View Full Version : Other good boxing sites (besides this one, of course)

10-24-2005, 10:19 AM
Not counting CBZ, what are some other sites that you guys go to in order to find good articles, up to date info, etc.?

I've heard lots of bad things about Eastside Boxing, Boxingtalk and some other places.

Maxboxing is sometimes good, but they have an incredible West Coast-bias.

What about other sites like 15Rounds, Fightbeat, SecondsOut, etc.?

10-24-2005, 11:59 AM
sweetscience is pretty good . . some decent free videos.

ESB is crap but b/c of its membership, it has the most to date info on is boards if you're looking for weigh-in photos etc. of course they can be wholly rumors posted as wekk.

in terms of posting only boxrec and here are worth your time.

in terms of boxing news, fightnews is the place to go for the most part.

boxingtalk seems to be run by some wanna-be street 'gangstas' but some of their interviews can be entertaining if you're having a boring day at the office . .

10-24-2005, 12:00 PM
Its always been for awhile now fightnews, or eastside boxing getting the most hits with doghouseboxing and boxrec right there with them. Maxboxing is right up there. We have been about 19-20 for sometime now.
I like fightbeat of course-Irish JQ-and 15rounds.com as well. The Sweet Science is another good one as is boxingscene. Here is the link that you can check your favorite sites and see how they rank in popularity
www.mannypacquiao.ph/topsites/ (http://www.mannypacquiao.ph/topsites/)

Roberto Aqui
10-24-2005, 01:52 PM
I believe this was the 2nd most accessed website next to FightNews. It was hacked earlier this year and has never really come back. I have to wonder about the undercurrent of fraud in boxing that would cause this to happen. Maybe the site owners were paid off not to come back, or maybe the expense of rebuilding the site was prohibitive, or maybe they will come back stronger than ever. I don't know.

It was the best site for keeping up with developing Euro and Asian fighters and I heard rumurs that former feather great Hamed owned the site. Rich Dibona did the best job of covering big HBO PPV bouts of anyone I've seen. Generally the writing was more comprehensive and detailed that of Fightnews and it also had less of a cheerleading overtone that Fightnews tends to inject in it's articles.

Of course I used to write for them, so maybe I'm biased, but there is no doubting the traffic they generated so they must of had something going for them. Something bad happened and only a few insiders know what that was I guess.

10-24-2005, 02:10 PM
I think Boxrec was hacked into earlier this year as well.

It was hinted that it was another website, but never heard anything confirmed.

10-24-2005, 03:22 PM
in terms of posting only boxrec and here are worth your time.

The boxrec board is a mixed bag. Some good stuff, but a ton of nonsense as well. Really frustrating to visit there and find a "Butterbean vs. John L. Sullivan" thread. This board is great, but I wish there was more discussion of the lower-weight divisions.

10-24-2005, 07:48 PM
What does everyone (anyone?) think about fightnews carrying UFC results and UFC related stories? Rarely am I a snob... more of a purist... but man, I could really do without ANY UFC coverage at all... That's one big strike against the site for me, but I still visit it for boxing news...

10-24-2005, 08:28 PM
each site has a good and bad 2 em imo.

Eastside boxing is a fourm of myths and some saying Ruiz is the greatness thing since slice bread, but there is a lot of good, like allready mention, weigh ins, and fast news on fighters. I did not know the Rahamn fight was FIRST delay, until I read it in a trend, and of couse I thought it was a myth(And it turn out true)

The hard part of couse, some times, is getting fact and myth parter in this.

This site good, it news. but your updates in the lineal champs are a bit well outdated/ But its a good site over all. And it has recover GREATLY from that hack job. But the best part is the Wail and think goodness we have not lost any of that.

Yeah you guys do a GREAT job on the wail.

Boxing Rec, its foums like Eastside can be out of control a bit(Not as much as Eastside though)
Old fighters records are not complete, and I still dont like it that they got rid of the LPR fights of fighters like John L and co.

Would like to see you add the Chiken Game's boxing record, sure you guys may not think a page is worth of 7 fights, but it would be nice to see most of these England prize fighters records as complete as possbile, and with the Chicken Game, thats one step closer.

Roberto Aqui
10-24-2005, 11:49 PM
BoxRec as a data base is unsurpassed. I certainly don't access their forums. That is not their primary function. I doubt any forum matches CBZ for content and quality. The punks seem to be few and far between though occasionally someone's ego gets pinched followed by a loud yelp.

