China_hand_Joe's education of the classic forum thread.

[China_hand_Joe]

Hello eager students,

China_hand_Joe will be using this thread to educate you all and relieve of your delusions regarding old timer fighters. Please keep your posts objective and devoid of any emotional content (such as name calling).

Prof. China_hand_Joe (phd in objectivity and logic)








Case Study one: E. Charles

I propose he wasn't particulary special and you will all state the facts for me, proving me right.

Charles record as we all well know, is very indifferent, numerically speaking. However many of his loses came late in his career. Of course China_hand_Joe recognises this fact so ignores those loses when judging the man.

Now even when we disregard Charles lost roughly 10% of his other fights. I have been informed by many persons here this is due to his quality competition (as is the excuse for many old timers).





So now, onto this great competition he faced:

My first challenge for those of you well schooled on ancient era boxing is to list Charles' 8 finest opponents along with his record against each of his opponents (whether that be 1-0, 2-0, 0-1 or whatever (Calzaghe is 2-0 against Mario Veit for example).

Once you have done this, list the 5 finest opponents of those 8 names (the 8 Charles opponents) you have just listed (excluding Charles) and again list their records against those opponents.

Once you have done so, I will objectively analyze the data, for the benifit of you all.

[TBooze]

My first challenge for those of you well schooled on ancient era boxing

First things first, I do not know anything about boxing pre 1719... The modern era began in 1945, thus Charles is a modern fighter.;)

[McGrain]

Damned you are definitly the funniest guy on this board.

Nice avatar guy! That is my new favourite.

[McGrain]

Shush you scottish, sheep herding, booze swilling,Wallace worshipping, kilt wearing chooblet, the professor is speaking.

Hey...where do I know you from?

[OLD FOGEY]

Teddy Yarosz 1-0
Charley Burley 2-0
Joey Maxim 5-0
Jimmy Bivins 4-1
J Joe Walcott 2-2
Archie Moore 3-0
Joe Louis 1-0
Rocky Marciano 0-2
Harold Johnson 0-1
Gus Lesnevich 1-0

Charles is 18-6 against the first nine, who are all Hall-of-Famers. He defeated
champions from the mid-thirties (Yarosz) through the early sixties (Moore).
He defeated the longest reigning heavyweight champion of the century, Louis, and the longest reigning lightheavyweight champion, Moore. He defeated men who reigned as champions for a total of 33 years. He won a total of forty fights (according to The Boxing Register) against men rated when he fought them. The #10 man, Lesnevich, was an undisputed lightheavy champion who reigned for 7 years and was a member of the old Ring Magazine Hall of Fame.

His record is impressive against these men, but many did not agree with the decisions which went against Charles in the 4th Walcott or the Johnson fights. If these decisions had gone to Charles, he would have been 21-4 against this competition, and 20-4 against Hall-of-Famers.

[China_hand_Joe]

Thanks mate, much appreciated.

If possible can you go to the second degree here and do the same for the eight names - branching out to another 5 from each?


Also many more lists are welcome, the more the better. Preferably point out victories over shot opponents and loses when shot himself.

Other info such as manner of victory or defeat, injuries etc would be useful too. Both that which supports and damages Charles.

[brooklyn1550]

I was beaten too it, but here is what I came up with...

EZZARD CHARLES
vs. Joe Louis (1-0)
vs. Archie Moore (3-0)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-2)
vs. Charley Burley (2-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (2-2)
vs. Joey Maxim (5-0)
vs. Lloyd Marshall (2-1)
vs. Jimmy Bivins (4-1)


JOE LOUIS
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-1)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-1)
vs. Billy Conn (2-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (2-0)
vs. Max Schmeling (1-1)

ARCHIE MOORE
vs. Muhammad Ali (0-1)
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-3)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-1)
vs. Charley Burley (0-1)
vs. Joey Maxim (3-0)

ROCKY MARCIANO
vs. Joe Louis (1-0)
vs. Ezzard Charles (2-0)
vs. Archie Moore (1-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (2-0)
vs. Harry (Kid) Matthews (1-0)

