SHOULD THE PAST HISTORY OF BOXING BE SUPPRESSED?

[granberry]

Should the past history of boxing be suppressed

because boxrec moderator buzz thinks it “devalues” boxrec to mention the contrast between today’s professional boxing and that of earlier eras?

Should the fact that Joe Gans won on a foul over Battling Nelson in 42 rounds be forbidden to be posted on boxrec because in buzz’ eyes that “devalues” boxrec?

Should the fact that Battling Nelson lost his title to Ad Wolgast on a 40-round stoppage be forbidden to be posted on boxrec ?

The fact that Stanley Ketchel won the vacant middleweight title with a 32-round knockout over Joe Thomas?

That Jack Johnson lost his title to Jess Willard on a 26-round knockout?

That John L. Sullivan lost his title to Corbett on a 21-round knockout?

That Jess Willard and Jack Dempsey wore FIVE-ounce gloves in their heavyweight title fight?

That Joe Louis wore six-ounce gloves for all his heavyweight title fights?

Should such basic facts concerning the earlier history of boxing be forbidden from being posted on boxrec because buzz thinks it “devalues” boxrec?

Should stating fact that more recently fighters fight for championships wearing ten-ounce gloves and at a distance of 12 rounds (for example: Hagler and Leonard) be considered a “devaluing” of boxrec?

_____________________________________________________
SEE the following

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80368

where boxrec 'moderator' buzz wrote

granberry is devaluing boxrec with his cynical and jaded disposition.

after granberry wrote

Today they use large gloves and fight 12 rounds and call it a "championship" fight.

Of course today boxers DO use ten ounce gloves in title fights and they DO fight a distance of 12 rounds in title fights.

But according to boxrec 'moderator' buzz,' to state those basic facts "devalues" boxrec.

Perhaps 'moderator' buz should post a list of comments on boxing which are 'acceptable' on boxrec.
___________________________________________________________

Of course, buzz is the very same boxrec moderator who earlier stated that it is "defamation" to post this photo:




SEE:

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... c&start=50
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:40 pm

[HomicideHenry]

am sad to say but you're preaching to the choir Granberry, though I do think this article, least concerning the duration of rounds and equipment, is very valid. It is apart of this sports history, and shows the evolution (or maybe better put, the de-evolution) of the sport.

[BoxBuzz]

granberry makes the best straight man in any humor duo since Abbot and Costello. In the case of Abbot and Costello it was Costello not the straight man who had the superior knowledge of the game.

[Smokin'Moe]

i agree with granberry
but as long we're sticking to the facts and stop this internet bickering BS with eachother

btw granberry is probably the most informed boxing enthusiast on this site

[dempseyfire]

Granberry just created an entire thread based on taking another post completly out of context.

I would say his 'straight man' humor adds value to the site!

[p4p1]

i agree with granberry
but as long we're sticking to the facts and stop this internet bickering BS with eachother

btw granberry is probably the most informed boxing enthusiast on this site

its not his knowledge which is being disputed but his tendancy to go way over the top with stupid posts that discredit himself

[BoxBuzz]

I have always enjoyed granberry's contributions. I've always respected his knowledge and have often questioned his judgment and opinions. And most likely will continue to do so with no malice whatsoever.

At some point many of you will begin to understand granberry's humor. I have appreciated it for some time now. Anyone reading this in context will know that I mentioned his disposition, not the comparison of the old school with the new school. Something that granberry knows full well that we agree on.

[Robinson]

What is boxing.

[Goodnight, Irene]

No. It should be re-written & distorted beyond all context to suit one's agenda.

[BoxBuzz]

No. It should be re-written & distorted beyond all context to suit one's agenda.

a rather popular approach shared by more than a few. However there are some that take the concept to staggering heights.

[elmersalsa]

i agree with granberry
but as long we're sticking to the facts and stop this internet bickering BS with eachother

btw granberry is probably the most informed boxing enthusiast on this site

I agree with you. He has a lot of information if you think about it...

[elmersalsa]

why you say that, theone? :( :(

[barry]

----btw granberry is probably the most informed boxing enthusiast on this site----


Says the person with six total posts on the forum, certainly a lot of experience speaking there and an opinion that one can take to the bank!!!

[BoxBuzz]

----btw granberry is probably the most informed boxing enthusiast on this site----


Says the person with six total posts on the forum, certainly a lot of experience speaking there and an opinion that one can take to the bank!!!

you can always depend on family when your in the clutch....

[Collins2000]

i agree with granberry
but as long we're sticking to the facts and stop this internet bickering BS with eachother

btw granberry is probably the most informed boxing enthusiast on this site

He is also madder than planning to invade the sun.

Chief Petty Officer Elma suggested they will be OK if they attack at night...