The actual skill level of Jim Braddock

For me, K-1 stopped being interesting when Semmy Schilt took over. I know it's irrational, and unfair, but something deep inside of me cried out at the idea that this guy might be the greatest heavyweight in history.

 

Yeah, I lost interest around the early 2000s. K-1 stopped being about skill and more about how freaking huge you could be while jacked up on ridiculous amount of roids. Sapp was the beginning of the end, Schilt (roids of not) was the conclusion.

 

Do you disagree with this?
I think this is true for my content.
I, however, don't think that many likes on a CNN video, for instance, automatically verify the accuracy of that particular story. So when you say I claim that likes and comments automatically verify the accuracy of youtube videos, I don't. But I do think it does in many instances. Including for my channel.

Boxing fans are actually pretty fickle.
I've been pegged in the past for a lackluster choice in content selection.
I understand the nuances.
For the most part, you gotta come correct.
Can you think of examples of other large respected boxing channels that don't?

It was the clear bias in your approach.
Starting with attaching a claim to me I never made that would make any person seem crazy.
And things like:

"You bring your Youtube popularity up when your knowledge is questioned. You bring your opponents' Youtube popularity up when you're attacking them."

So they're just questioning me, but I'm attacking them?
I can sense the difference between genuine inquiry, and someone trying to use me as a means to an end. We've been cool since I've known you, but you took some liberties here about something I know and love.

 

I think some of his limitations are pretty clear just from the highlights, I'm really not convinced he looks like one of the greatest in that.

 

When I first saw him I was still somewhat wowed by flashy moves, which blinded me to the defects in fundamentals that he possessed. I was quickly dissuaded from my view by actually watching him fight and lose to a number of not brilliant guys like Ludwig.

 

THAT was what you thought I was accusing you of believing? That the number of likes for literally ANY Youtube video demonstrates its accuracy?

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Misunderstandings are really easy. And much more likely than genuine malice.

I meant in the context of boxing videos. I just assumed it would go without saying. It literally did not occur to me that you thought I meant ALL Youtube videos, of any type. That would be absurd to believe.

I can't think of any, but that's because I don't follow many Youtube boxing channels. I only recently returned to following boxing, and I'm still a dinosaur when it comes to exploiting Youtube's options for following content. That's why I asked for evidence of standard practice in that field. You are the expert in Youtube video production; I am not.

Yeah, that's a fair criticism. There are two reasons I wrote it that way:

1) I was getting angry by that point, after your prior post.

2) The alternative was overly wordy. I wasn't 100% sure whether you were actually questioning Klompton2's knowledge, or whether you were just doing it to get under his skin. But allowing for both options with a bunch of qualifiers would have been verbose.

Right, so in the future, if I sound like I'm attributing some insane view to you, just ask me.

Or clarify what you meant.

Odds are that one of us has misinterpreted the other, rather than trying to take liberties, use the other person, or be a jerk. Fair?

 

I think it's a big problem with online discussions in general. The lack of consequence, the loss of nuance you get from just taking turns sending text to each other and the dehumanisation of the people you talk to makes it really easy for people just to talk past each other and have a pissing match.

It's made worse by being in a thread where people are already arguing.

 

For added frustration, the occasional posters who refuse to answer questions about their position make this twice as bad. (Nobody on this thread, obviously -- most people on Classic are pretty good at clarifying.) It's just begging for a 50 car pileup.

There's a surprising amount of patience involved in trying to sort out exactly what the other person is saying.

 

This content is protected

​

Yeah, sounds fair to me.

 

This content is protected

​

Basically, if you were just taunting Klompton2 about his Youtube unpopularity, I would consider that an attack. (Definition 3.) It may be a retaliatory attack, and may also be justified. (And before you ask, by "abuse", the dictionary just means to insult somebody.) On the other hand, if you were bringing forward a substantive point against Klompton2's arguments, you'd be in Definition 4 territory -- attacking Klompton2's position.

"Attack" covered both of these bases, so I used it.

And I was angry at that point, because of what you'd accused me of, so I wasn't concerned anymore about avoiding offense or being careful to use neutral language.

So, would you like to get back to normal discussion about the more interesting question that you asked above? ("Do you disagree with this? I think this is true for my content.") Or is there something else you'd like to discuss before moving forward?

 

So what? You seem to have an issue with straying away from the point.
The point being that your word choice painted an obvious bias.
Not whether an attack can be a good thing. You've lost the plot.
Again, in a blind fury to win argumentation points. Stop trying to ego me. It's pathetic.

This content is protected

Sounds like you think your feelings are more important than others.
​

This content is protected

​

Moving forward with what? This isn't a meeting you're leading that you're setting the agenda for.
Get off your high horse sonny.

 

Seriously, WTF?

You accused me of doing something I didn't do, because you misinterpreted my post. And then threw a bunch of insults at me.

You are surprised that my post immediately after you did all of this was biased against you? And now you're offended *again* when I explain both reasons why it was biased, after you asked me about it?

This whole thing is getting surreal.

 

Noice

 

Yeah, but all Tua's achievements took place inside people's imagination.

 

I think that Jim Braddock would beat Michael Spinks and Bob Foster and Harold Johnson and Dwight Qawi and Evander Holyfield TBH