CHARLEY BURLEY
vs. Archie Moore (1-0)
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-2)
vs. Lloyd Marshall (0-1)
vs. Holman Williams (2-2-0-1)
vs. Fritzie Zivic (2-1)

JERSEY JOE WALCOTT
vs. Joe Louis (0-2)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-2)
vs. Ezzard Charles (2-2)
vs. Joey Maxim (2-1)
vs. Harold Johnson (1-0)

JOEY MAXIM
vs. Sugar Ray Robinson (1-0)
vs. Archie Moore (0-3)
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-5)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (1-2)
vs. Floyd Patterson (1-0)

LLOYD MARSHALL
vs. Ezzard Charles (1-2)
vs. Archie Moore (0-2)
vs. Jake LaMotta (1-0)
vs. Jimmy Bivins (0-1)
vs. Holman Williams (1-2)

JIMMY BIVINS
vs. Ezzard Charles (1-4)
vs. Joe Louis (0-1)
vs. Archie Moore (1-4)
vs. Charley Burley (1-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (0-1)


Here you go Professor China_hand_joe

Please analyze this data and explain why Joe Calzaghe is greater than every fighter listed.

:good

[mr. magoo]

I was beaten too it, but here is what I came up with...

EZZARD CHARLES
vs. Joe Louis (1-0)
vs. Archie Moore (3-0)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-2)
vs. Charley Burley (2-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (2-2)
vs. Joey Maxim (5-0)
vs. Lloyd Marshall (2-1)
vs. Jimmy Bivins (4-1)


JOE LOUIS
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-1)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-1)
vs. Billy Conn (2-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (2-0)
vs. Max Schmeling (1-1)

ARCHIE MOORE
vs. Muhammad Ali (0-1)
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-3)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-1)
vs. Charley Burley (0-1)
vs. Joey Maxim (3-0)

ROCKY MARCIANO
vs. Joe Louis (1-0)
vs. Ezzard Charles (2-0)
vs. Archie Moore (1-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (2-0)
vs. Harry (Kid) Matthews (1-0)

CHARLEY BURLEY
vs. Archie Moore (1-0)
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-2)
vs. Lloyd Marshall (0-1)
vs. Holman Williams (2-2-0-1)
vs. Fritzie Zivic (2-1)

JERSEY JOE WALCOTT
vs. Joe Louis (0-2)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-2)
vs. Ezzard Charles (2-2)
vs. Joey Maxim (2-1)
vs. Harold Johnson (1-0)

JOEY MAXIM
vs. Sugar Ray Robinson (1-0)
vs. Archie Moore (0-3)
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-5)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (1-2)
vs. Floyd Patterson (1-0)

LLOYD MARSHALL
vs. Ezzard Charles (1-2)
vs. Archie Moore (0-2)
vs. Jake LaMotta (1-0)
vs. Jimmy Bivins (0-1)
vs. Holman Williams (1-2)

JIMMY BIVINS
vs. Ezzard Charles (1-4)
vs. Joe Louis (0-1)
vs. Archie Moore (1-4)
vs. Charley Burley (1-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (0-1)


Here you go Professor China_hand_joe

Please analyze this data and explain why Joe Calzaghe is greater than every fighter listed.

:good

Excellent list. Although I'd probably ad a few names to Joe Louis's list, like M. Baer and B. Baer, along with a couple others.

[China_hand_Joe]

Thanks guys, the lists are most appreciated.

Could I also have rought dates for:

The time at which Charles became 'shot', a lesser fighter.

The time at which all the other names listed so far became 'shot'.

[OLD FOGEY]

Thanks mate, much appreciated.

If possible can you go to the second degree here and do the same for the eight names - branching out to another 5 from each?


Also many more lists are welcome, the more the better. Preferably point out victories over shot opponents and loses when shot himself.

Other info such as manner of victory or defeat, injuries etc would be useful too. Both that which supports and damages Charles.