10-25-2005, 01:30 AM
Excellent analysis, Roberto.
That is what drew me here in the first place, the respect factor and zero tolerance policy for smack talk.
There are so many terrific boxing sites out there that allow that junk for ratings purposes.
Hopefully; we can all day come together and find a medium that will allow us to vent our opinions and not insult the fighters or one another.
I will be the first to admit I have been guilty of that in the past and have gotten up on my personal "High Horse" on another site because I have boxed before.
Once I began posting here and interacting with men like Ron Lipton who trained with multiple World Champions:
It made me realize how much I did not know.
It was a wake up call to humility and a lesson in respecting other folks' first hand experience in our sport's opinions.

10-25-2005, 12:46 PM
This is the best boxing site i seen , here you have
knowledgeable posters that know boxing ,even if
sometimes we don't agree.
The Boxrec. Forum posters are like a bunch of kids

Frank B.

10-25-2005, 02:47 PM
What is your reaction to my previous comment about the lack of attention on the lower-weight divisions in here? I believe -and pleaase take this as constructive criticism- that a knowledgeable crowd like the one here should be doing more discussing about the little guys. As I look at the first two or three pages of the "Modern" board, I hardly see any discussions of fighters below the lightweight division, despite the fact that some of the best fighters in the world populate those divisions. Heck, we even have threads about Josh Cobb and Butterbean in here! In any event, I hope this is taken as constructive criticism and not as a slam on the site (that's not my intention at all). I think adding this dimension would make this board a much better-rounded place.

10-25-2005, 03:09 PM

for me the lighter weights have always held more of my attention than the bigger guys. when there is an important lighter weight fight i feel i gets a fair ammount of play here. gordoom starts a discussion thread for all big fights. what strikes me is that whenever there is a heavyweight fight of any merit the posting goes on longer than for a bout between lighter men. it is the posters that do this not the CBZ.

as for other sites....i just have trouble getting into them. perhaps it is that i have become comfortable here and for sure it has a lot to do with the zero tolerance policy. a few years ago i tried some of the chat rooms that formed after a big fight and it was like trying to debate a bunch of mudslinging 8 yr. olds.

10-25-2005, 04:08 PM
I agree with you guys, Roberto and Greg, about the lighter
weights, i much rather see the bw. fw. lw. jww then the l.h
hw ,but i don't know what it is about the bigger guys , they bring in more fans and money ,i remember back in the 60s and 70s the small guys used to bring in about 17,000-18,000 fans to the Forum in Inglewood

Frank B.

Roberto Aqui
10-25-2005, 04:36 PM
I've started or responded to threads on little guys, mainly on some good telefutura bouts. Barrera, Morales, and Pac get as much attention and certainly more respect than the heavies and the 140 division gets plenty of posts and Corrales/Castillo have held up the LWs well. Maybe some just don't like the current heavy/LH divisions and want to complain about the attention they get. The divisions that are shorted here are flyweight and below and the cruisers. Nobody ever mentions Ivan Calderon and nobody salivates over any LH/Heavy fighting a top cruiser. Rey Bautista is a dynamite young banty prospect and the few times I've mentioned him the silence was deafening!

10-25-2005, 04:54 PM
Yeah, I gave up starting new threads about feathers and below a while ago. In 99% of the cases I got either zero or perhaps one response. I guess that's another dimension in which the good little guys ought to be jealous of unskilled brutes like Peter and Tua. :|

Juan C Ayllon
10-25-2005, 08:12 PM
Hey Rafael,

I know what you mean. It's a hard sell, for some reason.

Please, do tell us about outstanding prospects you see. Maybe you can one to bring to light guys that are under lightweight that we out to pay attention to.

Just a thought.

Talk soon, my friend,


10-25-2005, 08:45 PM
The classic section is raw. Those guys know their stuff and don't tolerate much in the way of non-sense. I've been through my wars with certain posters there and I've learned alot from those same posters. P4p, I have not found a better source for classic boxing facts and debates.

I am happy with this site and was very happy to find it. Delphi is another site I hear about that is a good source for debates and fight news.

10-25-2005, 11:44 PM
We have to mention Ringtalk.com where our good friend and colleague Cliff Rold writes at.
I only met Pedro once at the Juan Diaz - Lakva Sim WBA Lightweight Title Fight and he was a nice guy.

10-26-2005, 12:14 AM
Delphi is another site I hear about that is a good source for debates and fight news.

Thank you. Since I run that forum I was not going to mention it, but your compliment is appreciated.


10-26-2005, 04:11 AM
This forum is tops. The quality of the threads and the quality of the membership is unsurpassed. Gor does the best job of moderating on the net...whenever some smart ass comes on just to yap, he gets the boot. I promote this forum only to a select few that I feel would be worthy additions.

