Fighter A vs Fighter B

[onourway]

Pointless threads, aren't they, really?

For example.

Tyson - Douglas never happened.

I start a thread saying:

Tyson Vs Douglas in 1990 - who wins?

It would be post after post of 'Tyson does this, this, this, this and this, Douglas can't cope. Tyson KO2'

Whereas in the real world, Tyson got dealt with.

This is why analysing pretend fights is just pointless, because it works on a basis that you take two fighters attributes and you come up with a definitive result, when every week boxing proves this is bullshit.

Obviously it's a bit of fun, but the way people go hammer and tong about these hypothetical matches makes me smile, because neither is right, neither is wrong, but they're so adamant, when really and truly there's nothing to support the argument of either person.

[WhataRock]

Yeah you are right...but I enjoy discussing them and pulling the matchups apart.

[stonerose]

correct. pointless .
and this supposedly high-brow and intellectual classic forum is pretty much full of nothing else .

[My dinner with Conteh]

Not pointless at all. The talk in these match-ups generally concerns 'best nights'. Most upsets involve the better fighter losing to the underdog. If Tyson fights Douglas for the vacant title in, say, 1988 does he win etc etc? Upsets often happen when the champ has millions in the bank and has been farting through silk sheets for the past few years.

[My dinner with Conteh]

correct. pointless .
and this supposedly high-brow and intellectual classic forum is pretty much full of nothing else .

Knowledge of boxing history that you or OneOurWay cannot compete with is another thing.

[stonerose]

Knowledge of boxing history that you or OneOurWay cannot compete with is another thing.


what ? on your high horse again are we conteh ? :-(

i come in this forum to learn about boxing, not to read some drawn out argument about who would win out of tszyu and a peak chavez. nobody knows. i prefer threads like the one the guy did about britains most influential boxers or ones that mcgrain does about past masters.

i fail to grasp what your on about. if you think boxing knowledge is picking a winner out of two fighters you barely know carry on pal . fuckin hell.

[My dinner with Conteh]

On my high horse. What you on about? You've come in here commenting on the Classic Forum (which is easily the best thing about ESB):

and this supposedly high-brow and intellectual classic forum is pretty much full of nothing else.

:huh

So, if you're gonna say shite like this prepare to be pulled up on it.

[stonerose]

On my high horse. What you on about? You've come in here commenting on the Classic Forum (which is easily the best thing about ESB):



:huh

So, if you're gonna say shite like this prepare to be pulled up on it.



i was referring to the threads that are full of post after post of Barkley KTFO 1 Eubank and shit like that , which the classic forum seems to have been inundated with recently, so i'll stick with what i said, cheers .

[My dinner with Conteh]

i come in this forum to learn about boxing, not to read some drawn out argument about who would win out of tszyu and a peak chavez. nobody knows. i prefer threads like the one the guy did about britains most influential boxers or ones that mcgrain does about past masters.


Fine. So why did you dismiss this forum as being about hypothetical match-ups and nothing else? This forum is choca-bloc with great stories and information.

[My dinner with Conteh]

i was referring to the threads that are full of post after post of Barkley KTFO 1 Eubank and shit like that , which the classic forum seems to have been inundated with recently, so i'll stick with what i said, cheers .


Yeah, but they're tits from the General Forum. That can't be helped.

[stonerose]

Fine. So why did you dismiss this forum as being about hypothetical match-ups and nothing else? This forum is choca-bloc with great stories and information.


My point was i think those stories have recently been replaced with the shit A v B match-ups to a degree which is a shame. I don't make any claims to be a boxing expert,so your petty little insult about boxing knowledge surprises me but doesn't bother me in the slightest. thats why i enjoy coming in here to look through threads like the ones i mentioned, to learn . And i have just noticed that its gone a bit shit recently. That is all.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Ok fair enough, but you initial post in this thread hardly suggests this.

[McGrain]

1 - They are fun

2 - They are good for practacing breaking down technical attributes and how they interact using fighters of whom we have exstensive footage

3 - If the thread runs to three pages I always learn something about one of the fighters I didn't know beforehand. These threads draw out the best in posters, for whatever reason, try starting a thread called "Carlos Monzon" you will get a page and a half. A thread called "Carlos Monzon v Sugar Ray Robinson" can do nine pages.

4 - You're right that the picks are of limited value. Same can be said of picks made for fights that are happening this weekend.

[WhataRock]

I really dont see whats wrong with them though...If you dont want to reply to them then dont.

Ive been the one guilty one "inundating" here with those matchups in like the last few days..I thing Ive made 6 in the last two days just to get a response which Ive had a few and learnt some things from it.

I often make ones using two obscure fighters most dont know about to get more information and opinions from people..You do that in general you get retarded responses or none at all.

[stonerose]

I really dont see whats wrong with them though...If you dont want to reply to them then dont.

I often make ones using two obscure fighters most dont know about to get more information and opinions from people..You do that in general you get retarded responses or none at all.


fair enough . i was mostly just saying that classic seems to have more and more of these . and maybe when i was thinking of the ones with silly comments like KTFO 1 !!!!!! with nowt to back it up i was thinking more of the ones in general .
no offence intended . i just love popping in here to increase my knowledge , maybe i should give those threads a bit more of a read.

[WhataRock]

fair enough . i was mostly just saying that classic seems to have more and more of these . and maybe when i was thinking of the ones with silly comments like KTFO 1 !!!!!! with nowt to back it up i was thinking more of the ones in general .
no offence intended . i just love popping in here to increase my knowledge , maybe i should give those threads a bit more of a read.

Honestly it really is like that in here...its just I put up a few in quick sucession. :lol: Thats maybe why you got the idea it had gone like that.

I did it mostly out of boredom...they can be a little bit of a quick brain flex when there isnt anything else going on..like no big news to discuss.

I only really starting reading in here not long ago myself...way way more informed posters, its a pleasure to read their opinions, views and stories..I was about to give up on this place not long ago, to much shit in general.

[dav8d777]

1 - They are fun

2 - They are good for practacing breaking down technical attributes and how they interact using fighters of whom we have exstensive footage

3 - If the thread runs to three pages I always learn something about one of the fighters I didn't know beforehand. These threads draw out the best in posters, for whatever reason, try starting a thread called "Carlos Monzon" you will get a page and a half. A thread called "Carlos Monzon v Sugar Ray Robinson" can do nine pages.

4 - You're right that the picks are of limited value. Same can be said of picks made for fights that are happening this weekend.

I agree with the above, but I do think that the best ones are to the point and not real real broad like "best possible match up ever". I do also sometimes just simply ignore them for a while. They are pretty fun to write about usually.

Hopefully we don't take ourselves TOO seriously. :admin