Archie Moore vs. Joe Calzaghe?

[Amsterdam]

:hey

[mr. magoo]

I'm going with Moore, but I don't have time right now to elaborate on why.

[mcvey]

:hey
A very ,very good fighter who was a super middle,against a great one ,who,at LH was a division above him.Moore by late ko,or dec.

[achillesthegreat]

This is an interesting one.

[Amsterdam]

This is an interesting one.

Certainly. What are the scenerio's that you see Achilles?:think

[mightyd40]

based on moores' opposition, size and my own questions about joe's talent, i am going with moore by ko. probably late

[achillesthegreat]

Certainly. What are the scenerio's that you see Achilles?:think
Physically Moore is the more proven fight so I'll give him the strength and power edge. However speed goes to Joe and they are both skilled operators.

If Moore boxes Joe and stays behind a jab he could edge a win but if Moore starts coming for Joe then Joes in the zone and he can be close to unbetable.

The best thing I'd like to see happen is both of them duke it out in ring centre, on the inside. Joe has a top inside game and when Moore tucks up behind his cross guard, we are going to get some real rough housing.

[Mendoza]

I'm going with Moore, but if Calzaghe does a paint job on Kessler I will re-think thinks a bit. Calzaghe needs to be tested vs elite level talents. I was impressed at how well he held off a much stronger Jeff Lacy.

Most super middles enter the ring in the high 170's to low 180's anyway, so the weight differential between the two is not that great.

On pure boxing skills to win rounds, I think Calzaghe is better than Moore. The question is could Calzaghe hold Moore off, and if forced to take his punches in route to a decision. Maybe.

[China_hand_Joe]

Moore fairly regularly lost to any opposition even approaching Calzaghe's level. Unless I have overlooked a stylistic nightmare that may exist for Calzaghe, the result is an inevitable Calzaghe win.

[brooklyn1550]

Very interesting fight...Moore by decision

[McGrain]

Moore is bigger, stronger, more proven and a wonderful ring general. If there is a weakness Joe's inferior opposition has failed to uncover then Archie will find it. On the other hand a healthy Calzaghe out to win a big fight is the better puncher.

I'd pick a peak Moore to win it by decision. The fact that it would be such a major step up in class for Joe would be the deciding factor for me.

[Maxmomer]

Moore fairly regularly lost to any opposition even approaching Calzaghe's level. Unless I have overlook as stylistic nightmare that may exist for Calzaghe, the result is an inevitable Calzaghe win.

Thanks for that opinion, there, Mr. Objective.

[Luigi1985]

Moore fairly regularly lost to any opposition even approaching Calzaghe's level. Unless I have overlook as stylistic nightmare that may exist for Calzaghe, the result is an inevitable Calzaghe win.


Who would you personally favour over Calzaghe?

[China_hand_Joe]

Who would you personally favour over Calzaghe?

Wlad, Lennox Lewis, there are more but I can't think of them right now.

[Luigi1985]

Wlad, Lennox Lewis, there are more but I can't think of them right now.


And at 175 lbs and lower you favour him against all fighters in history?

[China_hand_Joe]

And at 175 lbs and lower you favour him against all fighters in history?

Jones would be interesting, then against Calzaghe's left hook might crush him.

Prime (aggressive) Hopkin's and a few others could do an ok survival job (based on their exceptional straight right), but would never be likely to win.


Calzaghe might actually be better at 175 than 168, so I'll stay hush on the 175ers for now.

[Amsterdam]

And at 175 lbs and lower you favour him against all fighters in history?

If he crushes Kessler and Dawson by way of definitive shutout/destruction, will you reconsider picking Bivins over him?:D

[Luigi1985]

If he crushes Kessler and Dawson by way of definitive shutout/destruction, will you reconsider picking Bivins over him?:D


Amsterdam, don´t switch words. I didn´t write that Bivins would beat him, I said that he would have a chance, that´s a big difference...

[McGrain]

If he crushes Kessler and Dawson by way of definitive shutout/destruction, will you reconsider picking Bivins over him?:D

I would I think.

[China_hand_Joe]

If he crushes Kessler and Dawson by way of definitive shutout/destruction, will you reconsider picking Bivins over him?:D

Then we can give Bivins a 5% chance vs Kessler.

[Robbi]

Its criminal putting Calzaghe up against the "Ole Mongoose". He'd get distroyed inside six rounds. Archie could hit like a ton of bricks.

[Amsterdam]

I would I think.

