Classic Forum Pet Peeves

Emotional fanboys are why I don’t discuss current scene boxing unless it’s in person or in private groups. Wilder, Mayweather, Pacquaio, Canelo fans made that impossible for me. Wilders arguably being the worst.

 

Yeah, I’ve generally felt the more science and nutrition has improved, the less nuanced fighters have become and there’s no sport more nuanced than boxing.

Funny thing is, those folks also don’t allow the thought “what if this 40s fighter had access to all today’s science and PED’s”

 

I don't think that most people understand very much at all about teaching and preparing a fighter to fight.
Every minute that is spent lifting weights or listening to an s&c coach or a nutritionist is all time away from perfecting technique, developing a fight plan, etc...
You put more time into things that do not make you a better fighter at the expense of things that do. The sad thing is that getting a guy into great physical condition is a lot easier on everyone than making him into a really good fighter.
So I guess my pet peeve is when someone points to how "ripped" and "cut" a boxer looks to be as proof that he can fight. I wait to see the evidence of how badly he neglected his craft when the fight starts.

 

There are certainly one or two on here that take thing s waaaay to personal and to heart.
As you state, it's just words typed out. Any one who gets worked up over a boxing thread really does need to learn to put things into perspective.
Most on here are sound, just a wee couple that get their panty s in a twist.
Anyway, Happy new year for the next one Kw.

 

Great thing is Wilder and Canelo threads arent dominating the Classic yet like they do the General. But when that starts, the **** will truly hit the fan.

 

Is he still around? I have had him on ignore for a long time.

 

By the time their careers are over, Wilder won’t be discussed or cared about. He’ll lose a few more fights then they’ll move on.

Id say the vast majority of those emotional fanboys are more fans of those fighters than of the sport so they might not find their way into classic.

 

100% Chris. Well put

 

We on the forum are just cross section of society most ok, some a bit more than ok and a few who could start a fight in a empty room.

Fergy have a knockout new year yourself, and if it not a ko one, at least ensure you win on points by going the distance till 22

 

No real pet peeves. Things that used to irritate and annoy me now mostly just amuse me.

 

Bowe said the hardest he ever got hit wasn't by Lewis or Golota but Herbie Hide. Check out the size disparity there.

 

That turned out well for Hide.

 

The good old if Z he couldn't beat X he's certainly not going to beat Y. It's not as much the XYZ theory (which we know is horse manure) as much as in many cases the loss to X is when Z was either green or past his best and this single moment has been plucked out of his career in a pathetically biased effort to discredit him and favor lusted after Y. There is no comment or leeway given as to career stage or intangibles. Amazingly this can be seen regularly and sometimes from people you thought knew better. It even extends into tough fights like if Z struggled with X then there's no way he's beating Y. Invariably Z has whupped fighters better than X but it's ignored in the effort to nitpick and fixate on a perceived negative with no intangibles admitted to or taken into consideration. How many times have we seen "Clay's" knock downs against Banks and Cooper brought up as something crucially important? How about Frazier getting dropped as a fledgling against Bonavena as something of huge importance in a mythical match? Jones sudden fall off the vertical edge of a cliff is somehow seen by many as him being exposed despite a decade or brilliance and at a stage where other ATG's were safely tucked away from the ring. BOOM, there it is as to why he can't possibly beat this one or that one or even at times have a chance.

Another is the common occurrence of rating or assessing someones chances against others due to how much you like or in this case dislike a fighter personally. Examples of guys who commonly cop this would be SRL, Lewis, Hopkins, Tyson (tho unlike some others he has large amounts of real disciples to offset things), KT , Hamed, Jones, Marciano (not so much per mythical matches but ridiculous scrutiny) etc. It may be where they are from or where they landed, it may be personality dislike (often intense and all conquering), it may be a defensiveness to how highly they are regarded and insecurities they might be rated higher than a personal fave or era etc. Some you can spot a mile away but others are extremely hard to latch onto and it can take months to spot them. It might be a little description that slips out in the middle of a paragraph but something usually slips at some point but it can be hard to catch. The personal disdain is there tho.

I fully understand people getting sick of multiple thread starters even more so when it's usually heavyweights.

Not a peeve but new names suddenly appearing then posting up a storm and looking like they've been here for years (and many have been in other names) is a little bemusing. I'm not talking about a guy like Bujia who was up front.

 

No, because in Muhammad Ali's first title reign, 1964-1967, he had incredible speed, reflexes, stamina, and footwork. In his first title reign, he was not very vulnerable like when he returned from his banishment in 1970. In his first title reign, he was never put on the canvas as he was before he defeated Sonny Liston for the title in 1964. Yank Durham did not want Joe to fight Ali in 1967, Frazier was no.1 contender. And Ken Norton broke Ali's jaw in 1973, he did not have any of his gifts that he had in his peak years. But rather than debate, it is my opinion. I do respect everyone's opinions that is why I always post a Like. I think in 1967, Ali outpoints Frazier and Norton, Ali was never a hard puncher, and was always in shape. Plus in those peak years, he had a chip on his shoulder because of his beliefs and his opposition to the politically motivated Vietnam war by a warmongering president.