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

I haven't seen good old Mick post on here in forever. Wish he'd come back ,it was nice having other competitors in the training section.

 

Magnum has called every prediction he's ever given me 100% correctly on how the fight would go, he got a few results wrong, but how he laid out how the fight would go had never been wrong, find somebody who's done that?

I'd rate his prediction result ratio in 2007 as high as 90% also and he made probably 100 picks.

If he's got a grasp of the pre-70's fighters and explains it, he's probably right.

 

Lately it hasn't been working out great, I've made some critically off predictions. Plus, I learned all of that from Magnum basically, talking 1 on 1 with him is like going to a boxing knowledge elite level class at Harvard University.

 

some people on this site come off as good analysts mostly because they are good with words, and good at debating, but if you dig deep in their posts you can see there is actually little substance. And the fight results usually confirm this.

 

I think my brightest spot as an analyst was back in Bruce's old ESB Championship prediction league, I predicted the first Johnson Tarver fight as an SD for Johnson, and it actually came true exactly like that. Then I went on a terrible run where I didn't get **** right after that.

 

He comes on MSN all the time, get his addy, he's doing real good, about to step up from the junior's into the adult level and just won a fight over a seasoned international. He told me he's having issue's with weight though and is going to take a year off from Uni so he can focus solely on training and see how far his body can take him.

Has a good start, his youtube vids show good form and an understanding of the basics of the game. Will be interesting to see how well he does when he can train the entire time after he's out of school.

Goodwill matches in 2010 are on his agenda, said it's really easy to get on a team if you're from Scotland, not sure why though.

Good kid.

 

That's ludicrous, it simply means he's not taken the time out to watch the majority of the fighters. I guarantee you there are a fair amount of fighters he's never even heard of. Watch Ortiz and Napoles in the 60's and tell me they're primitive. I challenge Magnum to hold that position as well.

Ortiz
[YT]yzgYHML5rbo[/YT]

Napoles
[YT]VlpZ5-bw_GI[/YT]

 

Any chance of seeing any of these?

 

Sweet Pea, I respect that you want to challenge Magnum head on, but if he actually does show up and you want to get into a head to head debate with him, don't feel bad if you get tossed around like a ragdoll, it's impossible to defeat him in debate, his boxing knowledge is larger than what a computer could store.:yep

And that's not to say that I don't agree with you as it stands on those fighters you posted there, they are very good. But I'm only a mere mid-level, I have a Bachelors degree from a party school in boxing knowledge, the poster you want to challenge has a PHD from Oxford in boxing knowledge.:good

 

Look up MIK1000 I believe. I'm going to now. I was always impressed with him, he had just moved up to 165 when last I talked to him I think.

 

8

 

I'll go and look for him real quick. One fight was up where he clearly tooled the kid but didn't get the decision, a lot of us can relate to that....:scaredas:

 

That's nice, but still, if you can get him on here at any time, I'd like him to hold that position on the fighters posted. I'm pretty sure he just meant his statement of fighters roughly pre 70's being inferior in general, but there's no way he could say the same of the best of the pack, not a chance in hell, especially guys like the ones I posted. Napoles is one of the best I've ever seen on film.

 

How does he compare to Cross-Trainer?