directly. But I think he knows damn well it's a ******ed idea, and just wanted to insult the people he thinks he outclasses.

 

The Morlocks is actually right.

Most of my posts are absolutely bull**** because I'm talking about fighters I've only seen on old television or film footage, and I'm too weak to resist being dragged into these stupid hypothetical fantasy match-ups threads that are 100% rubbish.
People here even think they are "knowledgeable" because they read some reports of some fight from 50 years past, and then go lecturing on the style and performance of the fighters in question.
You'd got guys in their 20s and 30s here who actually pass themselves off as "LaMotta experts" or "Burley experts".
It's a joke.
I'll admit 99% of my posts are born out of pure ignorance too. I never saw Hagler or Tyson or Spinks or Holmes in the flesh, in the ring. Not even once.

The Morlocks actually brought it home, and speaks the truth. I dont know why everyone's getting so defensive.

Socrates said, "The wisest man is the man who knows he knows nothing".
Now, that might be an exaggeration, but it's food for thought.
It's time to admit that this forum is full of people who know very little about the subjects they lecture on.

 

Who gives a ****ing **** if somebody watched a fight on YouTube recently rather than relying on some tenuous memory of squinting through the smoke at the back of an arena from 50 years prior? The latter's hardly clearly superior. As for people who haven't seen the film and claim to be Lamotta experts or Burley experts (and who does?) - that's another issue entirely. There are just as many who disingenuously play the "I saw them live" card as if it trumps all in front of them, and that's no better a state of affairs - they're just as clueless as those who haven't watched anything at all. The "speculation" accusation is just another red herring. Why should somebody who watched a fight online be any more predisposed to speculate about H2H than another who saw it live? There's no correlation - if anything the opposite: The younger/middle-aged posters are the ones I see claiming H2H is all speculation; the old-timers seem to be the ones to get stuck in and defend their era to the death at every juncture.

If you don't like the forum then you're welcome to **** right off as it suits you. Or open your own.

 

Basically, yes. They think being older gives them the last word on every issue, rather than the one who gets by on merit and analysis.

 

I certainly get your drift. There is an emotional advantage for those of us who were actually around for the fights that we're discussing,but part of it comes down to in depth study. I was born in 1955,so Muhammad Ali was obviously the first great champion that I can remember,but I can still talk,with some good knowledge,of Marciano and Louis' fights,for example. I enjoy good,constructive debate,it's those who argue while clearly not knowing what they're talking about,which irritates me.

 

Well said.

 

I accidently came across a thread at that big boxing records site where all the old timers were talking of thier experiences. Was refreshing but i dont think it'd work here.

 

a wax museum of boxing fans happier in their confused mess of subjective recollections than actually reviewing facts, film and considering a context outside their own precious "experience"...

that sounds scintillating.

 

One of the most nonsensical posts in this thread.

 

I think it was sarcasm.

 

I, for one, just like to be part of a boxing discussion -- ol' school or current. Steer clear of mythical match-ups -- too frustrating.

 

I don't.