What are the "Rites of Passage" to Being a Boxing Fan?

If you don't cry with tears of joy while watching Tatsuyoshi vs Singwancha then you aren't a true boxing fan.

Jokes aside I don't really think there anything that a boxing fan needs to do other than enjoy the sport. If I had to name one fight that every boxing fan should watch then it would be Chacon-Limon IV. Welcome to the forum btw, hope you have a good time here.

 

Just enjoying the sport should make you a fan, no need to push yourself, but if you want to actually be called a knowledgeable follower of the sport, then that's obviously much harder. Knowing about the differences and conditions of each era is pretty imporant. Knowing what no decisions/Newspaper decisions are is necessary if you want to talk about all time greatness. Same applies with knowing the importance of less belts and divisions, because simply being called a champion today is much easier than it was in the 40's and 50's. I think this should be rudimentary.

As is knowing lesser known but still recognizable names like Alexis Arguello, Dick Tiger, Carlos Monzon, Emile Griffith, Archie Moore etc and knowing a few basic things about them. I'm not expecting everyone to know who Pedlar Palmer, Marcel Thil, Joe Goddard, Pone Kingpetch, Frank Klaus ( or his book) and Peter Maher were, but a good amount of names should be known. Some guy I knew back in Middle school actually didn't even know who George Foreman was, yet he still tried to sell me the idea that Mike Tyson was a top tier P4P ATG.

 

Watching Morales vs Barrera I.

 

He's baaaaacccckk.

 

I think everyone can be a fan of whatever they want without having to prove anything to anyone. A debate with someone else about boxing may arise automatically or not.

 

I was always here, Ioakeim. You were just not ready to see me.

 

On this forum:

1) Start a thread about Marciano

2) Passionately believe Primo Carnera was an ATG heavyweight and make technical arguments to support it

3) Claim at least once that you have a Greb fight on video tucked away somewhere … and refuse to share it

4) Spend at least one 24-hour period watching @Rumsfeld ’s ‘Rummy’s Corner’ episodes on a loop

5) Been banned at least once for something innocuous

Or — in the case of @Richard M Murrieta — have been eye-witness to at least three London Prize Ring Rule title bouts (and believe the 1853 revision of this ruleset was the beginning of boxing’s downfall as a sport).

 

It should include a some kind of degree equivalent to a doctorate degree. Maybe the name of the university could be "University of Hard Knocks".
If not this then at least a card you keep in your wallet that you received in the mail after completing an online quiz.

Standby, I'm still brainstorming...

 

I’ve probably done all 5… In a day. When I’m sick @Rumsfeld videos are oddly comforting.

 

A significant right of passage is when you score Ramirez vs Whitaker 1 to Jose Luis by one point

 

If someone doesn't know who Pone Kingpetch is I am done with them!

 

I have arrived!!! Here’s how I scored it a while back on the What Fights Did You Watch/Score Today sticky thread:

Jose Luis Ramirez (c) vs. Pernell Whitaker, scheduled for 12 rounds for the WBC lightweight championship at Stade de Levallos, Levallos-Perret, Hautz-de-Sienna, France. (That’s a mouthful.)

This is Ramirez’s second defense of the vacant title he won from Terrence Alli. He has won 11 in a row. He weighs 135 and is 100-6.

Whitaker is 134 1/4 and comes in 15-0.

Battle of southpaws.

1. Whitaker 10-9: Some good body work.

2. Whitaker 10-9: Works his jab effectively and is just too slick, a ghost JLR cannot find in the dark.

3. Ramirez 10-9: More pressure, bigger shots, better jab.

4. Whitaker 10-9: Close. A yawner.

5. Ramirez 10-9: More clean shots from the champ and some good body work. He’s closing the distance and Pernell is more and more on his bicycle and punching less and less.

6. Ramirez 10-9: Effectively aggressive against an opponent who doesn’t look like he wants to fight.

7. Ramirez 10-9: Same, with JRL landing a few snappy, long lefts.

8. Ramirez 10-9: Same pattern but now Whitaker is turning his back and walking away.

9. Whitaker 10-9: Close. A few combos edge it.

10. Whitaker 10-9: Same thing, again close.

11. Ramirez 10-9: He worked three minutes. The other guy fought in spurts and his work wasn’t impressive enough to overcome the lesser workrate.

12. Even, 10-10: Whitaker planted his feet and landed a few nice combos, but he also ran and clinched, ran and clinched, and Ramirez gritted it out and kept punching. Depends on what you like.

My card: 115-114 Ramirez.

Official cards: 118-113 Ramirez, 116-115 Ramirez, 113-112 Whitaker.

Flip around the close rounds and my card could be wider for Ramirez, but you could also give Whitaker the even round at the end.

Pernell did a lot of things that probably didn’t win him favor with the judges. It’s hard to give a guy rounds when he turns his back and walks away repeatedly, when he does circles around the ring flicking a couple of non-punches and then ties up his opponent, when he grabs JLR around the lower legs at one point and does that ducking below the waist — mostly without bothering to throw a punch.

The thing that’s hard to determine is how effective Whitaker’s jab was. I don’t think it was for the most part — there were a few nice spears here and there, but a lot of them go over JLR’s shoulder or head or are parried. I think Ramirez in a lot of stretches was the better defensive fighter (just not as slick about it, but good hand placement, parrying, slipping and blocking). Sometimes when Sweet Pea actually does throw a three- or four-punch combination (rare) he misses every one of them.

So there you have it. I know a lot of people believe Whitaker won and I can believe that if you have it close, but in no way did he run away with this fight or come close to pitching a shutout. He mostly let it get away. Even if you don’t agree with the judges, I think if you watch it you can see how they got there just off Sweet Pea’s inactivity.

 

If you enjoy watching boxing, you're a boxing fan. If you've ever youtubed a fight for fun and you keep doing it and you consider it a hobby after that, then you're a fight fan. If you used to watch fights with your dad, you're a fight fan. No real barrier for entry.

 

There's no right or wrong way to become a fan of anything in general. It really just comes down to enjoying the sport itself and seeing it as more than just 2 men punching each other. There's aspects of boxing that make it exciting and beautiful to watch. I think being open minded to all styles of boxing helps a person appreciate the sport as a whole. You don't need to be a historian but you can still respect boxing eras from the past. It also helps knowing that being a great boxer isn't about having a perfect unbeaten record.

If a fan wants to appreciate boxing as a pure slugfest I would tell people to start with Diego Corrales vs Jose Luis Castillo 1 and if they want to appreciate it as a chess match I would recommend James Toney vs Mike McCallum 1.