Why is there so much smack talk amongst boxing fans?
-
pound per pound
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1595
- Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 14:36
Why is there so much smack talk amongst boxing fans?
Why is there so much smack talk amongst boxing fans? The way I see it, a boxing is hardly ever talked about on Sports shows Radio, and Sports Magazines. We fans have to pay $50.00 to see the big events. When I run into a fellow fight fan in a restaurant or bar it’s a lot of fun. Yet here on the internet, I have to wade through sophomoric insults.
Last edited by pound per pound on 09 Nov 2005, 11:53, edited 1 time in total.
-
Slapsie Maxie
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 794
- Joined: 22 Jun 2004, 08:22
trust me, it is nothing to do with Boxing
It is to do with the nature of internet relationships.
I have seen the same on food boards, soccerboards and just about any other board going
It is far more open to interpretation that face to face contact and far easier to disengage the filter between brain and mouth.
Slapsie
It is to do with the nature of internet relationships.
I have seen the same on food boards, soccerboards and just about any other board going
It is far more open to interpretation that face to face contact and far easier to disengage the filter between brain and mouth.
Slapsie
insults
Exactly what KOJOE says. And Barry's a bit hypocritical on this subject, as I've seen him insult some posters without any real warrant. I, too, have been called some pretty vile stuff. It's only when I'm insulted first will I fire back.
Face to face, a poster/reader is less apt to hurl insults around. On the internet, people feel anonymous and don't think twice about cutting someone down just to see their own cut-downs in print and make themselves feel good.
Face to face, a poster/reader is less apt to hurl insults around. On the internet, people feel anonymous and don't think twice about cutting someone down just to see their own cut-downs in print and make themselves feel good.
Last edited by wlvrne on 09 Nov 2005, 17:20, edited 1 time in total.
I think that tone and timing are so important in a conversation but these thinsg are so difficult to judge on email or internet forums. A group of us could sit around arguing and yelling at one another without necessarily being rude or offensive. It's different here. It's easier to let fly with your own comments and easier to misinterpret other user's comments as being aggressive.
re
>>>And Barry's a bit hypocritical on this subject, as I've seen him insult some posters with any real warrant.<<<
How am I hypocritical? Where have I denied anything? Tell you what...if you can show me two, or three instances where I attacked someone first, without the person doing anything to merit a response from me then I will shut up completely, but I can tell you now, you can try, but you have your work cut out! Also, unlike many that hide behind a fake name, I have always used my own name and never hide behind anything!
How am I hypocritical? Where have I denied anything? Tell you what...if you can show me two, or three instances where I attacked someone first, without the person doing anything to merit a response from me then I will shut up completely, but I can tell you now, you can try, but you have your work cut out! Also, unlike many that hide behind a fake name, I have always used my own name and never hide behind anything!
re
Speaking of hypocritical, one that quickly comes to my mind is your thread "AC Exposed as a Hypocrite."
http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... ht=exposed
Now I don't know what led to you posting that, but it sure looked like a strike-first to me and even worse it was about Stacy's personal life and it turned into a very, very ugly thread, so don't start accusing other people of being hypocritical, while excusing and making excuses for yourself!
http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... ht=exposed
Now I don't know what led to you posting that, but it sure looked like a strike-first to me and even worse it was about Stacy's personal life and it turned into a very, very ugly thread, so don't start accusing other people of being hypocritical, while excusing and making excuses for yourself!
insults
Barry, the glaring difference in that thread was well explained then, but I'll take you down a little walk-through.
I posted that thread about AC because he's always ranting about someone trying to take his freedoms away. A poster claiming to be one of his ex-wives wrote certain things about AC. I posted that thread, and never unwarrantedly, nor visciously insulted AC. You can go back and read through the entire thing on there.
In fact, if memory serves me correctly, you posted on there while having an on-going verbal battle with a different poster, and I admonished both of you to keep it clean because I did not want the Mods/Editors to lock or delete that thread as it was inviting all types of discussions.
That, dear Barry, is the difference, and I am not being hypocritical.
I posted that thread about AC because he's always ranting about someone trying to take his freedoms away. A poster claiming to be one of his ex-wives wrote certain things about AC. I posted that thread, and never unwarrantedly, nor visciously insulted AC. You can go back and read through the entire thing on there.
In fact, if memory serves me correctly, you posted on there while having an on-going verbal battle with a different poster, and I admonished both of you to keep it clean because I did not want the Mods/Editors to lock or delete that thread as it was inviting all types of discussions.
That, dear Barry, is the difference, and I am not being hypocritical.
Last edited by wlvrne on 09 Nov 2005, 17:21, edited 1 time in total.
re
You made that thread with no other intention except to embarrass and to try and make Stacy look bad, but nowhere did you admonish me as you had no merit to do so in the thread...you were admonished by several people for bringing yourself into someone's else's very personal business and turning it into something hurtful and you don't think you were hypocritical in doing so. What did Stacy do directly to you to merit your attacking him in such a manner?
