How do you rate your own boxing knowledge?

I always wanted to be a 10, M, but I'll have to settle with being a 6.

 

For me I think general boxing is level 4
But when it comes to Muhammad Ali I´m between level 5 and 6, say level 5,5 then.
At least in my opinion, he he!
All the best
The Predator

 

Between 3 and 4.

 

i would say 2 would be a stretch on nowdays boxing as i only follow welter weight and up,but prob. 3-4 on classic unless your talking about dempsey then im a 5 as ive researched him constantly for a couple of years now

 

I wouldnt say Im any better then 3, though several aspects of 3+ I have done.

 

I'm a 2 or 2.5 I suppose, certainly not higher.

 

about a 4

 

Some combination of 2, 3, and 4. I know a lot of things fairly in depth, and I've read and watched a lot of tape on the sport, and I usually seem to do very well at analyzing and breaking down styles and stle matchups, which is a major strength for me.

However I also have some blindspots, I haven't watched too much film that goes back before the 60s or so, and don't always keep up completely with current events. (There were a few years where I more or less stopped paying attention to boxing altogether, for example). So it can be a little up and down with me. I think I'm usually pretty good though, and having a damn near superhuman memory helps a lot with remembering details, facts, etc.

 

id like to think a level 4

 

Level 2. Don't have cable or PPV, and not keeping track of current events anyway, so it should be below level 3.

 

Mmm...between a 3 and a 4 as far as general knowledge goes.

I used to be a hell of a lot lot more hardcore and have watched boxing for nearly 30 years now, but these days I just enjoy posting and watching the big fights.
All my boxing tapes and magazines I got rid of many years ago. A shame really, but I lost interest in boxing several years ago, only to come back and have my interest renewed. By then the damage was done. Now I rely mostly on memory (not ideal) to get me by, although I have purchased several biographies since being here which has helped.

All periods of boxing interest me; there is not any era as such I do not appreciate. That's going way back to London Prize Ring rules to the present day.
Personally I find it impossible to have in-depth knowledge of all eras and fighters. I tend to isolate specific periods or fighters and concentrate on them.

So no, I am not an expert nor am I a historian. True historians need to be about 60+ in my eyes to begin with.

 

You're way above a 2. Don't sell yourself short.

 

I've only been following boxing for a little over 5 years, and doing any actual research for about 2 years, so that's a long way from level 4 for sure.

 

That´s it. Don´t know enough all around to be on par with many on here but what I know, I know. I read books, watch fights and try to get more and more insight into certain fighters. Hope my knowledge goes up with time.

Dont like such threads btw. everybody tends to either overrate or underrate oneself.

 

I'd put myself down as a 5 although I haven't authored any articles. I grew up in the world of boxing and have followed it since I can remember. I've been reading boxing since I was about 8 or 9 and there was always boxing material in the house, Ring, Boxing Illustrated and Boxing News, I've still got them all going back to the early 60's though stopped getting The Ring in the 90's. I think my interest started to wane a bit during the 90's but I still watched all fights possible. I don't want to be talking about "the good old days" but for me, all these mickey mouse titles have spoilt it. I remember when people were moaning because 2 titles were 1 too many. I'm living in Spain now so this site is great for me, somewhere I can talk "boxing",