The Boxing Scene Mentoring Program

[The Old LefHook]

It makes me sad to witness the lack of boxing knowledge from some of our younger members.

Boxing Scene has asked me to start a mentoring program for the staggering task of educating some of these lads on the finer points of boxing history and technique.

I will assign one mentor to each youngster in need, a big brother, so to speak.

Bilbo, you grab Queensbree and start teaching and mentoring him immediately, please.

Pepper, Moneytheman is your assignment.

I will grab Alexkid.

Houdini, Steak is your charge. Educate the boy.

Wispy, you take DeeMoney

Apples, see what you can do with Denium.

Ghost On Dempsey, Tutor Nash Out gently, please

Iron Dan Hammy, Can you do anything with GrizzlyGrizzly?

Bundana, please take Starship ******. Thank You.

Any of you other real boxing men and experts who feel compelled, but whom I forgot to include, grab yourself a simpleton and start educating them right away. You will be handsomely rewarded.

[The Old LefHook]

Travestyny, you take Rick Taylor.

[QueensburyRules]

- - I been edukatin Leffy for a number of years now on how to order new dentures and understand a jab from a jag and a right from a left, and we makin' good progress

[The Old LefHook]

- - I been edukatin Leffy for a number of years now on how to order new dentures and understand a jab from a jag and a right from a left, and we makin' good progress

Bilbo is your big brother and mentor now. Talk to him, he is duly assigned. Your breadth and scope will increase exponentially if you take your big brother's advice to heart.

[them_apples]

I got my apprentice learning the fundamentals first. Right now hes just doing tasks like folding laundry and cleaning toilets. Well probably watch some old tapes next week, don’t want to rush things. Last but not least I say no eye contact with the mentor just keep your head down and do your job.

[Willow The Wisp]

Lol. So, to be clear....clarity being increasing elusive at my age....Am I Wispy?

[Nash out]

It makes me sad to witness the lack of boxing knowledge from some of our younger members.

Boxing Scene has asked me to start a mentoring program for the staggering task of educating some of these lads on the finer points of boxing history and technique.

I will assign one mentor to each youngster in need, a big brother, so to speak.

Bilbo, you grab Queensbree and start teaching and mentoring him immediately, please.

Pepper, Moneytheman is your assignment.

I will grab Alexkid.

Houdini, Steak is your charge. Educate the boy.

Wispy, you take DeeMoney

Apples, see what you can do with Denium.

Ghost On Dempsey, Tutor Nash Out gently, please

Iron Dan Hammy, Can you do anything with GrizzlyGrizzly?

Any of you other real boxing men and experts who feel compelled, but whom I forgot to include, grab yourself a simpleton and start educating them right away. You will be handsomely rewarded.

The Great Nash is a Hall of Famer and a true boxing historian. Nash is respected in and outside of their house. Nash's predictions almost always come true, Nash's judgement of fights and fighters past and present, is always based on, either facts, or a highly educated opinion. Whilst Nash knows all about the olden days of boxing, Nash also knows that some people are too tied to their fave fighter of 90 years ago, that they can't admit they would/could lose to the greats of today.

Nash also tells it like it is, so when Nash says that olden day resume's such as Julio Cesar Chavez SR. would not fly today, Nash is telling the truth. But because it's a resume from olden day times, he gets a pass. How convenient. Must be nice to fight 80 very low level journeyman, mostly with losing records, and debutants and pad yourself to 90-0, whilst being declared the greatest Mexican ever.

Boxers don't fight as much now. But getting to 10-0 padded, is the same as 90-0 padded. Of course you will always win fighting guys 5-6 levels below you. Regardless of whether it's 10 or 90. Say if Joshua fought Jason Galvern, or the like, 90 times, he'd be 90-0 too. That was Chavez Sr.

Just cause some people get butt-hurt about Nash's very correct opinion on the vastly overrated Mike Tyson, doesn't mean that Nash is wrong. Just like when Nash says that Ali, as great as he was, barely dominated anyone, does not mean that Nash is wrong. When Nash calls Bowe a chicken and a belt-binner who got, not one, but two pastings from some long-forgotten Polish journeyman, does not mean that Nash is wrong. Nash sees things his way, and backs up their views, and those views are often agreed with by those with an open mind. Nash out.

[Willow The Wisp]

BUMP. How are these mentorship assignments going? Any need for sanctions, shooting?

[GhostofDempsey]

The Great Nash is a Hall of Famer and a true boxing historian. Nash is respected in and outside of their house. Nash's predictions almost always come true, Nash's judgement of fights and fighters past and present, is always based on, either facts, or a highly educated opinion. Whilst Nash knows all about the olden days of boxing, Nash also knows that some people are too tied to their fave fighter of 90 years ago, that they can't admit they would/could lose to the greats of today.

Nash also tells it like it is, so when Nash says that olden day resume's such as Julio Cesar Chavez SR. would not fly today, Nash is telling the truth. But because it's a resume from olden day times, he gets a pass. How convenient. Must be nice to fight 80 very low level journeyman, mostly with losing records, and debutants and pad yourself to 90-0, whilst being declared the greatest Mexican ever.