I'd think two wins of that fashion over those two A level elite guys would at the very least solidify the arguments coming from Calzaghe fans.

For the average person, it could at the very least rank him up there with Jones' ability on a H2H basis.

Bivins would stand little chance to begin with. But maybe you all will see like Achilles does for the fight with Moore, lots of scenerio's, instead of just outright picking the current cemented ATG.

[McGrain]

Then we can give Bivins a 5% chance vs Kessler.


That should be 95%. If you are assigning a % to represent Bivins chance of winning.

[Amsterdam]

Amsterdam, don´t switch words. I didn´t write that Bivins would beat him, I said that he would have a chance, that´s a big difference...

But what I don't get is how you pick Joe over James Toney and claim it would be quite clear, but then act as if Dick Tiger and Bivins are less clear.

All of the purists even agreed that Calzaghe has a nasty stylistic advantage over Tiger, just like he does over the defensively tentative counter puncher in James Toney(against speed). I think Toney is several steps up in terms of ability and skill from Tiger or Bivins.

[McGrain]

But maybe you all will see like Achilles does for the fight with Moore, lots of scenerio's, instead of just outright picking the current cemented ATG.

If you read my post it's pretty even handed.

[Amsterdam]

That should be 95%. If you are assigning a % to represent Bivins chance of winning.

I don't know McGrain, that Mikkel Kessler is pretty impressive. I've been watching a lot of him lately and he's a very complete fighter for his style, I could see him making a serious impact after the Calzaghe bout, win or lose.

Bivins doesn't strike me as of Kessler's class in skill, or surprisingly, handspeed.

[Amsterdam]

If you read my post it's pretty even handed.

I know, but it's not for the majority. Most wouldn't even admit 'interesting bout' at the very least.

I have NO problem with anyone selecting Moore considering where we are coming from, but I have a problem with -

'Calzaghe's fought noone, Moore by easy KO early'. As if it is a dead certainty that Calzaghe has no chance. This is where the underrated issue's come into play and why Calzaghe fans become so 'twisted'.:yep

[China_hand_Joe]

In the same was as any loud-mouthed, self-publishising American fighters are overrated, it is a safe assumption any big name 'classic' fighter will be overrated too by the classic forum as a whole. Of course grudges against certain fighters leads to biases against them, from individuals.

[McGrain]

I don't know McGrain, that Mikkel Kessler is pretty impressive. I've been watching a lot of him lately and he's a very complete fighter for his style, I could see him making a serious impact after the Calzaghe bout, win or lose.


I would tend to agree.

Bivins has wins over Lloyd Marshall, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Billy Soose and an absolute peak Charley Burley. For me, these guys were all great fighters, maybe not Soose but the others for sure. He was a cute, clever, skilled boxer.

[McGrain]

In the same was as any loud-mouthed, self-publishising American fighters are overrated, it is a safe assumption any big name 'classic' fighter will be overrated too by the classic forum as a whole. Of course grudges against certain fighters leads to biases against them, from individuals.

It's obviously not going to be "safe" to make any sweeping and all comsuming generalisation.

[Amsterdam]

I would tend to agree.

Bivins has wins over Lloyd Marshall, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Billy Soose and an absolute peak Charley Burley. For me, these guys were all great fighters, maybe not Soose but the others for sure. He was a cute, clever, skilled boxer.

You seem to really admire Charley Burley, I have no experience with him.

Any details?

[China_hand_Joe]

Bivins was also hammered by the good but not great Charles several times as well.

A child could examine Charles record and see how flimsy it is compared to Joe Calzaghe's.

A child would actually be objective though and not wooed by recognisable names.

[China_hand_Joe]

It's obviously not going to be "safe" to make any sweeping and all comsuming generalisation.

Safe enough.

It you bet against loud-mouthed/Gatti-like Americans in every even tp 2-1 fight, you'd get a solid income.

[McGrain]

You seem to really admire Charley Burley, I have no experience with him.

Yeah, there isn't a lot of footage (you can check out his fight with cracking light-heavy Oakland Billy Smith on youtube, but it's less than great) and i'll admit part of my admiration springs from his back story - Charley was perhaps the most ducked fighter of all time.

Any details?

Think Hopkins with Jones' reaction time and some serious power. He could vary his style dependant upon his opponent and had all the shots. Basically a WW he was chased out of that division by Zivic who bought out Charley's contract when he came to the title - Burley held two wins over the guy. Angelo Dundee, Ray Arcel, Archie Moore, Eddie Futch, Emmanuel Steward and many others have labelled him as the best of all time at some stage.