Re: re
I did admonish you for foul language and disparaging remarks to another poster.barry wrote:You made that thread with no other intention except to embarrass and to try and make Stacy look bad, but nowhere did you admonish me as you had no merit to do so in the thread...you were admonished by several people for bringing yourself into someone's else's very personal business and turning it into something hurtful and you don't think you were hypocritical in doing so. What did Stacy do directly to you to merit your attacking him in such a manner?
As for "attacking" AC, I simply reiterated what SLMOMMA wrote in one of AC's other threads, and I wrote it with the disclaimer which said "a poster claiming to be one of Stacy's ex-wives".
AC claims freedom of speech. I was exercising mine. AC rants about his freedoms being limited by others, I merely called him on this, as he evidently does not practice what he preaches.
Hehehehehehehehehehehee!... you do make me chuckle wlvrne.... now I don't deny having a few cross words here and there with some people but I must laugh 
when I see you here running for sainthood and claiming that you never throw the first stone etc and having the audacity to call other people hypocrites... I mean wasn't it you who sent me a load of obsene emails just because I said something on a thread that you didn't like?. Wasn't I exercising my freedom of speech???.
You certainly exercised your freedom of speech with those emails to me including saying some rather nasty stuff about my wife... If I was you I'd have some icecube bathes morning and night as it may cure you of your frustrations.
8) 
when I see you here running for sainthood and claiming that you never throw the first stone etc and having the audacity to call other people hypocrites... I mean wasn't it you who sent me a load of obsene emails just because I said something on a thread that you didn't like?. Wasn't I exercising my freedom of speech???. You certainly exercised your freedom of speech with those emails to me including saying some rather nasty stuff about my wife... If I was you I'd have some icecube bathes morning and night as it may cure you of your frustrations.
8) insults
Silkov, you do have a very selective memory. It's a common trait among those whom are called "revisionists" whose intentions are to re-write history.silkov wrote:Hehehehehehehehehehehee!... you do make me chuckle wlvrne.... now I don't deny having a few cross words here and there with some people but I must laugh
You certainly exercised your freedom of speech with those emails to me including saying some rather nasty stuff about my wife... If I was you I'd have some icecube bathes morning and night as it may cure you of your frustrations.
You should go back into your PMs and realize it was you that insulted me first. The fact that I fired back with more gusto than you chose to merely indicates my intensity. And, again with your sexual innnuendos. Perhaps you share your wife with your mates?
Look through threads where I've posted. I've questioned how people arrive at a certain decision. I've asked if they've bumped their head. But time and again, I don't insult, as is being discussed here, other posters unless they've insulted me first. I've called people names after they've thrown the first shot. I've questioned posters sexual preferrences and their collective states of mind as well, but only after I've been insulted first.
I'm not running for "sainthood" on here. And see, that's sarcasm, which I practice on here quite often. That, however, is not insulting someone.
Re: insults
wlvrne wrote:Silkov, you do have a very selective memory. It's a common trait among those whom are called "revisionists" whose intentions are to re-write history.silkov wrote:Hehehehehehehehehehehee!... you do make me chuckle wlvrne.... now I don't deny having a few cross words here and there with some people but I must laugh
You certainly exercised your freedom of speech with those emails to me including saying some rather nasty stuff about my wife... If I was you I'd have some icecube bathes morning and night as it may cure you of your frustrations.
You should go back into your PMs and realize it was you that insulted me first. The fact that I fired back with more gusto than you chose to merely indicates my intensity. And, again with your sexual innnuendos. Perhaps you share your wife with your mates?
Look through threads where I've posted. I've questioned how people arrive at a certain decision. I've asked if they've bumped their head. But time and again, I don't insult, as is being discussed here, other posters unless they've insulted me first. I've called people names after they've thrown the first shot. I've questioned posters sexual preferrences and their collective states of mind as well, but only after I've been insulted first.
I'm not running for "sainthood" on here. And see, that's sarcasm, which I practice on here quite often. That, however, is not insulting someone.
I'm not interested in a tiresome slanging match with you... you insulted me first on the thread and you sent me a abusive email when I hadn't sent you any emails so how was it me that 'threw the first stone'.
The truth is that the biggest hypocrite here is you... end of story.
I doubt Rahman would have knocked him out... Vitali would probably have given him a boxing lesson. Its a shame Vitali's had to retire as though he wasn't great I'm pretty sure that he was the best there is around today and his retirement leaves the division even more barren.evndrbsn wrote:Best thing to do is just to drop it. We are all here because we love boxing and want to talk to other people about it. So lets do that.
On that note, damn that Vitali Klitschko for not giving Hasim Rahman the chance to try to knock him out.