Well, I pointed out the Walcott & Johnson disputed decisions. Charles' two defeats in 1943, including the one to Bivins, came when he was in the army and not training.

I would ask you this: Charles defeated champions from:

1930's--Joe Louis, Teddy Yarosz

1940's--Louis, Anton Christoforidis, Gus Lesnevich

1950's--Jersey Joe Walcott, Joey Maxim, Archie Moore

1960's--Moore

Now I don't know as much as you do about Calzaghe. But has he beaten champions from the 1980's and 1990's? I am only trying to judge Calzaghe's historical impact, which, after all is an objective measurement. Charles himself defeated men who were champions in one division or another from 1934 to 1962. The men I mentioned above whom Charles defeated themselves defeated men who were champions from 1926 (Pete Latzo, defeated by Yarosz) to 1963 (Johnson, defeated by Moore).

[brooklyn1550]

Excellent list. Although I'd probably ad a few names to Joe Louis's list, like M. Baer and B. Baer, along with a couple others.

Yeah, I was tempted to, but I had to narrow it down to 5 for China_hand

[OLD FOGEY]

Thanks guys, the lists are most appreciated.

Could I also have rought dates for:

The time at which Charles became 'shot', a lesser fighter.

The time at which all the other names listed so far became 'shot'.

"Shot" is too strong for any of these fights for Charles. He was going back some by the time he fought Johnson and Marciano, but was still a formidable fighter.

Louis alone of Charles' opposition listed above had gone back far enough to be listed a lesser fighter, but the problem is the 218 lb Louis remained a dangerous opponent.

Charles began losing to lesser fighters in 1955.

[cross_trainer]

I was beaten too it, but here is what I came up with...

EZZARD CHARLES
vs. Joe Louis (1-0)
vs. Archie Moore (3-0)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-2)
vs. Charley Burley (2-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (2-2)
vs. Joey Maxim (5-0)
vs. Lloyd Marshall (2-1)
vs. Jimmy Bivins (4-1)


JOE LOUIS
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-1)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-1)
vs. Billy Conn (2-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (2-0)
vs. Max Schmeling (1-1)

ARCHIE MOORE
vs. Muhammad Ali (0-1)
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-3)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-1)
vs. Charley Burley (0-1)
vs. Joey Maxim (3-0)

ROCKY MARCIANO
vs. Joe Louis (1-0)
vs. Ezzard Charles (2-0)
vs. Archie Moore (1-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (2-0)
vs. Harry (Kid) Matthews (1-0)

CHARLEY BURLEY
vs. Archie Moore (1-0)
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-2)
vs. Lloyd Marshall (0-1)
vs. Holman Williams (2-2-0-1)
vs. Fritzie Zivic (2-1)

JERSEY JOE WALCOTT
vs. Joe Louis (0-2)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-2)
vs. Ezzard Charles (2-2)
vs. Joey Maxim (2-1)
vs. Harold Johnson (1-0)

JOEY MAXIM
vs. Sugar Ray Robinson (1-0)
vs. Archie Moore (0-3)
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-5)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (1-2)
vs. Floyd Patterson (1-0)

LLOYD MARSHALL
vs. Ezzard Charles (1-2)
vs. Archie Moore (0-2)
vs. Jake LaMotta (1-0)
vs. Jimmy Bivins (0-1)
vs. Holman Williams (1-2)

JIMMY BIVINS
vs. Ezzard Charles (1-4)
vs. Joe Louis (0-1)
vs. Archie Moore (1-4)
vs. Charley Burley (1-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (0-1)


Here you go Professor China_hand_joe

Please analyze this data and explain why Joe Calzaghe is greater than every fighter listed.

:good

Now please continue listing the best fighters THESE guys beat, and so on down the list until you find some bums.

Those bums are proof that Charles' opponents were all terrible.

[salsanchezfan]

This is a good experiment; let's analyze Calzaghe next.

[Quick Cash]

Wait a minute, who's doing the educating here exactly? :lol:

[ChrisPontius]

PFDBPZ, why were you banned??