I don't know about that but I do know Sugar didn't fancy it.

[China_hand_Joe]

Of all the light heavyweights in history you pick only Jones and Hopkins to beat Calzghe?

I'm sorry I can't take you serious.

If you read the statment, I said I'll stay hush on LHW.

I also gave Hopkins no chance mate.

[McGrain]

Bivins was also hammered by the good but not great Charles several times as well.

Charles is arguably the greatest of all time.

A child could examine Charles record and see how flimsy it is compared to Joe Calzaghe's.

An interesting claim. I wonder if the same child would see that Calzaghe had defended at B+ level and Bivins actively sought fights with the best of his day?

[McGrain]

Safe enough.

It you bet against loud-mouthed/Gatti-like Americans in every even tp 2-1 fight, you'd get a solid income.

Possible.

You'd still be wrong plenty of times though. As you're proving.

[Amsterdam]

Yeah, there isn't a lot of footage (you can check out his fight with cracking light-heavy Oakland Billy Smith on youtube, but it's less than great) and i'll admit part of my admiration springs from his back story - Charley was perhaps the most ducked fighter of all time.



Think Hopkins with Jones' reaction time and some serious power. He could vary his style dependant upon his opponent and had all the shots. Basically a WW he was chased out of that division by Zivic who bought out Charley's contract when he came to the title - Burley held two wins over the guy. Angelo Dundee, Ray Arcel, Archie Moore, Eddie Futch, Emmanuel Steward and many others have labelled him as the best of all time at some stage.

I don't know about that but I do know Sugar didn't fancy it.

A ducked fighter eh?

Well, you know I like those.

My top 3 current would be Calzaghe, Mijares and Guzman.:yep

[Amsterdam]

Off topic, Pearl Jam's second record was pure class.

[McGrain]

A ducked fighter eh?

Possibly like no other.

Jake LaMotta supposedly ducked him for Christsake, and whatever you think of Jake, you know he was up for fighting.

[McGrain]

Off topic, Pearl Jam's second record was pure class.

:lol:

Which one was that?

[Amsterdam]

Possibly like no other.



I feel for him then. I hate when great talents are ducked.

But most of all, I hate 'circle jerking' clubs, if you know what I mean. Such as Taylor-Hopkins-Wright fighting within their little circle and gaining top credit.

[Amsterdam]

:lol:

Which one was that?

'VS'

Total class, I was just through the track 'rearview mirror', which is genius.

[China_hand_Joe]

Charles is arguably the greatest of all time.




Can you give me the excuses for his loses mate?

[Holmes' Jab]

Moore, by late stoppage.

[Ezzard]

Moore by stoopage.

Archiw proved it again and again in possibly the greatest ever era of LHW fighters. I'm a fan of Calzaghe but he's done nothing to prove that he's capable of going the distance let alone winning this one.

[China_hand_Joe]

Moore by stoopage.

Archiw proved it again and again in possibly the greatest ever era of LHW fighters. I'm a fan of Calzaghe but he's done nothing to prove that he's capable of going the distance let alone winning this one.

Calzaghe has never been KOd, or close to it.

He has shown excellent stamina.

That is plenty of indication he could easily last the distance in the slowly paced 1940s.

[MrSmall]

Moore by knee-cappage.

[McGrain]

Can you give me the excuses for his loses mate?

I don't feel it's neccesary, but I suppose I probably could...

[McGrain]

Calzaghe has never been KOd, or close to it.

He has shown excellent stamina.

The better the fighter you are in with the more likely you are to be KO'd or close to it.

Calzaghe hasn't fought very good fighters.

Getting in with Charles would be stepping up three or four levels in terms of class whatever your delusional analysis of the 40's tells you.

[The Whaler]

Calzaghe may be an Average Joe, but Moore is much more special. In fact, Calzaghe would be a Welsh dragon his feet during the fight, while Archie Moore would be wily like a Mongoose.

These metaphors suck.

[robert ungurean]

Archie Moore beats the shit out of Calzaghe.
Who the hell has Joe fought to even be mentioned in the same breath as Moore.

[cross_trainer]

Can you give me the excuses for his loses mate?

1. Fought much better fighters than Calzaghe

2. Fought much more frequently than Calzaghe

3. Continued fighting long past his prime, unlike Calzaghe



That about covers it.