Who is there now? Ruiz? Byrd? Rahman???..
...aaahhhhhhhhh!!!!.. :x :x :x . come back Oliver Mccall!!!!!.. 8) 
...Yeah, he'd probably knock out Rahman. But I would much rather see Klitschko's back on the canvas after running scared against Rahman four times now. Maybe once or twice he had a real injury, but four times in a row? This guy is full of it. Then he retires right away.silkov wrote:I doubt Rahman would have knocked him out... Vitali would probably have given him a boxing lesson. Its a shame Vitali's had to retire as though he wasn't great I'm pretty sure that he was the best there is around today and his retirement leaves the division even more barren.evndrbsn wrote:Best thing to do is just to drop it. We are all here because we love boxing and want to talk to other people about it. So lets do that.
On that note, damn that Vitali Klitschko for not giving Hasim Rahman the chance to try to knock him out.
Who is there now? Ruiz? Byrd? Rahman???..
Imagine the excitement of the tournament! Rahman-Ruiz II!! Byrd-Brewster!!! Rahman-Ruiz winner to face Kevin McBride and Byrd-Brewster winner to take on DaVarryl Williamson!! My fingers are crossed for Byrd to win so we can see another barnburner in Byrd-Williamson II
I think you're doing Vitali a disservice, I can't believe that he's scared of Rahman!... I mean Hasim is hardly George Foreman is he?. Klitchenko has faced Lewis, why should he be afraid of Rahman?. The delays were all caused by injuries... everytime Vitali has been injured he would have had to show medical proof of it otherwise King would have sued his arse.evndrbsn wrote:Yeah, he'd probably knock out Rahman. But I would much rather see Klitschko's back on the canvas after running scared against Rahman four times now. Maybe once or twice he had a real injury, but four times in a row? This guy is full of it. Then he retires right away.silkov wrote:I doubt Rahman would have knocked him out... Vitali would probably have given him a boxing lesson. Its a shame Vitali's had to retire as though he wasn't great I'm pretty sure that he was the best there is around today and his retirement leaves the division even more barren.evndrbsn wrote:Best thing to do is just to drop it. We are all here because we love boxing and want to talk to other people about it. So lets do that.
On that note, damn that Vitali Klitschko for not giving Hasim Rahman the chance to try to knock him out.
Who is there now? Ruiz? Byrd? Rahman???..
Imagine the excitement of the tournament! Rahman-Ruiz II!! Byrd-Brewster!!! Rahman-Ruiz winner to face Kevin McBride and Byrd-Brewster winner to take on DaVarryl Williamson!! My fingers are crossed for Byrd to win so we can see another barnburner in Byrd-Williamson II
At the end of the day the guy can't help getting injured and retiring like he has is quite a classy way of behaving rather than dragging things out for another 6 months. And remember Kostya Tsyu was out for far longer with injuries than Vitali has been. When a boxer gets into his 30s then the injuries start creeping in as father time starts taking hold!... aint life a bitch!.... :x
Don't forget that the really tall, big guys are very injury prone. Think of the other sports, like basketball for example. Always getting injured. I can think of two big heavyweights breaking or seriously injurying their ankles in the ring. 6'6" heavyweight Derrick Jefferson went down hard and sprained his ankle against Oleg Maskaev and eventually was stopped. 6'7" Michael Grant went down against Jameel McCline and broke his ankle on the fall. We need small heavyweights who aren't injury prone!silkov wrote:I think you're doing Vitali a disservice, I can't believe that he's scared of Rahman!... I mean Hasim is hardly George Foreman is he?. Klitchenko has faced Lewis, why should he be afraid of Rahman?. The delays were all caused by injuries... everytime Vitali has been injured he would have had to show medical proof of it otherwise King would have sued his arse.evndrbsn wrote:Yeah, he'd probably knock out Rahman. But I would much rather see Klitschko's back on the canvas after running scared against Rahman four times now. Maybe once or twice he had a real injury, but four times in a row? This guy is full of it. Then he retires right away.silkov wrote: I doubt Rahman would have knocked him out... Vitali would probably have given him a boxing lesson. Its a shame Vitali's had to retire as though he wasn't great I'm pretty sure that he was the best there is around today and his retirement leaves the division even more barren.
Who is there now? Ruiz? Byrd? Rahman???..
