Comments Thread For: BoxingScenes Midweek Mailbag: Jaime Munguias KO loss, Sebastian Fundora-Errol Spence Jnr and more

[BoxingUpdates]

In this weeks mailbag, we tackle one big shot in Bruno Suraces shocking knockout of Jaime Munguia; one fighter who appears shot in heavyweight Dillian Whyte; one sanctioning body being praised for not putting its imprint on Errol Spence fighting Sebastian Fundora; and another sanctioning body being blasted for seeking a match between Kubrat Pulev and Jarrell Miller.
[Click Here To Read More]

[Plick647]

Whytes known only for failed drug tests, and for receiving a few uppercuts!

[lightsoutrome]

I wonder how many boxing fights the author of this article has had? Or how many world championships has he won? Who the hell is he to trash Spence when he more than likely never stepped in a boxing ring himself.

[Liondw]

I enjoyed the insight in this article.

Now, while one would not say Munguia is the level of Ennis' talent, I don't think it'll be that many fights before he gets a big one.

I hadn't thought of a certain point that was made, that 'Boots' relies a lot on reflexes. That makes me think of Roy Jones. When the athleticism went, he lost badly a few times.

That's not to say that Roy didn't have any pure boxing skill, but perhaps the foundation wasn't as secure as, say, Hopkins and Mayweather. The latter two could fight on when their athleticism declined, because they have the superb fundamentals.

I think Ennis has good fundamentals, although maybe it's not as skilled in subtleties as Crawford.

[Mr. David]

I wonder how many boxing fights the author of this article has had? Or how many world championships has he won? Who the hell is he to trash Spence when he more than likely never stepped in a boxing ring himself.

This is one of my favorite fallacies, and it only seems to matter when people are critical of someone. But how many of Errol Spence's fans have boxed or won world championships? Should the only people allowed to opine on boxing be those who've fought? And should it only be if they've fought to a certain level?

What about movies? Was there a movie that you thought was no good? But have you gone to film school? Directed a movie? Won an Oscar?

[steeve steel]

This is one of my favorite fallacies, and it only seems to matter when people are critical of someone. But how many of Errol Spence's fans have boxed or won world championships? Should the only people allowed to opine on boxing be those who've fought? And should it only be if they've fought to a certain level?

What about movies? Was there a movie that you thought was no good? But have you gone to film school? Directed a movie? Won an Oscar?

Exactly! So basically, you have to be a specialist in something in order to have an opinion. For example, you need to be a professional football player to be able to say it was a bad goal and the keeper should have stopped the ball, even when it's pretty obvious for everyone he misjudged or dropped the ball. Or an even better example, you shouldn't criticize a surgeon even if there was malpractice, because you haven't been to medical school.

I know there is a multitude of haters and arm chair critics out there, but if you're an administrator of a boxing forum, I'm guessing you're entitled to your own opinion, especially if a fan writes in and asks you a specific question.