How good a boxing analyst are you, out of 10?

But I really do rate myself a 5, no compliments needed, I'm just very solid and have emphasis and a no bull**** attitude on common sense, as well as a measure of extremism.

My posts aren't even that well formed, not like IB by any means.

5 I am, some, if not most, overrate themselves. A 5 should be considered good when a 10 is considered to be a measure of perfection, like Magnum for example.

And Decebal is just an interesting kind of guy, he's got more in the tank than people realise and always under a well thought out agenda.

 

I'm dead certain i have seen you post on multiple occasions that he never gets one wrong... In this particular thread, you said he never picked the way it would play out wrong. Personally, i find it hard to believe without seeing it for myself. That is what i am questioning here. I wouldn't take ANYONE's word for it. There are far too many variables in boxing. I would certainly not doubt your claim that he is very very knowledgable. Fair enough. It just seemed pretty extreme thats all.

 

If that was the scale being used, then thats fair enough. I knew this was the case for your post, and none of what i said there was directed at you. I see Decebal constantly put himself down in threads, and its annoying. I highly doubt Decebal was using the same criteria that you were.

 

Story of my life my friend, I only deal in extreme's.

But my extreme's are normally correct, in this case, I am not just playing around, a couple of the posts were made in humour, but he really is that great.

You can't imagine it yet because you are like me, just solid in the analysis game, not flawless.

 

Well, he rated me as a 5-6, on his scale, so maybe he has a similiar set up.

Flawless is 10, 9 is phenominal, 8 is great, 7 is very proficient and near expert, 6 is proficient and very knowledge, 5 is knowledgable, somewhat proficient and with a good understanding.

Where do you rank?

 

I know that you deal in extremes. The reason i went on my rant though, is because 95% of people on this site take everything you say very literally. And i don't think that is always your intention, and i get the feeling much is done very tongue in cheek. However, because you are probably one of the most influential posters on the site, a lot of less knowledgable posters start to follow your trends in terms of making bold, unlikely predictions, however they don't have the knowledge to back it up. It causes IMO, a greater amount of troll like behaviour in general. I find more and more that i am begining to play devils advocate to your opinions in recent times, simply because of this fact. This thread in particular, will leave some posters thinking it is actually possible to correctly choose the outcome of every given fight, which it clearly is not, as boxing has so many unpredictable variables. The disparity which you have pointed out between yourself and magnum is over the top still IMO also, although no doubt you have done this to attempt and drive home a point. Still, others will take all of this literally.

 

MSTR and Amster, two solid 5 out of 10 posters

 

Eh, you read too much into things. Some stuff I post is for shits and giggles, some for other purposes, many times for serious discussion.

You really thought that I was trying to curve opinions for example in poking fun at you, to which by all intents and purposes, has been thrown at me as an Australian form of humour.

I don't care that much about this stuff, this place just gives me a bit of fun and discussion, I am not that intelligent at the core, not enough to persuade with an agenda like you would think and I am also not human.

 

You're a solid 9, all Anthony Mundine fans are.

 

You can def read posters better than fighters :good

 

Of course, I am a genius.

 

I can analyze styles but frankly I am extremely to lazy to type out how I think a boxing fight will pan out on a forum. I love having one on one conversations about people like this but typing stuff out is a drag lol

 

They haven't. You are not all using the same scale.

Is perfection a 10? If so, no one on this planet reaches such a plateau.

If I were to rate boxers on a scale of 1-10, 10 being perfect, then Sugar Ray Robinson would score an 8 or so. And he is considered by many to be the GOAT. Even he has weaknesses, or perhaps strengths which are not as high as others. (For instance, he had great power, but his power was not greater than Hearns at the same weight)

It seems rather that most posters have taken the approach of rating the best poster they can think of as a 10 (or perhaps best boxing minds they have seen or read) and then produced a sliding scale or grade on a curve. There is nothing wrong with this.

 

When I know the fighters well I'm almost always right picking who's going to win and how they're going to do it. If that's not an 8 I don't know what is.

If this was supposed to be some kind of logorythmic scale where 10 is 100% accuracy down to connect percentages on every fight then it should have been made clearer.