Imagine the excitement of the tournament! Rahman-Ruiz II!! Byrd-Brewster!!! Rahman-Ruiz winner to face Kevin McBride and Byrd-Brewster winner to take on DaVarryl Williamson!! My fingers are crossed for Byrd to win so we can see another barnburner in Byrd-Williamson II
At the end of the day the guy can't help getting injured and retiring like he has is quite a classy way of behaving rather than dragging things out for another 6 months. And remember Kostya Tsyu was out for far longer with injuries than Vitali has been. When a boxer gets into his 30s then the injuries start creeping in as father time starts taking hold!... aint life a bitch!.... :x
Well thats it really, fighters of Vitalis size are always going to have problems with injuries, especially when they get a bit older and the waer and tear of fighting and training for decades starts to catch up.evndrbsn wrote:Don't forget that the really tall, big guys are very injury prone. Think of the other sports, like basketball for example. Always getting injured. I can think of two big heavyweights breaking or seriously injurying their ankles in the ring. 6'6" heavyweight Derrick Jefferson went down hard and sprained his ankle against Oleg Maskaev and eventually was stopped. 6'7" Michael Grant went down against Jameel McCline and broke his ankle on the fall. We need small heavyweights who aren't injury prone!silkov wrote:I think you're doing Vitali a disservice, I can't believe that he's scared of Rahman!... I mean Hasim is hardly George Foreman is he?. Klitchenko has faced Lewis, why should he be afraid of Rahman?. The delays were all caused by injuries... everytime Vitali has been injured he would have had to show medical proof of it otherwise King would have sued his arse.evndrbsn wrote: Yeah, he'd probably knock out Rahman. But I would much rather see Klitschko's back on the canvas after running scared against Rahman four times now. Maybe once or twice he had a real injury, but four times in a row? This guy is full of it. Then he retires right away.
Imagine the excitement of the tournament! Rahman-Ruiz II!! Byrd-Brewster!!! Rahman-Ruiz winner to face Kevin McBride and Byrd-Brewster winner to take on DaVarryl Williamson!! My fingers are crossed for Byrd to win so we can see another barnburner in Byrd-Williamson II
At the end of the day the guy can't help getting injured and retiring like he has is quite a classy way of behaving rather than dragging things out for another 6 months. And remember Kostya Tsyu was out for far longer with injuries than Vitali has been. When a boxer gets into his 30s then the injuries start creeping in as father time starts taking hold!... aint life a bitch!.... :x
I've been saying for a while on various threads that the next truly great heavyweight champion will be no taller than 6 feet 3 and weigh no more than about 220... anything bigger just becomes a hinderence and part of the reason the division is in such a state is that most of the contenders are far too heavy. Look at Samuel who fought Vitalis brother recently, aside from having very little techneque he was about 20 to 30 pounds too heavy... thats why these guys are worn out after just 4 or 5 rounds of fighting at a mediocre pace.
I completely agree. The big heavyweights ruin the division. When all things are equal, the smaller heavyweights, who are actually exciting, can't compete with the big men. Maybe Naseem Hamed, who is rumored to be a plus size heavyweight right now, can be the savior of the division.silkov wrote:Well thats it really, fighters of Vitalis size are always going to have problems with injuries, especially when they get a bit older and the waer and tear of fighting and training for decades starts to catch up.evndrbsn wrote:Don't forget that the really tall, big guys are very injury prone. Think of the other sports, like basketball for example. Always getting injured. I can think of two big heavyweights breaking or seriously injurying their ankles in the ring. 6'6" heavyweight Derrick Jefferson went down hard and sprained his ankle against Oleg Maskaev and eventually was stopped. 6'7" Michael Grant went down against Jameel McCline and broke his ankle on the fall. We need small heavyweights who aren't injury prone!silkov wrote: I think you're doing Vitali a disservice, I can't believe that he's scared of Rahman!... I mean Hasim is hardly George Foreman is he?. Klitchenko has faced Lewis, why should he be afraid of Rahman?. The delays were all caused by injuries... everytime Vitali has been injured he would have had to show medical proof of it otherwise King would have sued his arse.
At the end of the day the guy can't help getting injured and retiring like he has is quite a classy way of behaving rather than dragging things out for another 6 months. And remember Kostya Tsyu was out for far longer with injuries than Vitali has been. When a boxer gets into his 30s then the injuries start creeping in as father time starts taking hold!... aint life a bitch!.... :x
I've been saying for a while on various threads that the next truly great heavyweight champion will be no taller than 6 feet 3 and weigh no more than about 220... anything bigger just becomes a hinderence and part of the reason the division is in such a state is that most of the contenders are far too heavy. Look at Samuel who fought Vitalis brother recently, aside from having very little techneque he was about 20 to 30 pounds too heavy... thats why these guys are worn out after just 4 or 5 rounds of fighting at a mediocre pace.
-
kick asner
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 692
- Joined: 02 Oct 2005, 00:01
re
>>>addendum: Barry, you are correct in that I did not admonish you for foul language or insults in the thread, "AC exposed...". I apologize for my faulty memory<<<
I know I'm correct! Now are you going to send me any more pms about how I speak to people, or are you going to live by your own words before trying to preach to others about how they talk?
I know I'm correct! Now are you going to send me any more pms about how I speak to people, or are you going to live by your own words before trying to preach to others about how they talk?