I also visit boxrec and moderate the boxers of the past section there, but I'm not nearly as serious there as I am here, but there are some good posters there. There is a lot more child's play, which I am not above as I cut loose some steam quite often. The British, Boxers of the Past, Record Query sections are good...though a lot of knuckle-heads cruise the current scene...I did try to help clean up the current scene over there a few months ago, but it was useless and will continue to be until the rules are really enforced. The database however is currently the best record book on earth and wonderful for new fans as well as old!

For news I use fightnews, the sweet science, maxboxing and the following site:

www.newsnow.co.uk/newsfeed/?name=Boxing (http://www.newsnow.co.uk/newsfeed/?name=Boxing)

10-27-2005, 12:31 AM

I have one tiny problem with Boxing rec though.

They took out all LPR fights, and so now Sullivan does not even have that 46 or 47 fight record,. but drops it in the mid or early 30's.

I dont think they have the right to take out the LPR fights, as most champions of the early age, WON there titles in these LPR fights.

Like Sullivan, he won it in 1882, in a LPR,(Travel the world to prove he was the champ and GAIN world wide reconseion with his win over Jake Kilrain, were after that fight, even the british were calling John L world champ)

Than he lost the crown in the gloved bout with Corbett.

Sullivan was relly the first guy to unify the "Alpha" groups of the 1800's, were He was World champ.

Of couse he let a certain Peter JAckson roam free. But still, he prove his world champship title under LPR fights, NOT the glove fights.

I dont conisder that 6 round bout John L fought in a "REAL" title bout.

10-28-2005, 12:16 PM
The taking out of the LPR bouts was voted on by all the editors. Personally, I have all bouts listed in my records, LPR as well as Queensberry.

10-28-2005, 01:28 PM
Despite having a number of reservations, I have
been contributing results to BoxRec over the
past couple of years. Yes, there are a
lot of inaccuracies in a number of the records
and results of LPR bouts aren't included, but
I also find that astounding progress has been
made in regards to compiling records of fighters
who fought during the late Nineteenth and the
early Twentieth Centuries.

I have to admit that I started two Josh Cobb
threads on the CBZ message board, but I
did it because I don't think that someone
like Cobb should be a boxer. In other words,
I did NOT start the threads because I like
the heavyweight division. In fact, I feel
that the lighter fighters are more skillful,
better conditioned, and more exciting than
their heavier counterparts.

- Chuck Johnston

10-28-2005, 01:28 PM
Those LPR bouts can be added to the fighters' BoxRec Encyclopedia ("Wiki") page, so that they are not lost or forgotten. I would invite those who would like to see these bouts "reinstated" to become a fellow volunteer Wiki Editor, and add what information you have to those pages, including records of bare-knuckle fights. Ric

10-28-2005, 01:29 PM
I look at John's L Wiki page,

and no, no LPR are listed,

Even though they say coming soon.

This brings up the matter of guys like Tom Cribb and the Chicken Game,

I belive, there should be a site, for these LPR fights, and if boxing rec has em 0-0(And maybe no Wiki page??)

Than that is a shame, as this(Cyber boxing zone) is the only site that has Cribb's record.

This may be PUSHING it, but I would like to see more LPR fighters records added, Make a page for Henry Preceh, the chicken game, You guys may not think 7 fights is worth it. But it would mean a lot to me, as he was one of the great champions of the past of the LPR fight records. And it would just expand the english champions.

10-28-2005, 05:06 PM
Greek, Again, create a free account and contribute to Wiki. Create a Cribb page, for example. It's free, easy and fun to do. Matt Tegen and I are Administrators over there, and monitor changes. We'd be happy to help you and others who want to contribute. There is so much work to be done there, and so few of us who are actually contributing. We could use help from folks like you who have the knowledge and expertise. :D

Forum Flash
10-28-2005, 08:14 PM
I agree. I think Fightnews is a great boxing news site, but
I could do without UFC news! Who cares? UFC can have their
own news site.

10-31-2005, 10:21 PM
made 2 fight pages

Added Henry Pearce Vs Jem Belcher and Mendoza Vs. Jackson.

And a short bio of Henry Pearce.

A REAL short bio lol.

11-01-2005, 12:45 PM
Boxrec.com has a lot of little errors that can drop you in it. For example, they will say TKO 3 even if a fighter has retired at the end of the third. Then you write the fighter was stopped in the third and get it wrong. That's annoying. I tend to use the Barry Hugman books now for acccuracy, and update the records myself.
One thing that separates this board from so many others, is the historical knowledge of posters, which is frightening. So many posters on other boards know absolutely nothing about the history of boxing. For example, the forum on boxrec.com has a little post on Chic Calderwood, and one posters says words to the efffect of: I think he was a pretty good fighter. Nobody has the knowledge to mention Calderwood was good enough to challenge for the world light-heavyweight title.
They just don't know.

