Classic Forum Pet Peeves

Ray Leonard getting so many passes. Not just being the commissioner of boxing. Ducking rematches, bribing Richare Steele for the Hagler bout, having rules not enforced because of his star power, not just in the ring but out of it. The Lalonde fight being an undefensible example.

He had star power and he was an American so its okay. People who don't worship him need to just get over it.

 

I know I do. The man was incredible.

 

The other thing for me is the idea some have that just about any 220 or 230lbs heavyweight who is considered a slugger can KO Joe Frazier. Joe would chase most if not all of them out of the ring. They couldn't hurt him.
George Foreman wasn't just another puncher. The man had wrecking balls in his gloves. He had a homicidal mentality especially after he hurt a guy. I've seen on here people compare for example Bonecrusher Smith or Tommy Morrison's power to Foreman. For God's sake Bonecrusher lost to Marvis Frazier. What the hell would his had dad have done.

 

Casual fan posters. They act like they know boxing when they don't know anything. YDKSAB *In My Roger Mayweather Voice*.

 

A lack of respect from posters to one another simply because of differing opinions. I try not to get involved but it can be really irritating when you get, or see others get, abuse based on a differing opinion, many times that difference being perfectly rational and well argued.

Posters who criticise the forum. There are a few negative characters who dish out a bit of stick and then say that everyone on it should get a life. When questioned why they are so mean-spirited, they say something like 'I only come on here to amuse myself with you saddoes'. I know we're not naming names but the obnoxious Eubank worshipper and the rabid Foreman fanatic from the Canaries would spring to mind if we were.

Well, if you don't get anything out of it, there really is one simple solution that leaves everyone happier. FTFO to somewhere else.

Oh, and those who talk (invariably with a very misplaced lack of modesty) about their own boxing because they do a boxercise class after work. It's lovely and all but we're here to discuss classic boxing involving fighters that we have a chance of having heard of and seen, not to be subjected to a thread which becomes tantamount to who reckons they've got the biggest schlong - without any evidence to back it up.

Not that I want to see the evidence, mind. Either of their boxing prowess or aforementioned schlong.

 

Nice to put words in people’s mouths. No I don’t think it particular matters much especially with heavyweights. You can bring up great fighters at 175 that became hw champs even in “modern” times. Seems you have the obsession with Marciano.
You can always tell the people that never sparred a day in their lives. Style is more important then size. Size isn’t “nothing” but it’s not the end all be all otherwise men like Frazier, Tyson, Marciano, Charles, and many others wouldn’t have sniffed the title. But simple minded individuals like yourself fail to even look back a few years and view the proof for yourself. As if big men didn’t exist back then.

 

I've sparred plenty of days, but obviously have to do some more to discover that the marginal effects of size takes a deep dive to zero at 185 lbs.

 

"Linear."

 

Don't forget how he shot Reagan and framed a poor mental case for it.

 

People that take this forum way too seriously and start criticizing you just for disagreeing with them

 

This content is protected

 

My personal peeve is people that knee-jerk a reaction and don't look at the footage. You can often see from the footage how fights will play out, but people ignore it. Happens time and again. Like where one fighter is completely shot and has nothing left, getting compared to another fighter who is clearly better at the point in time ... and people pick the shot fighter because "he was greater". JFC and you know they didn't bother looking at the film

 

3 things that are always a pet peeve for me:

1) The fanboy - an almost impossible situation to have a normal conversation where points and facts are meted out. And I find my self exhausted through the years arguing a point where the fanboy refuses to see anything contrary about his idol. A recent question on here was the 'what if' Julio Cesar Chavez v Ken Buchanan in their primes met. My bad, I should have known better to say anything against JC, because I picked Buchanan over 15 rounds. Well, the Chavez fanboys came out - they didn't attack - but were offering the age-old, 'Yeah, I see Chavez slowly breaking Buchanan down and stopping him around the 12th.' Yeah, right. Like that happened to Buchanan so many times over the course of his almost 70 fights - many of them over 15 rounds over a multitude of different styles. I have no problem with an opinion if it is well sorted, but this was just a fan-boy response. I couldn't even respond to it. It's like I was fed up with it.

2) The general forum invaders - They should just wear a sign. They will come over here and start some crap that Tony Canzoneri wasn't any good because he had 20 losses or so on his record. It is just impossible to start explaining the difference between the live-gate era where fighters fought often, hard and in an exciting manner to feed the family during the depression. They couldn't even comprehend the notion of someone like Fritzie Zivic fighting on consecutive nights in different cities. They're more used to seeing someone like Gary Russell fighting once a year for 6 consecutive years. And let's not even talk about losing your 25-0 record, because if you do, you're worthless.

3) The a**wipe - how are they permitted to roam on this forum? Sometimes they hit it right and are banned, but then they're back like nothing happened. There are 2 on this forum whom I will not even respond to. One does not engage in discourse, he makes a statement and then stands back for applause and petals to be thrown at his feet. And woe to anyone who - like me - who said, "Uh, I don't think so." Oh, man the effrontery! I envisioned him screaming, 'Doesn't he know who he is talking to?!'

The second guy is an unhinged dude who - clearly purposely - will come out with the biggest load of gibberish one has ever heard. But IMO, he is clearly winding up other posters because no one could really be this stupid. And he will argue the most ridiculous statement.

Anyways, only because the question was asked about my pet peeves. That's me on my soap box this Tuesday afternoon. The peeves are a small percentage. For the most part I love coming here for good discourse.

 

Too many David Tua threads.

 

For fantasy fights between two guys who fought at the same weight, with one being a modern fighter and the other being older, someone will usually pick the modern fighter because he's bigger. End of discussion.

Leaving aside that weigh-in day is rarely specified in those threads, just think about that. Someone liked boxing enough to register for a message board and engage in hundreds or thousands of conversations about the sport, and that's the kind of discussion that they want to have. Nothing about styles, strategy, strengths, weaknesses - just pick the guy who was allowed to cut weight more. I don't understand it. How can somebody be passionate enough about boxing to want to talk about it that much, when a dream fight between legends conjures up such simple and uncaptivating thoughts?

Maybe that's what excites some people, though. Watching a man destroy a much smaller man, smiling and thinking to themselves, "Now THAT'S a guy who can cut weight."