Do you think that people currently boxing or with former experience in the square circle are more qualified to judge boxing performances and predict the ebb and flow of future conflicts than the non-boxing punter?

After all, many boxing writers have no experience between the ropes and seem lucid and accurate yet most pundits (here in the U.K at least) seem to have some previous boxing experience and often get it wrong. One of the things that drew me to this forum in the first place was the presence of people engaged in the noble art. The “Ask the Trainer” section makes it clear for somebody browsing the forum for the first time that not everybody posting are non-participants. It makes for a more rounded and objective discussion and I like the fact that people’s opinions often reflect their different levels of engagement with the sport. Is the idea of a low boxing IQ and the garnered expertise of a participant, more important than the studied opinion of those who have followed the sport religiously over many decades?