#1 Boxing Pet Peeve

Post Reply
bnovelist
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 987
Joined: 23 Nov 2009, 02:37

#1 Boxing Pet Peeve

Post by bnovelist »

I know you have a few! Name the one that makes you pissed off lol. Mines is people saying "Roy Jones Never Had Any Technical Skills. Once His Speed

Left He Was Finished." You talking about HOT? Roy was the Undisputed King of Boxing for 10yrs PLUS finally losing at age 38!!!! How can someone

make it this long being rated Boxing's Best for over 10yrs and not have any technical skills? How is this possible? How can you make it to finals of

the olympic games and rule boxing for over 10yrs with just athletic ability? I'm not understanding this. Relying only on athletics you make it as far

as a Zab Judah or Meldrick Taylor.
jezzamundo
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3127
Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 13:11

Re: #1 Boxing Pet Peeve

Post by jezzamundo »

bnovelist wrote:I know you have a few! Name the one that makes you pissed off lol. Mines is people saying "Roy Jones Never Had Any Technical Skills. Once His Speed

Left He Was Finished." You talking about HOT? Roy was the Undisputed King of Boxing for 10yrs PLUS finally losing at age 38!!!! How can someone

make it this long being rated Boxing's Best for over 10yrs and not have any technical skills? How is this possible? How can you make it to finals of

the olympic games and rule boxing for over 10yrs with just athletic ability? I'm not understanding this. Relying only on athletics you make it as far

as a Zab Judah or Meldrick Taylor.
Of course RJJ had technical boxing skills - anyone who says he achieved what he did ENTIRELY through his natural gifts is obviously exaggerating. At the same time, in his prime, RJJ didn't face the quality of opposition that Judah or Taylor did, which partly explains his greater success and I'd also argue that he was more physically gifted than they were. It's pretty clear that RJJ's decline was due to his declining physical gifts rather than him forgetting how to box. RJJ lacked technical skills in the same way that Ali did - the difference being that Ali had an iron jaw which allowed him to get away with it for longer.
Sklar
Middleweight
Posts: 5680
Joined: 21 Sep 2013, 09:06

Re: #1 Boxing Pet Peeve

Post by Sklar »

My #1 Boxing Pet Peeve is that HD television was developed only after the demise of many of the greats of the sport.
Like a Boss
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 5863
Joined: 01 May 2012, 03:21

Re: #1 Boxing Pet Peeve

Post by Like a Boss »

The best rarely fight the best. Too many belts. Too many organisations. Too many easy routes to meaningless titles.
crusader
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16875
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 20:14

Re: #1 Boxing Pet Peeve

Post by crusader »

Some of my pet peeves:

-Veneration of lineal titles, though it goes for titles generally. What's most important to me when evaluating a fighter's ability, resume, and legacy is the quality of who they fought and how they performed, not the chronology of an imaginary title. Miguel Cotto being the lineal champion doesn't mean much to me when he's had one fight at the weight and it was against someone who had only squeaked by Martin Murray a fight before, very possible regressed even further after the Murray fight, then hobbled around the ring as if injured for most of the Cotto bout.

-The increasing prevalence of cheerleading for non-combatant businessmen, which includes stubbornly supporting them without enough consideration for what occurs inside the ring. It seems to me like people increasingly evaluate fights in such a way that fits with their perception of certain business figures, rather than such a perception being formed by the quality of the fights.

-Apoplectic reactions to orthodox views on fighters of the past being challenged. It especially perturbs me when it's implied that I should ignore what I see on video and instead consider that many people back in that fighter's day thought that they were very good.

-People getting rankled by the perceived overrating of a fighter, and hence responding with a countervailing underrating of the same fighter.
Bundana
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 344
Joined: 16 Jan 2012, 19:44

Re: #1 Boxing Pet Peeve

Post by Bundana »

crusader wrote:-Apoplectic reactions to orthodox views on fighters of the past being challenged. It especially perturbs me when it's implied that I should ignore what I see on video and instead consider that many people back in that fighter's day thought that they were very good.
This^^
Badhusker
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4902
Joined: 19 Jun 2010, 23:57

Re: #1 Boxing Pet Peeve

Post by Badhusker »

Trolls
Like a Boss
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 5863
Joined: 01 May 2012, 03:21

Re: #1 Boxing Pet Peeve

Post by Like a Boss »

Fighters suddenly ranked, right out of the blue, so as it qualifies them for a fight they weren't previously qualified for and shouldn't be anyway.
hurricanemitch14
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 828
Joined: 13 Apr 2004, 02:35

Re: #1 Boxing Pet Peeve

Post by hurricanemitch14 »

There should be 1 belt. u have 1 belt the best will fight the best because why????? Theres only 1 fornicating belt.

Forum pet peeves
if a dude loses he was exposed or is now a shot fighter.
Post Reply