Thursday, March 23, 2017

Educating the Uneducated

Before I begin,I apologize for the recent absence and another one next week.
The battle for decent internet continues with Verizon and usually I lose that fight,but there is hope on the horizon (which rhymes with Verizon)-I'll have a new provider on March 30th.
That doesn't change issues until then,but that light at the end of the tunnel is now there!
I'm going to write a post on my three weeks with Verizon when all of this is over,I hope you'll laugh a little with me then!

The net was a little better on my lame duck connection with Verizon today and I read one of the most ridiculous boxing articles that I have ever read.
I'm not linking to it as giving the author (Branson Wright of the Cleveland Plain Dealer) any credence,although you can find it on,but in short-I was blocked on Twitter by this guy for educating him.

I'm a fan of Gennady Golovkin.
I'm a fan of a lot of fighters,but every fighter has flaws and if you fight long enough,every fighter gets beaten.
This gentleman thinks Daniel Jacobs deserved the decision against Golovkin,I disagree,but there are a few others that I've read that agree with him,although far more feel Golovkin won a close but clear decision.
Daniel Jacobs far exceeded my expectations and deserves a rematch,although that should come down the road and not immediate-the fight wasn't THAT close.
What Jacobs should do is stay busy,notch a KO win or two and make people really want a rematch instead of sitting on his laurels for a year,which Jacobs has done in the past as far as inactivity goes.

Mr.Wright decided to denigrate Golovkin (and later Canelo Alvarez) for not fighting better fighters and in the case of Golovkin offered FIVE fighters(Andre Ward,Erislandy Lara,Jermall Charlo,Chris Eubank Jr and Andy Lee)  that he should have fought,but didn't.
I called him out on such an awful premise and noted the following facts.
Of the five fighters that GGG supposedly wanted no part of-Three have never fought at his division (Andre Ward fought at 168 and 175 during Golovkin's reign,Erislandy Lara is at 154 and Jermall Charlo recently moved to 160,but has yet to fight at that weight),one dodged a Golovkin bout (Chris Eubank Jr) and the final one (Andy Lee) had signed for the fight,but Golovkin's father passed away and the fight was postponed.
Since the postponement,Lee won and lost the WBO title and took 15 months off before returning on the GGG-Jacobs undercard.
Putting the weight issues aside and the massive promotional issues involved (Lara and Charlo are PBC fighters with Ward's Roc Nation being notoriously difficult to negotiate with) and you have a result of why none of those fighters,with the exception of Lee would be a fight that had a mild chance of happening.

Wright lamely offered that "Have you ever heard of catchweight fights".
Catchweights are awful and hurt boxing,so it doesn't stun me that the ill-informed Wright would like them and said GGG "Could have fought Ward there" or dropped to fight Lara or Charlo.
Doesn't take more than a minute to see that the dull Lara and the somewhat unproven Charlo (I was very impressed with his final win at 154 vs Julian Williams) bring little money or fan interest to make a catchweight worth pursuing and Ward was more interested in Sergei Kovalev than Golovkin,but why ruin a good fantasy?
The followup for the beaten Wright was criticizing Golovkin for fighting welterweight Kell Brook rather than his list.
I can see why people wondered about Brook,but two things to note.
One) Brook took the exact same contract for a GGG fight as was offered Chris Eubank Jr-first.
Eddie Hearn promotes both fighters and has nothing to gain from a lie and has said just that-"Brook took the same contract offered to Eubank".
Two) Brook moved to GGG's division to take his shot at him-no catchweights.

So what was Wright's response to facts?
He blocked me.
I didn't name call,didn't curse,just hit him where it hurt most-his lack of knowledge about the product.
In order to have his lack of knowledge kept under wraps to his followers-he blocked me.
Consider it a mercy stoppage,similar to a boxer beaten around the ring all night until the referee steps in and says he's had enough.

Branson Wright was educated and he needed to be-I've always said that news outlets (print and visual) have always looked at boxing and horse racing as the two sports that "anyone can cover".
The results in these cases are usually bad as said person looks totally uninformed on what they are supposed to knowledgeable in covering.
Now,that assignment may not have been their choice,but they inevitably wind up looking poorly to the fans of what they are covering.
It doesn't take long to show lack of knowledge,if I did a call-in show on Monday,but instead of sitting in on FightHeads,I sat in on a podcast that discussed soccer.
I'd be overmatched and within five minutes,my lack of knowledge would be apparent.

It may seem like I'm wasting my time with Branson Wright,but I educated him.whether he admits it or not.
Be fair to the topic you are writing about-learn the topic or stick to the results,those cannot be argued-Ridiculous and uneducated opinions only make the writer look foolish....

No comments: