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

I don't know how much either of those get right/wrong but from any analysis that i've read from either, it's been very ****ing good.

 

7

 

I'm a solid 5.

Nobody on here is a 10, except for Magnum, CHJ is an 8.

Most are 1's, a 3-4 is not bad at all, if we're being rigorous.

 

PacD is a ****ing ZERO.:nod

Brooklyn from 7-9 is about right, Magnum is without a doubt a 10, he is a flawless expert at anything to do with analysing fighters. Best part, the kid is only 19.:yep

Sweet Pea is a 6 or so, excellent as well.

 

You're a goddamn liar, I am a student of Magnum's, thus the parallel's in opinion.:deal

 

Considering you give yourself a 7, and Amsterdam a 5, I'd say you guys underrate yourselves. Amsterdam is generally correct, even though his picks can be extreme, and you give very detailed, thoughtful analysis on every pick. Nobody can be right all the time, and I'll take someone who defends their position rather than someone who makes a guess with a 50/50 chance of being correct and happens to be.

 

I think most people on this site would be a whole lot better analyst if they didn't outhink themselves. Boxing isn't as complicated as some make it out to be. If you have basic understanding of stylistic advantages as well as a good understanding of each fighter's strengths and weaknesses, you can fairly accurately analyze a fight.

 

I gave myself a 7. I've been boxing and been around boxing long enough to understand styles and what a fighter brings to the table, I just tend not to post very detailed analysis on here. That, and I'm much better versed in the amateurs than pros.

 

No, I've made some critical errors this year and my knowledge of certain things is marginal. My 2008 run has been mid-level, in 2007 I could have been rated higher.

Did Decebal pick Pavlik over Dawson? If so, then I'm dissapointed.:yep

Even Johnson would have pasted Pavlik easily.

 

:huh I'd classify you as a 9. You seem to know the in's and out's of everybody's style. Weaknesses, strengths, styles...you name it.

 

Magnum made a post at one point that fighters pre 70's couldn't hang with today's fighters, which is ridiculous and far too extreme. CHJ seems to think the same of fighters pre 80's, therefore they cannot be considered as strongly as you guys credit them, especially considering how terribly off CHJ was in his Calzaghe/Hopkins prediction, and how he only analyzes Joe.

 

If Magnum is the staple mark for 10, then we got it right, you just don't get what a 10/10 analyst is until you've had 1 on 1 conversations with a boxing analysis mastermind/genius like that kid is.

Sadly, he's going through some rough times at the moment and can't post much or come online much. I miss discussing boxing with him on MSN.

If anybody thinks we're the same person, talk to Mick McNeil, a young amatuer boxer that posts here, Magnum used to give him pointers for improvement.

 

good post