Boxing Is A Business Keeping The Casual Fan Entertained Is Very Important.

I'd appreciate it if you're going to respond to my posts you read them instead of skimming them.

Nah, I don't understand. Seems we're going to have to agree to disagree here. This'll be my last post, sorry I derailed y'all's thread, I had hoped for a different outcome.

Fan is short for fanatic.

I did explicitly issue an open challenge to any willing to read a book on Daniel The Jew Mendoza claiming it would influence their perspective on fight sales. Yes, of course I'm willing to go to bat over the idea that Mendoza has more to do with how to sell a fight than a ****ing smile or good ****in' mic skills for ****'s sake.

Are you psychic or some ****? Some sort of magical, spiritual, telepathic all knower? How do you know nothing in 1850 makes yer perspective irrelevant? Why are you so hung up on LPRR years? I pointed out the information was largely assumption and gave an example as to why I know it's assumption. I personally feel Mendoza is the most relevant character to that conversation and King second, but pay ****ing attention, I told you guys to do your own research. I've practically begged you. I don't care if you research Mendoza, or King, or Mayweather, or just the practices themselves.

edit - sorry about that Beouche.

 

Na. Will be interesting to see how it unfolds

So long as the new non racist guy keeps it in check, and CST is up for an argument, we could have another Bailey Loudon on our hands

 

I certainly do. When you have guys like this teaching people things they themselves know little about all you have is the blind leading the blind. The least anyone who knows better can do is point out they know better and point to where to find the truth. I actually expected OP to be at least a little interested. He wrote a novella on the subject but refuses to learn anything from the man who quite literally wrote the book we use to this day.

I don't actually participate in the practice. H2H comparatives with clear criteria makes more sense to me. X is a better fighter than Y because of Z sort of deal. I like to talk about technique and I don't mind a conversation about who won the shiniest trinket but, and I don't mean this offensively, I couldn't care less which fighter makes whose panties the wettest or the least. I enjoy the comfort of empiricalism. I don't know how one does an unbiased list of fighters. That seems counter intuitive to me but maybe y'all know of some informal criteria I don't that allows for such a thing.

Made a liar of myself, but I had to come back and respond to that given I accidentally quoted ya.

At least i've the non racist bit working for me.

 

1. I managed to put myself through reading your input entirely.
2. If you want to challenge people to a book-off, or whatever it is you're after, go make a thread about it, you may find a kindred spirit here who may put your mind at ease.
3. It seems you take boxing far too seriously, like if this site did become a boxing encyclopaedia with perfect memoirs from 1700 which will stand the tests of time; I wouldn't be using it. As I said earlier, not everybody has time to drop what they're doing to read a book some ALT on a website is demanding them to do.
4. If you really wanted a debate with the OP, you would at least find a different means of debate, because not everybody reads boxing books from 1700, you could have find a common ground to put your point across, but you're coming across as rather pretentious, obnoxious and rude.