Was it the Super Greg Page thing?:rofl

[Mendoza]

brooklyn1550 I was beaten too it, but here is what I came up with...

EZZARD CHARLES
vs. Joe Louis (1-0)
vs. Archie Moore (3-0)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-2)
vs. Charley Burley (2-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (2-2)
vs. Joey Maxim (5-0)
vs. Lloyd Marshall (2-1)
vs. Jimmy Bivins (4-1)


JOE LOUIS
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-1)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-1)
vs. Billy Conn (2-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (2-0)
vs. Max Schmeling (1-1)

ARCHIE MOORE
vs. Muhammad Ali (0-1)
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-3)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-1)
vs. Charley Burley (0-1)
vs. Joey Maxim (3-0)

ROCKY MARCIANO
vs. Joe Louis (1-0)
vs. Ezzard Charles (2-0)
vs. Archie Moore (1-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (2-0)
vs. Harry (Kid) Matthews (1-0)

CHARLEY BURLEY
vs. Archie Moore (1-0)
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-2)
vs. Lloyd Marshall (0-1)
vs. Holman Williams (2-2-0-1)
vs. Fritzie Zivic (2-1)

JERSEY JOE WALCOTT
vs. Joe Louis (0-2)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-2)
vs. Ezzard Charles (2-2)
vs. Joey Maxim (2-1)
vs. Harold Johnson (1-0)

JOEY MAXIM
vs. Sugar Ray Robinson (1-0)
vs. Archie Moore (0-3)
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-5)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (1-2)
vs. Floyd Patterson (1-0)

LLOYD MARSHALL
vs. Ezzard Charles (1-2)
vs. Archie Moore (0-2)
vs. Jake LaMotta (1-0)
vs. Jimmy Bivins (0-1)
vs. Holman Williams (1-2)

JIMMY BIVINS
vs. Ezzard Charles (1-4)
vs. Joe Louis (0-1)
vs. Archie Moore (1-4)
vs. Charley Burley (1-0)
vs. Jersey Joe Walcott (0-1)



Nice summary.

[McGrain]

1)

ARCHIE MOORE
vs. Muhammad Ali (0-1)
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-3)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-1)
vs. Charley Burley (0-1)
vs. Joey Maxim (3-0)

LLOYD MARSHALL
vs. Ezzard Charles (1-2)
vs. Archie Moore (0-2)
vs. Jake LaMotta (1-0)
vs. Jimmy Bivins (0-1)
vs. Holman Williams (1-2)



Really, really good effort this. Certainly a much better job than I would have done - I would just like to say that Eddie Booker should be on both of the above lists. You can put him on Moore's list at the expense of just about anyone there (according to the man himslef, certainly) - I think he was 0-1-1. Booker also beat Marshall.

[China_hand_Joe]

Calzaghe beat Jeff Lacy, therefore he is better than anybody on that list.:yikes :hat :nut :!: :yep :hey :hi: :happyCalzaghe has never looked like being beaten, his ability is potentially limitless.

[China_hand_Joe]

Really, really good effort this. Certainly a much better job than I would have done - I would just like to say that Eddie Booker should be on both of the above lists. You can put him on Moore's list at the expense of just about anyone there (according to the man himslef, certainly) - I think he was 0-1-1. Booker also beat Marshall.

Thankyou for your input.

Does anyone else have any such names, they feel are missing -questionmark-

[TBooze]

Calzaghe has never looked like being beaten, his ability is potentially limitless.

Forgotten the Reid fight then? The decision was pick-em, Joe was a nervous man when that decision was being made.;)

[China_hand_Joe]

Forgotten the Reid fight then? The decision was pick-em, Joe was a nervous man when that decision was being made.;)

A green, injured Calzaghe had to work for the win. The decision cannot be doubted, especially with the point deduction. He won the first four rounds clearly, you are insane if you can give that to Reid.

[McGrain]

A green, injured Calzaghe had to work for the win. The decision cannot be doubted, especially with the point deduction. He won the first four rounds clearly, you are insane if you can give that to Reid.


