Boxrec - your thought's on this site

:good

Good point. One I have made many times myself

 

:good

My sentiments exactly.

 

:good

I totally agree with this as well. I've had to correct several bits of wire report nonsense myself.

I think you should be the one they defer to on the Greb record. Have you done much in the way of corrections on it?

 

BoxRec is a great informative site that we couldn't live without, not always 100% accurate or on the money, but who or what site is.

It's forum is OK, but just like most sites has it's "in crowd", Know it alls, and some ignorant posters who are only there to attack, rip or mock, rather than discuss boxing openly and honestly. Most forums are the same, where ignorant people don't allow for misinformation, young posters ill informed, or checky trouble makers aren't dealt with.

ESB Forum here is fast moving, suggesting a younger membership, but not as bad as the Boxrec Forum, which has died quite a bit. But for records and info TOP MARKS!

 

boxrec is a great resource but it's turned a bit crap lately. only having brit boxing news on the front page and the ridiculous amount of ads there have made it not as good as it once was. i personally believe it's just a matter of time before they start charging for access.

 

for all intent and purposes i think its pretty good. only beef is the ranking system they have, kind of odd.

 

Every single one of your posts is in some way or another bashing the new generation.

 

I only ever use it for searching boxers names, and for that it's great..P4P rankings and divisional rankings are bull**** though cause they're worked out with a formula I think

 

By that what i mean is if i want to judge a fighters opposition i can have a deeper look at the oppositions opposition if that makes sense.


Say for instance i was looking at Sonny Listons resume and trying to better judge my rating of him, i know who he fought and how good they are to an extent but there may be a few where i dont fully understand their resume i can check and look at who they beat and how they beat them then check that persons resume so even though i am looking at a guy who fought a guy who fought a guy who fought Liston i can use that to help me judge Listons win.

 

I like it. It is the best modern starting point for research. Im glad I followed boxing before the internet when you had to buy record books and keep all magazines for years for your research.

The best thing is you can cross check opponents with opponents so you can quickly navigate through an era and asses the level of its fighters. most things are recorded.

Basicly if you have witnessed a couple of generations of fighters come and go and you know how to fairly asses the levels of capabiltys the old fasioned way and you already know your history, you can aply that to most earlier eras.

I like that even kids can pick it up quick once they get past the fact that modern 20-0 fighters are largely manufactured against short notice fighters with losing records. I remember when you really had to explain to people why a former contender with say a 16-7-4 record is a tough fight for a 5-0 "house fighter".

 

not bashing at all, just recognizing youthfull arogance and letting them know that I/we are fully aware of it... in the same manner that many of the younger posters are quick, abrupt and try to write off something they don't agree with, more often than not don't really know about or worse don't want to know.

Not bashing, I'm not ignorant, and I respect veiws and make allowances for the such possible reasons, but just let people know from time to time that we are aware of their foolishness or vile, without having to resort to the same.

 

thats exactly how I use it. good example:good

can I ask did the name embrell Davidson crop up when you delved into liston's opponents back catalouge?

 

I think it's great, except for their ratings system, which seems to favor undefeated young prospects who've yet to beat anyone, over sturdy veterans with a few losses on the resume. And I think somehow British fighters are favored in this system.

 

I always remember Davidson was KOed by Moore in one round.

I think the link to Liston would be that he was KOed by Roy Harris in the first round and Roy Harris was TKOed in the first by Liston?

Harris was a good contender who went 12 rounds with Patterson before his corner stopped the fight, he was totally outboxed from start to finish and put down 3 or 4 times towards the end of the fight.