[cross_trainer]

I feel for him then. I hate when great talents are ducked.

But most of all, I hate 'circle jerking' clubs, if you know what I mean. Such as Taylor-Hopkins-Wright fighting within their little circle and gaining top credit.
Equally bad, though, are exclusive belt clubs. Calzaghe is an example of the latter. Until Lacy, he didn't fight other beltholders and rarely fought the top fighters in his division. Then there are the multiple weightclasses to consider--Calzaghe never chose to move out of what is, essentially, half of the former lightheavyweight division.

So for most of his career he was the best fighter in 1/4 of 1/2 of the former lightheavyweight division that Charles ruled. Even if the total number of boxers in Charles era was less--and that's debatable--it would have to be eight times bigger to justify rating Calzaghe over Charles. Then factor in Charles' heavyweight accomplishments.

[cross_trainer]

Bivins was also hammered by the good but not great Charles several times as well.

A child could examine Charles record and see how flimsy it is compared to Joe Calzaghe's.

A child would actually be objective though and not wooed by recognisable names.
You're right. A child would think that Calzaghe was a better fighter than Charles. Fortunately, we're all adults here and can rate Calzaghe according to his actual merits--far below Charles. Unless you're afflicted with what I call "49-0 Disease".

[Nemesis]

Anyone thinking Calzaghe doesnt cause Moore stylistic difficulties is being ridiculouis

[Chaney]

Wlad, Lennox Lewis, there are more but I can't think of them right now.Hold on a minute!! Are you seriously saying that Wlad and Lennox are the only 2 fighters from the entire history of the heavyweight division that you immediately think of who would be favoured to beat Calzaghe??

Dempsey? Louis? Marciano? Liston? Ali? Frazier? Foreman? Holmes? Tyson? That's just off the top of my head, without really thinking too hard about it. All of these guys would handily defeat Calzaghe...as would many other heavies and light-heavies.

All these heavyweight ATGs don't spring to your mind as being favoured over a Supermiddle weight? I like Calzaghe, and hope to be there in Cardiff cheering him on against Kessler...but come on, man...why are you on a classic boxing forum if you can't think of any classic heavyweight boxers?

[China_hand_Joe]

Holmes, but Conn basically proved to me Louis could be beaten by Calzaghe.

Marciano, I fancy Calzaghe to win too.

Also Dempsy and Liston probably lose.

[China_hand_Joe]

Charles record is very dodgy.

I'm pretty sure Calzaghe would have retired instantly if he'd lost to any of the opponents Charles lost to. There are no excuses.

The fact is, everything is overlooked because he is in a whirlpool of classic boxer hype. Charles must be good to justify you view of the other fighters he fought. I call it a whirlpool as more and more non-great fighters get sucked in.

If Charles was anything like you make him out to be, he would not have lost to so many of those opponents - who you inevitable hype accordingly as your only means of defence. Even fighting frequently these opponents should have been foregone conclusions.

I accept Charles is allowed a few off days, but it is more than a few. We might as well call Kirkland Laing a top 10 ATG too.

[Chaney]

Holmes, but Conn basically proved to me Louis could be beaten by Calzaghe.

Marciano, I fancy Calzaghe to win too.

Also Dempsy and Liston probably lose.Sorry, are you saying you think that Dempsey and Liston probably lose to Calzaghe?

As well as Louis and Marciano?

So you have Wlad, Lennox and Holmes to beat Calzaghe.

What about the other names I mentioned? Ali, Frazier, Foreman and Tyson?

[China_hand_Joe]

What about the other names I mentioned? Ali, Frazier, Foreman and Tyson?

They can.

I am very objective.

[Chaney]

They can.

I am very objective.So, in summary, you think Calzaghe loses to: Wlad, Lennox, Tyson, Holmes, Foreman, Frazier and Ali.

But that Calzaghe could defeat Dempsey, Louis, Marciano and Liston. Not to mention Charles, Moore and just about anyone else who ever laced on gloves.

You are one serious fan boy.

[Street Lethal]

I'll pick Moore by knockout. Calzaghe is too wide open when he punches. He gets in some terrible position. If he tries that wide slugging with Moore he is getting bombed out of there. When Calzaghe does tighten things up, Moore defense is the perfect foil for Calzaghe's punches. The styles are all wrong. Calzaghe is going to sleep in this fight.

[Street Lethal]

Charles record is very dodgy.