The man said "pick-em", not Reid.

So what's next for this thread? There are some really nice posts in it, don't you think?

[China_hand_Joe]

It was only a pick-em because the English judge mate, mate.

[McGrain]

It was only a pick-em because the English judge mate mate.

OK, thanks pal pal.

[China_hand_Joe]

This concludes lesson one.

[McGrain]

What happened?

[brooklyn1550]

Thanks for lesson 1 because I'm not doing lesson 2

[China_hand_Joe]

This thread has worked out perfectly, I assure you.

[McGrain]

I am looking forward to seeing your analysis of the data you've collected.

It will either be the death of your argument, pretty funny (my guess) or a true revelation.

There's no way to lose.

[Amsterdam]

I am looking forward to seeing your analysis of the data you've collected.

It will either be the death of your argument, pretty funny (my guess) or a true revelation.

There's no way to lose.

Avatar bet for 1 week that CHJ pulls through in some fashion?:hey

[McGrain]

Avatar bet for 1 week that CHJ pulls through in some fashion?:hey

:lol:

Well, it's all relative isn't it Amsterdam?

[Amsterdam]

:lol:

Well, it's all relative isn't it Amsterdam?

CHJ will be the victor. Either that, or it won't get anywhere like usual, but he will not be made a fool of.

Deal?

[China_hand_Joe]

Think of me as a detective.

You have just given me the name of every significant 1940s conman from around the SMW division.

[McGrain]

CHJ will be the victor. Either that, or it won't get anywhere like usual, but he will not be made a fool of.

Deal?

'Dam - to me the guy has made a fool out of himself tonight. I have fun with him sometimes and tonight was one of those times but there's absolutley no way for you to win the bet as I see things. It's impossible.

[McGrain]

Think of me as a detective.

:lol:

I'll try!

You have just given me the name of every significant 1940s conman from around the SMW division.

Bare in mind that guys like Zivic and Gavlin never weighed in at anywhere near 168.

[Amsterdam]

'Dam - to me the guy has made a fool out of himself tonight. I have fun with him sometimes and tonight was one of those times but there's absolutley no way for you to win the bet as I see things. It's impossible.

You have to understand that he entertains me like no poster ever before.:lol:

Plus, he is legitimately correct most of the time with boxing analysis, his prediction record is 100%.

[cuchulain]

You have to understand that he entertains me like no poster ever before.:lol:

Plus, he is legitimately correct most of the time with boxing analysis, his prediction record is 100%.


Sometimes he goes slightly overboard, but he's always entertaining.

I've composed a little tribute to both Joes (China and Calzaghe):

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[OLD FOGEY]

What happened?

Appears this thread turned out to be a fizzle rather than a sizzle.

[McGrain]

Appears this thread turned out to be a fizzle rather than a sizzle.

For shizzle.

[cross_trainer]

Where's the extra-special-super-duper-anti-Classic-destructo-ray-o'-doom that will wipe Charles off the record books forever?

[mr. magoo]

Where's the extra-special-super-duper-anti-Classic-destructo-ray-o'-doom that will wipe Charles off the record books forever?

As soon as he's finished helping Marvin Marshan to develop the space modulator, he'll find time to come up with the ray-o'-doom.

[Sizzle]

This thread should be officially renamed to "China Hand Joe chokes on a mouthful of Joe Calzaghe's manjuice and falls flat on his face."

But fear not, his pea brain was not harmed in the accident. He'll be back proving he knows nothing about boxing before long.

[China_hand_Joe]

My analysis is roughly 7% complete. Already interesting patterns are emerging.

[OLD FOGEY]

My analysis is roughly 7% complete. Already interesting patterns are emerging.

I think I know where you are going, so I'll save you a lot of mental sweat. A top champion losing relatively often or losing to fighters who themselves lose frequently does not prove an era weak.