Boxers don't fight as much now. But getting to 10-0 padded, is the same as 90-0 padded. Of course you will always win fighting guys 5-6 levels below you. Regardless of whether it's 10 or 90. Say if Joshua fought Jason Galvern, or the like, 90 times, he'd be 90-0 too. That was Chavez Sr.

Just cause some people get butt-hurt about Nash's very correct opinion on the vastly overrated Mike Tyson, doesn't mean that Nash is wrong. Just like when Nash says that Ali, as great as he was, barely dominated anyone, does not mean that Nash is wrong. When Nash calls Bowe a chicken and a belt-binner who got, not one, but two pastings from some long-forgotten Polish journeyman, does not mean that Nash is wrong. Nash sees things his way, and backs up their views, and those views are often agreed with by those with an open mind. Nash out.

I can see how you draw your conclusions while discussing or doubting the greatness of Chavez, Tyson or Ali. There's nothing wrong with being speculative and breaking down a respective fighter's resume to put it into context. I used the same unpopular argument you did for Chavez when I critiqued Monzon. The difference for me is that Chavez actually fought some excellent fighters in their prime, while Monzon scalped some big names while they were either moving up in weight and/or on the down-slide of their careers. He padded his record with about 80 Argentinean journeymen before finally stepping into the ring with some recognized competition.

My stance on Ali is similar to yours. I felt he received a lot of breaks and gifts because of his stature and status as a money maker and media sensation. Not to say he wasn't a great HW champion, but he had a lot of help along the way with fixed Liston fights, and controversial decisions over Jones, Frazier, Norton, Shavers and Young. He feasted on a lot of much smaller and older fighters too. Still, he never ducked an opponent and always gave it his all. He was a flawed fighter and certainly not "The Greatest" as the casual media would have everyone believe.

Tyson was a polarizing figure. Fans love knockouts, and on that count, Tyson delivered. One can argue his opponents were not top tier talent, while others may argue Tyson just made them look that way. I point to Tyrell Biggs as an underrated victory for Tyson. He was an Olympic Gold medalist who defeated Lennox Lewis and was undefeated going into their fight. He was the much bigger man at 6'5", and Tyson figured him out quickly and made easy work of him. Tyson also doesn't get enough credit for his win over Spinks. For all the talk of Spinks being a LHW, he had fought at HW in four fights prior to Tyson, he was only 7 pounds lighter and stood at least 4 inches taller. One of the greatest LHW's to enter the right and beat Holmes fair and square in two contests. I think it was Tyson's mental state that marked his downfall, not so much his physical abilities or boxing skill.

We certainly agree that Bowe was indeed a ducker and a dirty fighter to boot. He never impressed me, and his thug of a manager was a dark cloud over boxing at that time.

[them_apples]

The Great Nash is a Hall of Famer and a true boxing historian. Nash is respected in and outside of their house. Nash's predictions almost always come true, Nash's judgement of fights and fighters past and present, is always based on, either facts, or a highly educated opinion. Whilst Nash knows all about the olden days of boxing, Nash also knows that some people are too tied to their fave fighter of 90 years ago, that they can't admit they would/could lose to the greats of today.

Nash also tells it like it is, so when Nash says that olden day resume's such as Julio Cesar Chavez SR. would not fly today, Nash is telling the truth. But because it's a resume from olden day times, he gets a pass. How convenient. Must be nice to fight 80 very low level journeyman, mostly with losing records, and debutants and pad yourself to 90-0, whilst being declared the greatest Mexican ever.

Boxers don't fight as much now. But getting to 10-0 padded, is the same as 90-0 padded. Of course you will always win fighting guys 5-6 levels below you. Regardless of whether it's 10 or 90. Say if Joshua fought Jason Galvern, or the like, 90 times, he'd be 90-0 too. That was Chavez Sr.

Just cause some people get butt-hurt about Nash's very correct opinion on the vastly overrated Mike Tyson, doesn't mean that Nash is wrong. Just like when Nash says that Ali, as great as he was, barely dominated anyone, does not mean that Nash is wrong. When Nash calls Bowe a chicken and a belt-binner who got, not one, but two pastings from some long-forgotten Polish journeyman, does not mean that Nash is wrong. Nash sees things his way, and backs up their views, and those views are often agreed with by those with an open mind. Nash out.

Yeah but fighting 12 times a year is much better for conditioning both mentally and physically than fighting twice a year. The win ratio doesn’t mean AS much although 90-0 is still better than 40-0 but I can agree that doesn’t mean as much. But being undefeated in general means **** all, because you won’t ever lose if you never face anyone who can beat you.

but make no mistake fighting 12 times a year would make you a better, sharper fighter. This was back when a tune up was a real thing. The timing is different with small gloves, the defense is different, the power etc etc

and chavez wasnt an “olden” times fighter. He fought a lot os scrubs in mexico because thats how he ate. There wasnt much of an amateur scene. Once he hit the big stage he fought around the same as everyone else.

an “olden” times resume would be one where the rules allowed a fighter to step in the ring once a month if not more. This is how they got 200+ fights and thats on top of an ammy record