I'm pretty sure Calzaghe would have retired instantly if he'd lost to any of the opponents Charles lost to. There are no excuses.
No offense, but this is just idiotic. This guy knows nothing. He can't be serious. Is he?

[Street Lethal]

About this talk about Louis and Conn. Conn did show that speed was Louis' enemy. The problem with the Conn fight is that Louis could be too patient sometimes and this was one of those instances bigtime. But in the end, Joe got the job done.

What about Calzaghe versus Conn? Conn had mixed success as a middleweight so he moved up a division. He was always a bit light in the division, but the division wasn't very strong in his day, so it was okay. A fight between Calzaghe and Conn would have been interesting, and both probably would have weighed around 168 pounds. If you pick Conn to beat Calzaghe, then the idea that Calzaghe beats Louis seems out of the question. If you pick Calzaghe to beat Conn, then I guess you can imagine Calzaghe giving Louis problems, but, again, the Louis-Conn fight was a bit of an off night for Louis who was usually bothered by speed.

Here's the problem with Calzaghe: his defense isn't as good as Conn's. Conn was a slick boxer. Calzaghe is not as slick. He is also more quickly drawn into slugfests than was Conn, which against a puncher like Louis is a death sentence.

[robert ungurean]

This goes beyond nut hugging when it comes to Calzaghe, with some of these postings, its down right ball licking. What a disgrace.

[mcvey]

About this talk about Louis and Conn. Conn did show that speed was Louis' enemy. The problem with the Conn fight is that Louis could be too patient sometimes and this was one of those instances bigtime. But in the end, Joe got the job done.

What about Calzaghe versus Conn? Conn had mixed success as a middleweight so he moved up a division. He was always a bit light in the division, but the division wasn't very strong in his day, so it was okay. A fight between Calzaghe and Conn would have been interesting, and both probably would have weighed around 168 pounds. If you pick Conn to beat Calzaghe, then the idea that Calzaghe beats Louis seems out of the question. If you pick Calzaghe to beat Conn, then I guess you can imagine Calzaghe giving Louis problems, but, again, the Louis-Conn fight was a bit of an off night for Louis who was usually bothered by speed.

Here's the problem with Calzaghe: his defense isn't as good as Conn's. Conn was a slick boxer. Calzaghe is not as slick. He is also more quickly drawn into slugfests than was Conn, which against a puncher like Louis is a death sentence.
Conn was an alltime great boxer,better than Ali for eg,Calzaghe is a good fighter but his boxing is not in that class,he has a good chin ,fast hands but isnt that hard to reach,plus he doesnt allways turn his hands over when he punches,he has struggled with some ordinary fighters his best wins are over fighters past their prime eg Eubanks or limited boxers like Lacy.Calzaghe has never beaten a great fighter ,and at his rather advanced age its difficult to see him improving,all this talk of guys ducking him,why didnt he leave his comfort zone and go to the states?

[Senya13]

Conn better than Ali? What makes you think that? Conn is very overrated based on his temporary success in 1st fight with overtrained Joe Louis.

[mr. magoo]

No offense, but this is just idiotic. This guy knows nothing. He can't be serious. Is he?

Come on now,

We're all blessed by being in the prescence of one of boxing's foremost experts on.........Well........Everything............

[Marciano Frazier]

Moore fairly regularly lost to any opposition even approaching Calzaghe's level. Are you serious? From mid-1949 through mid-1960, Moore's record was 75-3-2. In these 11 years, Moore beat, among many other noteworthies, Harold Johnson(future light heavyweight champion and Hall-of-Famer) three times, Joey Maxim(light heavyweight champion and future Hall-of-Famer) three times, Jimmy Bivins(former simultaneous heavyweight-and-light-heavyweight #1 contender, but denied a title shot in either division, and future Hall-of-Famer), and Bobo Olsen(middleweight champion and future Hall-of-Famer). The losses were to Marciano, Patterson, and Harold Johnson. All three were far more tested-and-proven fighters than Calzaghe and were world champions and future Hall-of-Famers, Marciano and Patterson were both great heavyweight champions, and Moore beat Johnson all of the other four times they fought. Your statement that Moore "regularly" lost to "anyone even approaching Calzaghe's level" is, then, extremely ignorant.

[China_hand_Joe]

Your right. Instead of regulary, I should have said 100% of the time.