Roberto Aqui
11-01-2005, 01:57 PM
[[[Boxrec.com has a lot of little errors that can drop you in it. For example, they will say TKO 3 even if a fighter has retired at the end of the third. Then you write the fighter was stopped in the third and get it wrong. ]]]

CBZ records Ali's loss to Holmes as LK11 even though he was retired by his corner. Facts are in the common usage of the venacular, Ali was stopped and the fight becomes part of Holmes' shorthand KO record which is announced as part of his record in every fight.

Perhaps historians have a purpose for finely subdividing losses, wins, and KOs, but for general purpose, those are the big 3 of a fighter's record.

11-01-2005, 01:58 PM
Clash of cultures time. British record books (because there's fewer records, no doubt) traditionally use more detail, i.e., rsc, rtd, KO.
Boxrec (which I believe is British) does separate TKO and KO - but to denote Muhammad Ali's 10th round retirement as L TKO 11, as it does, is a flaw in my opinion. By the way, that's what I meant to state in my last post. If a fighter retires, say, at the end of the third, boxrec state L TKO 4. That can drop you right in it.

Roberto Aqui
11-01-2005, 06:25 PM
[[[Boxrec (which I believe is British) does separate TKO and KO - but to denote Muhammad Ali's 10th round retirement as L TKO 11, as it does, is a flaw in my opinion. By the way, that's what I meant to state in my last post. If a fighter retires, say, at the end of the third, boxrec state L TKO 4. That can drop you right in it.]]]

Perhaps, but Futch retired Frazier after the 14th round in the exact same scenario as Ali's corner retirement against Holmes, yet CBZ lists Frazier's loss as KO 14. When Liston retired himself in the 6th rd of their first fight, CBZ lists that as KO 7. It's not just BoxRec. Personally, if a fighter quits, it's a stoppage in my book just as sure as he lays down for 10 or refuses to fight back and is stopped by the ref in the ring.

Forum Flash
11-04-2005, 11:14 PM
A boxing message board that I am a member of that's just
fun is Boxingmaster Message Board at:

members.spboards.com/inde...=muchmoore (http://members.spboards.com/index.php?mforum=muchmoore)

11-04-2005, 11:59 PM
The reason The 1st Ali-Liston fight is traditionally listes as TKO or Ko 7 is because he finished the 6th round but didn't come out for the 7th. That's why in most record boos it's listed as TKO 7. Since he did finish the 6th, if you think about it it makes sense.


11-05-2005, 12:07 AM
I checked out that forum it is good & I like that it's civilized but it doesn't seem to get much action. There was a thread on the front page complaining about a lack of posting. It is one of the better boards I've seen I like that they try tokeep flame wars to a minimum unlike most boards.

Btw: Welcome to the board Flash. It's always good to get a new poster that knows his stuff.


11-05-2005, 06:03 AM
I may be wrong, but I thought that the manner in which a result, such as the one beddows is speaking of, for a while depended on which rules were being used as I think some states, organizations, or countries had different ways of scoring the bout...a fighter that fails to come out for say the 7th round, in one area it was called a TKO 7 and another set of rules called it a TKO 6 and if that is they case it would be easy to get things mixed up and to change the result from one to the other because I disagree with the ruling would just further screw up the decision that the ruling body made!

Forum Flash
11-05-2005, 06:46 PM
Thanks! I am a member of that other board as well, and al-
though it is a bit slow of action, there are a few of us who
have been there since the beginning and are like a "family". We
have fun and have gotten to know one another somewhat.
As to myself, I have been a boxing fan since the age of 13
(I'm 45 now) and the first fight I watched was Ali-Frazier II.
That did it... Ali was my boyhood idol, and I was stuck on boxing!

11-10-2005, 08:49 PM
I am also a member of the site Forum Flashs mentioned (Actually the admin of it :eek ) and I think that its one of the best boxing forums on the web, but I agree that there isnt enough posts on it.

11-10-2005, 11:17 PM
Well, welcome aboard are board Muchmoore. As I said you do have the only other civilised board I've run across & your members do seem to know their stuff.

I'm busy as hell with my work & this board but I'll try to start posting on your board because I did like it.

Btw: Is your handle muchmoore because you a big fan of Archie's? Because he's one of my all-time faves.


11-11-2005, 12:18 AM
My usernames muchmoore because moores my last name ;)

Archie Moore is a favorite of mine though.