boxers' lack of knowledge about boxing

This applies to all sports, which is why I laugh off anyone who makes idiotic, know-it-all claims like "He's a pro, he obviously knows more about the sport than you!"

He may be better at it, but I certainly know a lot more about the history of the fight game than he or a lot of them. Same applies with sports like basketball, where Shaq didn't even know that Lenny Wilkens (now a coach) used to be an NBA player, and one of the 50 greatest of all time at that.

 

That's why I mostly don't like him other.Hell.....he didn't know who the hell Bernard was until he fought him.
Mother****er probably thinks he's the best MW ever.

 

Exactly. This is a point I have been trying to get across for most of my adult life - because a boxer is better at throwing punches than you or I does not mean they have anything like as great a knowledge of the sport. My friend told me he was watching Setanta a couple of weeks ago and it was obvious that former world supermiddleweight champion Richie Woodhall did not know who Harry Greb was.

 

Sweetpea using the words " know-it-all " to describe others must be some sort of joke.
Just because fighters like Woodhall don't know every world champion at Flyweight since 1901 doesn't mean i don't have tons more respect for them than some kid sat at his computer gathering pretty tedious information .
The fact is a pro boxer DOES know far more about the actual sport and science than someone who has never boxed.

 

How do you account for the big fight predictions of famous ex-boxers then? They are routinely woefully inaccurate, as we all saw from the recent Calzaghe-Jones debacle. Did the amount of horribly wrong predictions dent your belief in the superior knowledge of the ex-pro?

 

Did anyone see Darren Barker on Buncey's show the other week? Buncey asked him something about Harry Greb and Barker shrugged his shoulders and said he hadn't heard of him. I would surely have thought that as a middleweight boxer you would have heard of Greb.

 

.

the calzaghe-jones fight was a bit weird how everyone was picking jones.predictions are predictions though aren't they ? any clueless ****er who hardly ever watches fights can get a prediction right. to be honest i don't bother too much making predictions , due to me usually getting the close ones wrong and out of silly superstition, like you'll rarely see me predicting a win for my football team or a favorite fighter due to an inane belief i'm jinxing the ****ers.
i was more on about them knowing much more about the actual science of the sport, the physical side to it.

 

I have boxed you dumb ****, and still do, and I understand the mechanics of the sport as well as any.

As far as a boxer knowing more about the sport, I'm pretty sure we just established that isn't true at all and it's pretty obvious unless you're simply thick in the head (so you have an excuse).

How about someone like Teddy Atlas? One of the worst fight pickers and analysts around, yet he was a top notch trainer.

 

Fully agree with you. :good

 

Toney was exactly the same for Calzaghe-Lacy (Lacy will obliterate him) and for Calzaghe-Jones (Jones wins in four or five). He really is a moron, I don't think he looks any further than the colour of the flag on a guy's shorts before making his picks!

 

As soon as this thread popped up I immediately thought about this. I couldnt believe he had never heard of him. Bit disgraceful to be be honest

 

You are right: Just because, say, Manny Ramirez can hit a curve doesn't mean he knows more about the sport than George Will. (Sorry non-baseball fans; you probably won't get this)
To paraphrase; does Bert Sugar know how to turn his weight over into a punch? Can he throw a proper left hook? Maybe, but probably not; does he know more about the history of the sport than 95% of boxers out there? Most likely.

 

I'll ignore the first comment as i have no interest in exchanging insults with a teenager who poses in the bathroom and takes pictures of himself doing this.
As far as the other bit, you say you understand the mechanics of the sport as well as anyone. Yeah ****ing right. So not only are you the most knowledgable kid since Stephen Hawkings grew pubes you are now right up there with the best on the actual physical side of the game. Your mum must be evry proud, she has a prodigy on her hands.:good

 

These dudes prolly keep a real close eye on the other fighters in their division. As that's all they have to worry about fight wise. You don't have to be a boxing historian to be a great fighter and vice versa. That being said when a champ says he has not heard of a contender then I agree he is playing mind games.

 

To be fair to him, as there's no footage of Greb he won't have been studying tapes! However you would have thought that if you've spent half your life in a boxing gym you would have heard stories of him.

On a side note, did you get the impression that Barker wasn't the sharpest tool in the box? He seemed a bit bewildered by even the simplest questions. Maybe he was in awe of Big buncey !