Boxrec - your thought's on this site

I can't see any good reason to not appreciate it. Does it have as deep or active message board as this site? No, but no other sites have either.

The results are as good as they are likely going to get for old time fighters or even those through the 70's. I know they aren't accurate ( My favorite fighter from "the old days", Roughhouse Fischer, has a bunch of small club fights not listed and doesn't have his first fight, a W4 against Max Czerwonka in Wisconsin, listed either), but at least it is a storage place to more easily accumulate current results so that we don't lose any more fights to the mists.

I appreciate the work and passion that went into creating it and have used it extensively over the last few years.

 

Had a tank-of-a-welter on my boxing team, Michael DeLaRue, who won the N.Y. Golden Gloves at 16. He turned pro 'n rocked anyone he hit with his left hook.

Years later wanted to check something about Michael's record on BoxRec. He was listed as dead. A surprise to me. Michael was very much alive 'n a longshoreman.

Took BoxRec a few years to correct it.

 

I've already posted elsewhere that their scoring stats for Froch vs Dirrell is a total joke. And doubtful it's an "accident."

 

What an awful attitude you demonstrate.

I'm a young-ish lad myself and my ignorance to the history of boxing was astounding (as most people's surely was at one point).

I heard the same criticism's about the classic forum that you just listed but I gave it a go anyways. I wanted to find out about langford in one of my first posts here; I created a thread asking why he was considered great. Noone mocked my instead people were more than happy to share their knowledge and educate me.

Let me tell you now my boxing history has grown exponentially since I began posting on this classic forum and that's a huge credit to the posters here.

Ofcourse the younger generation will be ignorant until we get told something.

I'm a maths teacher so maybe I view things differently but i'd fail miserably if I assumed all the pupils were ignorant, arrogant and wouldn't listen to me.

You do a disservice to the respected posters on here who are willing to pass on their knowledge.

 

but i'd fail miserably if I assumed all the pupils were ignorant, arrogant and wouldn't listen to me.

I DON'T assume that about anyone, I do however sit back reading hundreds of posts, watching people attack or insult one another, or refuse to accept someone elses insight...hundreds of post and say nothing, Nothing.

so IF occasionally I point out that I'm aware of such offence, you hilite the occasion, but exclude the silence of hundreds, NO Correction, thousands of posts!

I know there is great knowledge here and great receptive posters, I've read that among the thousands of post, but there is also some checky upstarts.

No offence to you or anyone, I have never done any of that. I like Boxing history and the great old fights too!

 

No, you came to Classic expecting to find threads with people favouring Joe Grim to KO1 Mike Tyson and Boston Tom McMoustache to outclass and school Roy Jones Jr over each 1 of 40 rounds.

You're the ignorant one, and i wouldnt be surprised if you'd stopped watching boxing in 1940

 

Being aware of trolls on this website is one thing. Tarring us youngsters with the same brush is another.

There is a thread on here that has everyone's age. Read through it and you'll be surprised.

 

I just told you, I don't tar anyone, never have, sorry you have taken offence.

 

Good for search. But i aint so much into.

 

ignorance has nothing to do with age.

on topic, boxrec is great. the amazing thing about it, i think, is that plenty of journeyman fighters from various eras have relatively complete records. when it comes to tennis stats, for example, only the top players have complete records online. it just goes to show that boxing fanatics take a love for their sport to a new level!

of course there is more to the history of boxing than a list of who won and who lost, though.

 

yeah, that's not close to being accurate. only by having the ability to communicate with the dead and interview the greats of yesteryear can one become a boxing historian.

I don't get it, just because you didn't spend months looking through microfilm to publish something that someone else hasn't doesn't make you any more of a historian than someone who finds things a different way.

find a rare book on amazon and using a long forgotten author's opinion is no different.

the new research methods of actually looking at what the reporters of the day say about the fights, politics and fighters of their times shed a lot of unfavorable light on previously undoubted 'authorities', like famous magazine publishers who interjected a lot of color to their work but not having the same opinion held by the guys who saw the fights firsthand.

yet those people are unquestioned 'historians'.

 

i do not take offence. to paraphrase the great martin luther king i just wish i lived in a society where i was judged not upon my age but upon the content of my character.

i have no reason to be offended by you voicing your opinion. i just felt inclined to point out the perceived hostility in your post.

i do feel the site could be stronger moderated especially in the general forum but by and large the mix of posters is a good one and after all we do have an ignore button if you come across those who irritate you.

 

yeah back on topic i only use boxrec as a means of looking at who fought who and when. from the early quarter of the century and before there are a lot of incomplete records but boxrec is the best we have.

it is raw data at it's finest. sometimes people apply incorrect context but they usually get exposed if debating with any knowledgeable poster.

 

Its good for statistics (fights, measurements, weights, description of fights), nothing more.

The ranking is as it is. Its better ranking than ABC's belts. But as it is a computer ranking, there are many mistakes, so its not a great source when you want to compare fighter's position in the division.