BoxRec

Well, is it?

If you don't think it is, tell me what's better.

FlawedGenius wrote:Well, is it?

If you don't think it is, tell me what's better.

I'm not saying it's better but The CyberBoxing Zone has some good stuff on it.

cyberboxingzone??

So if you want to find something out about a fighter you've never heard of you go running to cyberboxingzone do you?

How on earth does it compare with boxrec as a resource?

Boxrec has revolutionised the world of boxing journalism. Once, writers had to keep their own records if they wanted to keep up to date. Now, it's all there at the click of a mouse. The editors on here deserve a medal.

FlawedGenius wrote:cyberboxingzone??

So if you want to find something out about a fighter you've never heard of you go running to cyberboxingzone do you?

How on earth does it compare with boxrec as a resource?

I didn't say it was better, just said it has some usefull stuff on there.

Yes it's an amazing resource. A few years back everyone had to rely on FightFax and Ring record book, out once a year if you were lucky.

Other than that, it was taking some dodgy manager's word for it, that his boy had won last week in such and such town.

Now records are up-dated here within the hour.

KOJOE90 wrote:

FlawedGenius wrote:cyberboxingzone??

So if you want to find something out about a fighter you've never heard of you go running to cyberboxingzone do you?

How on earth does it compare with boxrec as a resource?

I didn't say it was better, just said it has some usefull stuff on there.

Yes, the CBZ is superb for boxing history. The only trouble with the CBZ in my estimation: it's very Americanised.

That's probably why I don't like it. The Americans make history up to suit themselves.

bennie wrote:

KOJOE90 wrote:

FlawedGenius wrote:cyberboxingzone??

So if you want to find something out about a fighter you've never heard of you go running to cyberboxingzone do you?

How on earth does it compare with boxrec as a resource?

I didn't say it was better, just said it has some usefull stuff on there.

Yes, the CBZ is superb for boxing history. The only trouble with the CBZ in my estimation: it's very Americanised.

True, and I can never seem to get the CBZ search engine to find what I'm lookinf for either.

Having said that I would recommend anyone interested in Boing hisory to give it a go. There is a very good thread on Philly Middleweights on it's Old Timers Furom at the moment.

But Boxrec is still The Daddy. 8)

cue post mortem rant.

FlawedGenius wrote:That's probably why I don't like it. The Americans make history up to suit themselves.

Yes, Frank Sinatra won the Second World War single-handedly according to several cringe-inducing American movies.
Incidentally, check out the latest edition of "Wail" on the CBZ. There's a nice feature on Mando Muniz by Dan Hanley.
Muniz was once sickeningly jobbed of the world welterweight title by Jose Sulaiman.

bennie wrote:

FlawedGenius wrote:That's probably why I don't like it. The Americans make history up to suit themselves.

Yes, Frank Sinatra won the Second World War single-handedly according to several cringe-inducing American movies.
Incidentally, check out the latest edition of "Wail" on the CBZ. There's a nice feature on Mando Muniz by Dan Hanley.
Muniz was once sickeningly jobbed of the world welterweight title by Jose Sulaiman.

Bennie, I think you will find that John Wayne and Charles Bronson won the second World War.

KOJOE90 wrote:

bennie wrote:

FlawedGenius wrote:That's probably why I don't like it. The Americans make history up to suit themselves.

Yes, Frank Sinatra won the Second World War single-handedly according to several cringe-inducing American movies.
Incidentally, check out the latest edition of "Wail" on the CBZ. There's a nice feature on Mando Muniz by Dan Hanley.
Muniz was once sickeningly jobbed of the world welterweight title by Jose Sulaiman.

Bennie, I think you will find that John Wayne and Charles Bronson won the second World War.

Let's not forget William Holden.

FlawedGenius wrote: The Americans make history up to suit themselves.

My Grandfather who served in North Africa and Italy amongst other places during the Second World War has benn telling me this since I was old enough to walk.

What many history books say about certain battles differ somewhat from my Grandfathers account. And he was there dodging the bullets. I know who I believe.

Sorry rant over.

KOJOE90 wrote:

FlawedGenius wrote: The Americans make history up to suit themselves.

My Grandfather who served in North Africa and Italy amongst other places during the Second World War has benn telling me this since I was old enough to walk.

What many history books say about certain battles differ somewhat from my Grandfathers account. And he was there dodging the bullets. I know who I believe.

Sorry rant over.

Ask any British vet who their best allies were in the two world wars: they'll tell you the same thing.
The Anzacs.

bennie wrote:Ask any British vet who their best allies were in the two world wars: they'll tell you the same thing.
The Anzacs.

Depends on if you define "best friends" as the fellows who got along with the best person-to-person, or the ones without whom you wouldn't have had a prayer of winning the war. No disrespect to the ANZACs - but slighting the U.S. role in the war is just silly, whatever your personal feelings about the Yanks might be.

Oh, and Wayne, Bronson, Sinatra and Holden took all the credit, but it's widely known that the guy who really won the war was Kirk Douglas. But after that girl in In Harm's Way accused him of improper advances, his name was mud. :(

Eric the Viking wrote:

bennie wrote:Ask any British vet who their best allies were in the two world wars: they'll tell you the same thing.
The Anzacs.

Depends on if you define "best friends" as the fellows who got along with the best person-to-person, or the ones without whom you wouldn't have had a prayer of winning the war. No disrespect to the ANZACs - but slighting the U.S. role in the war is just silly, whatever your personal feelings about the Yanks might be.

Oh, and Wayne, Bronson, Sinatra and Holden took all the credit, but it's widely known that the guy who really won the war was Kirk Douglas. But after that girl in In Harm's Way accused him of improper advances, his name was mud. :(

In hand-to-hand combat, the Aussies and the New Zealanders were true fighting men. That's what I meant. Real hard men.
But, you're right, the whole debate is silly. It's just those Hollywood movies, you know.

bennie wrote:It's just those Hollywood movies, you know.

I'll bet the Germans and Russians are big fans, as well. ;)

i think youll find fom a british perspective, John Mills won the Second World War

Boxrec is awesome, and i dont think there is anything like it in any other sport, so much information. The amount of research that must of been carried out is unthinkable.

Cricinfo for Cricket is another superb database for sport!

BoxRec is the living and vibrant embodiment of socialism at its best (in very narrow terms, granted). And no, I'm not taking the piss.

What? You mean Frank Sinatra didn't win the war singlehandedly?????