(Robert Crumb, predictor of Twitter? via)
There are all kinds of ways to conduct discourse in this Digital Age with the Information Superhighway and the Facingbook, and one of the newest is Twitter. Like all new means of communication, Twitter transforms debate, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill; that's elementary enough, and a subject for people who study such things, not a boxing blog. But many of the ways it transforms debate apply to the sport to which this blog is devoted, which is why I care.
I've been on Twitter since early 2009, when the big idea was merely to amplify the right column of The Queensberry Rules, where a module features my latest tweets. News in boxing happens fast, and often I don't have time to write a full post on it, so I thought it would be a good way to keep visitors current on my views on what's going down. That sort of worked.
In some ways, I suspect Twitter hurt the blog more than it helped it. But this isn't a sour grapes post, or at least didn't feel like it when I was writing it, some kind of "I'm an old man of the blogging world, MYAH, I can't program my VCR so what's this Tweeter business?" condemnation of the medium. After all, in some of my interactions with some boxing writers for mainstream, newsier publications, there's been a distinct eye roll-worthy "You're in your pajamas in the basement" kind of vibe toward me, the same kind of dynamic that happens in mainstream news vs. blog relationships in politics, sports and more. We're still wrestling with those things, years and years and years since blogs began. It keeps me feeling young.
What this post is, though, is an examination of how Twitter has affected boxing-related communications, based on my observations and experiences and a few insights I've stolen from others. And yeah: I have some unkind things to say.