[cross_trainer]

Are you serious? From mid-1949 through mid-1960, Moore's record was 75-3-2. In these 11 years, Moore beat, among many other noteworthies, Harold Johnson(future light heavyweight champion and Hall-of-Famer) three times, Joey Maxim(light heavyweight champion and future Hall-of-Famer) three times, Jimmy Bivins(former simultaneous heavyweight-and-light-heavyweight #1 contender, but denied a title shot in either division, and future Hall-of-Famer), and Bobo Olsen(middleweight champion and future Hall-of-Famer). The losses were to Marciano, Patterson, and Harold Johnson. All three were far more tested-and-proven fighters than Calzaghe and were world champions and future Hall-of-Famers, Marciano and Patterson were both great heavyweight champions, and Moore beat Johnson all of the other four times they fought. Your statement that Moore "regularly" lost to "anyone even approaching Calzaghe's level" is, then, extremely ignorant.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's all fine and dandy, but did any of the fighters you mention resemble this man:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I think not. Case closed.

[Ramon Rojo]

Moore by KO

[Sizzle]

This is a difficult one to call.

We have one fighter with a pristine record, and superb speed and all-round boxing ability, but without any genuinely noteworthy victories, and a "dominance" of his respective division which consists of cherry picking the most convenient opponents, and refusing to move up in weight to fight. In fairness, he has shown little vulnerability throughout his career, although he faces a real test shortly.

On the other hand, we have a boxer who fought from the mid 30's to the mid 60's, a fighter who commenced his career as a middleweight and ended up fighting all the best fighters of any weight through a 30 year period, sometimes outweighed by up to 30 pounds, often outweighed by ten or so, compiling possibly the finest resume in boxing history. However, his vulnerabilities have been established - Ezzard Charles was one boxer who truly had his number, a fleet footed master boxer who can fight on the outside and in, box or punch, and with sufficient handspeed. Admittedly, although Calzaghe is not in the same league as Ezzard Charles, you can attribute a lot of these qualities to him - He is fast on his feet, and will box and/or punch you with blistering handspeed and unrelenting flurries.

Lacy was too slow to catch Joe with anything - On the other hand, Moore has similar or better power with much better handspeed and combination punching, much better in-ring intelligence and defensive nous. Moore is not renowned for his use of the ring, although I have seen experts credit Archie with having good footwork, I don't think he's particularly light on his feet.

All things considered, I would lean towards the old Mongoose. He fought successfully through three eras of boxing, and three of the "major" weightclasses. Calzaghe may trouble him stylistically but he hasn't proven he has what it takes to defeat a genuinely topclass opponent like Archie Moore. I think Joe establishes an early lead, but gets caught with something really heavy coming inside, and is battered down for a few rounds before suffering a TKO loss in the 11th.

[McGrain]

Your right. Instead of regulary, I should have said 100% of the time.

Guys; he is obviously on the wind up. On a small scale this is how every debat involving CHJ goes, or so it seems.

He makes a series of borderline claims about Calzaghe which are refuted/disputed/mocked. Rather than back the original claim he makes a serious of properly outrageous claims to either cover his tracks or for his own amusement (trolling, then).

What's he's done over the past few weeks is exactly this on a larger scale. It's a piss take that has culminated with Calzaghe beating Liston. Either to piss as many people of as is possible for a joke (trolling) or because he's trying to cover his earlier claims concerning his total refutation of Charles as an ATG or the 40's as a poor era.

YOU decide.

But what not to do is to take this seriously, at all.

[Nemesis]

Guys; he is obviously on the wind up. On a small scale this is how every debat involving CHJ goes, or so it seems.

He makes a series of borderline claims about Calzaghe which are refuted/disputed/mocked. Rather than back the original claim he makes a serious of properly outrageous claims to either cover his tracks or for his own amusement (trolling, then).

What's he's done over the past few weeks is exactly this on a larger scale. It's a piss take that has culminated with Calzaghe beating Liston. Either to piss as many people of as is possible for a joke (trolling) or because he's trying to cover his earlier claims concerning his total refutation of Charles as an ATG or the 40's as a poor era.

YOU decide.

But what not to do is to take this seriously, at all.

when will they learn :huh

Do people not remember the Willie Pep thread. CHJ is to be taken with mild amusement, he has that "I am joking in a half serious way" approach.

[McGrain]

when will they learn :huh

Do people not remember the Willie Pep thread. CHJ is to be taken with mild amusement, he has that "I am joking in a half serious way" approach.

Although, to be fair, I do learn from some of the posts in response, say Cross_Trainer's analysis of a CHJ "statement".