I apologize for using American sports for an analogy, but that is what I know best. In gridiron football, the champion NFL professional team generally loses a few games each year and frequently loses to teams with mediocre records. In college gridiron football, where most teams at best have only a few players good enough to even be considered for the pros, the best team is more often than not undefeated and the top teams very rarely are beaten by any but another outstanding team.
Losses by the best prove severe competition, not weakness. Undefeated records and long winning streaks show lack of competition and probable weakness in general.

[China_hand_Joe]

Calzaghe never loses.

And boxing is hardly comparable to NFL. Boxing is a low variance sport, little luck invloved, barring some KOs. There is far, far more luck involved in gridiron. There is some variance, but not enough to explain some of those embarrassing loses.

[OLD FOGEY]

Calzaghe never loses.

Neither do some high school gridiron football teams. Doesn't exactly mean they would terrorize the pros.

[OLD FOGEY]

Calzaghe never loses.

And boxing is hardly comparable to NFL. Boxing is a low variance sport, little luck invloved, barring some KOs. There is far, far more luck involved in gridiron.

I don't know how you could claim there is not a lot of luck involved when the choice of judges might well decide whether you win or lose.
Superior fighters have often lost because of injuries. Anyone could dislocate a shoulder with any given punch or suffer a badly cut eye, etc.

While luck plays a role in gridiron football, see how many coaches feel that luck creates champions.

[China_hand_Joe]

In any one individual game. Playing dozens of games over an entire season phases the luck out somewhat.

[cross_trainer]

Calzaghe never loses.

Valuev went undefeated longer than Calzaghe.


And boxing is hardly comparable to NFL. Boxing is a low variance sport, little luck invloved, barring some KOs. There is far, far more luck involved in gridiron. There is some variance, but not enough to explain some of those embarrassing loses.

It's also the only sport where a top athlete doesn't have to compete against other top athletes. Calzaghe has definitely benefited from this.

Also, you're overlooking the obvious. Not only will the top fighters' quality change from one generation to another, but so will the field. Variance is irrelevant because the opponents from different eras do not come from the same talent pool.

[cross_trainer]

In any one individual game. Playing dozens of games over an entire season phases the luck out somewhat.

Boxers do not play dozens of games over an entire season. They play occasional games against (mostly) picked opponents.

[China_hand_Joe]

The variance in talent is irrelevant, even if someone more talented than Calzaghe has ever existed. Without modern shit, it could not be unleashed.

[cross_trainer]

The variance in talent is irrelevant, even if someone more talented than Calzaghe has ever existed. Without modern shit, it could not be unleashed.

If you can prove it, I will agree.

But boxrec will not help you much in that regard. It's only useful comparing fighters within the same era.

[OLD FOGEY]

In any one individual game. Playing dozens of games over an entire season phases the luck out somewhat.

I agree that a long season tends to bring the cream to the top, but it is true in all sports in America which I follow closely that as you move up to the top levels of competition, pro gridiron football as opposed to college, pro basketball as opposed to college, pro baseball as opposed to college, the best teams tend to lose more often to their competitors.
Luck doesn't exactly explain this. As the competition level rises, it is more difficult to stand out, and opponents have more talent, so an off day can be fatal.
And I must say, without going into detail, that even champion gridiron teams are occasionally very badly beaten to such an extent that "luck" can not be adduced as the reason.

[cross_trainer]

I agree that a long season tends to bring the cream to the top, but it is true in all sports in America which I follow closely that as you move up to the top levels of competition, pro gridiron football as opposed to college, pro basketball as opposed to college, pro baseball as opposed to college, the best teams tend to lose more often to their competitors.
Luck doesn't exactly explain this. As the competition level rises, it is more difficult to stand out, and opponents have more talent, so an off day can be fatal.
And I must say, without going into detail, that even champion gridiron teams are occasionally very badly beaten to such an extent that "luck" can not be adduced as the reason.

