Talking Boxing - Your Screening Question?

[Willow The Wisp]

Ever talk to someone about something and in less time than it takes to spot an idiot in a crowd, you realize they have no depth of knowledge on the subject? Now we all have our individual tool belts, equipped with what we've studied for amusement or vocation or formal education, or bumped into through our associations; but nobody knows everything. Not many people know very much about boxing. Not anymore, at least. A long time ago, boxing was rivaled by only a couple other sports for getting ink in the newspapers, on at least 6 continents, and it went on like that for about a century or more. Time was, every major and many minor daily newspaper in the English speaking world had a full time boxing expert on board, and many foreign language papers did too. Plenty of study materials within arms length for the whole family. A thing that started to peter out starting in the late 60s, through today, when tough guy things are anathema on the left side of the culture war. I have no science on the ascertain, but I've long suspected that people who identify as "boxing fans" know less about boxing than those espousing being Football fans know about Football, or Baseball fans know about Baseball, etc. This would be curious if true, because Boxing has more history and fewer rules, but my hunch is that it's true. Maybe boxing, owing to it's nature can be more readily enjoyed without understanding its history and detail than "Game sports" can, their being loaded with rules and restrictions. Maybe the perceived phenomenon is attributable to the typical boxing fan simply being more, eh; ******. Two guys punching each other in the brain being itself fundamentally ******. Anyway, there are just legions of "boxing fans" who, an inch beyond the contemporary sports headlines, don't know a fking thing about Boxing. It's what keeps my attention burried here on the History section, because the medium poster quality is simply higher here.
Anyway...for both of you still reading; if you were to use one screening question to flesh out somebody worth talking boxing with, what question would you use?

I guess mine would be: "Who is your favorite old-time boxer?"
If they say "um, Muhammad Ali ", I change the subject.
They are not worthy.

[Bundana]

If it's about who would i like to discuss boxing history with - mine would be: Make a connection between John L. Sullivan and Mike Tyson (or any other well-known heavyweight of recent times).

How someone goes about solving this, will tell me a lot about his knowledge.

[Willow The Wisp]

If it's about who would i like to discuss boxing history with - mine would be: Make a connection between John L. Sullivan and Mike Tyson (or any other well-known heavyweight of recent times).

How someone goes about solving this, will tell me a lot about his knowledge.

Lol, nice.

Sullivan > Corbett > Fitzsimmons > Johnson > Willard > Dempsey > Sharkey > Louis > Marciano > Moore > Ali > Holmes > Tyson - 12 jumps. Do I hear 11???

[Willie Pep 229]

Sometimes I'll ask "Whom do you think was better, Ali or Clay"?

If they answer: "They're the same person," I change the subject.

BTW are we condescending pricks? Answering this question makes me feel like one. But I did actually use the above question once to gauge someone's depth and was disappointed in their reply.

[QueensburyRules]

- - I predate sunscreen as did Cassius Clay.

[kara]

I spotted one quick earlier this year, when he told me "Canelo can beat Fury, watch he's going to be a heavyweight champion"

[The Old LefHook]

I only want to nitpick one sentence of the OP.

<I've long suspected that people who identify as "boxing fans" know less about boxing than those espousing being Football fans know about Football, or Baseball fans know about Baseball, etc.>

I simply do not believe that football fans know more about football than boxing fans know about boxing. Football fans know what a forward pass is and boxing fans know what a lefhook is. I believe I can find a one to one correspondence for anything you can say football fans know, and match it with something boxing fans know.

Maybe the OP is saying they have a better feel or intuition. But both can feel the tide of a game or match changing. Both watch stats closely. Both know the rules.

Or maybe the OP means lots of people who are very marginal fans of boxing will still, when questioned, profess to be boxing fans. A certain number of people will always gather around to watch a fight in the street, but that does not make them boxing fans, no matter what they profess or how they identify, unless they actually are. Some bearded fellows identify as women, by buggery, but of course that does not make them a woman. Few people gather to watch a sandlot baseball game, but a fight is much more exciting and critical, so more people gather.

A real fan of either is nearly identical, i.e. knows almost every rule, knows the history of the fighter or team, knows the managers, knows some stats, knows the ramifications of a rule change or an equipment change. On and on.

There are only 24 teams to choose from, or whatever, but hundreds of boxers. Yet fans study their favorite boxers intently. I believe there are simply fewer boxing fans than football fans. Drunken idiots at barbecues and beerathons have about the same quantity of information, whether their passion be football, baseball or boxing, IMHO.

The question is: Will I talk to someone at all? If I will talk to them at all, then I will also talk boxing with them.

[Willie Pep 229]

I only want to nitpick one sentence of the OP.

<I've long suspected that people who identify as "boxing fans" know less about boxing than those espousing being Football fans know about Football, or Baseball fans know about Baseball, etc.>

I simply do not believe that football fans know more about football than boxing fans know about boxing. Football fans know what a forward pass is and boxing fans know what a lefhook is. I believe I can find a one to one correspondence for anything you can say football fans know, and match it with something boxing fans know.

Maybe the OP is saying they have a better feel or intuition. But both can feel the tide of a game or match changing. Both watch stats closely. Both know the rules.

Or maybe the OP means lots of people who are very marginal fans of boxing will still, when questioned, profess to be boxing fans. A certain number of people will always gather around to watch a fight in the street, but that does not make them boxing fans, no matter what they profess or how they identify, unless they actually are. Some bearded fellows identify as women, by buggery, but of course that does not make them a woman. Few people gather to watch a sandlot baseball game, but a fight is much more exciting and critical, so more people gather.

A real fan of either is nearly identical, i.e. knows almost every rule, knows the history of the fighter or team, knows the managers, knows some stats, knows the ramifications of a rule change or an equipment change. On and on.

There are only 24 teams to choose from, or whatever, but hundreds of boxers. Yet fans study their favorite boxers intently. I believe there are simply fewer boxing fans than football fans. Drunken idiots at barbecues and beerathons have about the same quantity of information, whether their passion be football, baseball or boxing, IMHO.

The question is: Will I talk to someone at all? If I will talk to them at all, then I will also talk boxing with them.

True to all that but football fans got those fantasy players and they study the players closely - also they get the total geeks who show up at the draft and cheer and boo the picks. I'm not sure we got too many fans at that level.

[The Old LefHook]

My grown grandson is in there right now playing a fantasy football game. He doesn't know half about football what I know about boxing. And that would be true for the great majority who play fantasy football or fantasy boxing. Why would fantasy football players glean more information from their game than fantasy boxers do? I don't see it.

[Willie Pep 229]

My grown grandson is in there right now playing a fantasy football game. He doesn't know half about football what I know about boxing. And that would be true for the great majority who play fantasy football or fantasy boxing. Why would fantasy football players glean more information from their game than fantasy boxers do? I don't see it.

Well OK . . .

Availability of information. Ball-game players play almost daily, 162 BB, 82 basketball, 17 (weeks) football - so there is so much more to know. Also you can divide the players into skilled positions and that increases the necessary knowledge as well.

We have considerably less information to work with. Look at Tefimo Lopez, he has been around for several years now and has had only 16 fights. The first 10 were not even avaiable on TV. There just isn't as much to know, to work with.

After winning the 64K Question Joyce Brothers stated she chose boxing, as her topic, because its history was limited in amount of information when compared to the other sports. She actually referred to boxing history as being finite, believing they couldn't find a question she wouldn't have a chance to learn.

Let me ask it this way? Would you let a dad who only watched football coach a pee wee football team? Would you let a dad who only watched boxing teach kids to box?

I not sure that's a fair question. Never mind.