I will add that in general, fighters with flawless records are more likely to emerge in uncompetitive environments (see for examples: MMA, point karate, Full Contact Karate/American Kickboxing, Muay Thai, BJJ). Guys like Pep and Robinson are exceptions--they racked up huge win records in an era where most fighters struggled. Calzaghe, on the other hand, is the rule--more and more fighters have pristine records, which indicates a lack of competition.

[China_hand_Joe]

If you can prove it, I will agree.

But boxrec will not help you much in that regard. It's only useful comparing fighters within the same era.

I have a new hypothesies.

I haven't yet looked at the data, but I am making a very presumption assumption about it. If my instinct is right then I will finally have the concrete, relatively undisputable proof I need.

[OLD FOGEY]

I will add that in general, fighters with flawless records are more likely to emerge in uncompetitive environments (see for examples: MMA, point karate, Full Contact Karate/American Kickboxing, Muay Thai, BJJ). Guys like Pep and Robinson are exceptions--they racked up huge win records in an era where most fighters struggled. Calzaghe, on the other hand, is the rule--more and more fighters have pristine records, which indicates a lack of competition.

Wonderful point.

Only Willie Pep managed to become a champion in the first half of the century without first suffering a loss.

[OLD FOGEY]

I have a new hypothesies.

I haven't yet looked at the data, but I am making a very presumption assumption about it. If my instinct is right then I will finally have the concrete, relatively undisputable proof I need.

I'm waiting with baiting breath.

[Sweet Science]

I have a new hypothesies.

I haven't yet looked at the data, but I am making a very presumption assumption about it. If my instinct is right then I will finally have the concrete, relatively undisputable proof I need.

Having picked up the baton and thoroughly analysed the data myself, this eventually led me to the following pictorial conclusion:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

1000 Words

[Calroid]

:lol: You guys really should stop humouring this kid.:nono



:think On second thoughts, ignore that, humouring him does create some quality information. A classic example where the ends justify the means.:good

[McGrain]

:lol: You guys really should stop humouring this kid.:nono



:think On second thoughts, ignore that, humouring him does create some quality information. A classic example where the ends justify the means.:good


I agree.

NICE AVATAR.

[China_hand_Joe]

Although I am still right. This thread may not have been the best way to go about proving it in hind sight, and every other kind of sight. I feel like a Jehovah's Witness who has wandered into Mecca to go recruiting. Though were I to try and resurrect this dire monstrosity, I would use Maxim's awfulness as a basis to build from.


However, I do apologise to the entire classic forum to giving birth to this thing. Though my intentions (to educate) were honorable.

[Calroid]

Although I am still right. This thread may not have been the best way to go about proving it in hind sight, and every other kind of sight. I feel like a Jehovah's Witness who has wandered into Mecca to go recruiting. Though were I to try and resurrect this dire monstrosity, I would use Maxim's awfulness as a basis to build from.


However, I do apologise to the entire classic forum to giving birth to this thing. Though my intentions (to educate) were honorable.

:huh What you are saying is that you are incapable of doing what you claimed you were going to do.:yep

Absolutely classic!:rofl

[China_hand_Joe]

We'll call this one a draw mate.

[cross_trainer]

We'll call this one a draw mate.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[China_hand_Joe]

I have to admit, dark-age fighters certainly had good balance.

[cross_trainer]

I have to admit, dark-age fighters certainly had good balance.

Like Greb, they arrived on the scene before humans had evolved arms and more than one leg.

[McGrain]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


:lol: :lol:

[Vockerman]

Although I am still right. This thread may not have been the best way to go about proving it in hind sight, and every other kind of sight. I feel like a Jehovah's Witness who has wandered into Mecca to go recruiting. Though were I to try and resurrect this dire monstrosity, I would use Maxim's awfulness as a basis to build from.


However, I do apologise to the entire classic forum to giving birth to this thing. Though my intentions (to educate) were honorable.

From a purely mathematical point of view I find it quite interesting that if you chose to resurrect this "dire monstrosity" that you created you would begin with Maxim's awfulness.

That same Maxim that boxrec with its purely objective mathematical rating systems says is the #9 light heavyweight that ever lived.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


China_hand_Joe will be using this thread to educate you all and relieve of your delusions regarding old timer fighters. Please keep your posts objective and devoid of any emotional content (such as name calling).

Prof. China_hand_Joe (phd in objectivity and logic)

Case Study one: E. Charles

I propose he wasn't particulary special and you will all state the facts for me, proving me right.

At some point an objective scientific investigator would have to assume that his entire theoretical framework is flawed when having HAND PICKED the example then having set the conditions upon which proof was to be determined and delivered he was unable to do so after being given exactly the data requested.

The logical and objectively correct thing to do is admit that 1.) E. Charles is indeed one of if not THE G.O.A.T. at Light Heavy and 2.) There is merit to the arguments of the posters in the classics section when it comes to evaluations of fighters in different eras, in fact they have proved their case time and time again with logic, statistics, reasoned analogy based on personal experience and the dutifully recorded first hand observations of eye witnesses that would be qualified as EXPERTS in a court of law.

Which I think leads us to 3.) That in fact emotional content was the primary motivation for this thread.

I take nothing away from Joe Calzaghe and wish him the best in his upcoming encounter. At the end of his career - when he is retired for good and all, only then will the classic section truly begin to be able to evaluate him and his accomplishments. Inclusion into the elite company that includes E. Charles a Candidate for the G.O.A.T. in his weight class might yet be possible for him.

[cross_trainer]

From a purely mathematical point of view I find it quite interesting that if you chose to resurrect this "dire monstrosity" that you created you would begin with Maxim's awfulness.

That same Maxim that boxrec with its purely objective mathematical rating systems says is the #9 light heavyweight that ever lived.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



At some point an objective scientific investigator would have to assume that his entire theoretical framework is flawed when having HAND PICKED the example then having set the conditions upon which proof was to be determined and delivered he was unable to do so after being given exactly the data requested.

The logical and objectively correct thing to do is admit that 1.) E. Charles is indeed one of if not THE G.O.A.T. at Light Heavy and 2.) There is merit to the arguments of the posters in the classics section when it comes to evaluations of fighters in different eras, in fact they have proved their case time and time again with logic, statistics, reasoned analogy based on personal experience and the dutifully recorded first hand observations of eye witnesses that would be qualified as EXPERTS in a court of law.

Which I think leads us to 3.) That in fact emotional content was the primary motivation for this thread.

I take nothing away from Joe Calzaghe and wish him the best in his upcoming encounter. At the end of his career - when he is retired for good and all, only then will the classic section truly begin to be able to evaluate him and his accomplishments. Inclusion into the elite company that includes E. Charles a Candidate for the G.O.A.T. in his weight class might yet be possible for him.

Except that the (entertaining) character/sock puppet known as China_hand_Joe ascribes to Calzaghe's greatness as the first article of faith. It's the one "fact" that he starts with in his experimental framework. Thus, if the framework doesn't yield the answer he's looking for, he must revise the framework rather than the idea of Calzaghe's greatness.. What he's fishing for is a way of viewing the world that makes Calzaghe the greatest fighter ever.

He will be looking for a long, long time.

[Vockerman]

Except that the (entertaining) character/sock puppet known as China_hand_Joe ascribes to Calzaghe's greatness as the first article of faith. It's the one "fact" that he starts with in his experimental framework. Thus, if the framework doesn't yield the answer he's looking for, he must revise the framework rather than the idea of Calzaghe's greatness.. What he's fishing for is a way of viewing the world that makes Calzaghe the greatest fighter ever.

He will be looking for a long, long time.

With respect, sir, I certainly do not disagree...


With his 43 wins and 32 Ko's I estimate he has accomplished roughly half what Carlos Monzon did with his 87 wins and 59 Ko's although Joe did it against weaker opposition.

But Joe is still active and I have hope he can improve his record and his quality of opposition - Joe C. may yet accomplish something of note in boxing if he goes on a run like Jack Dempsey did with (17?)first round KO's or lasts as long as Archie Moore did (fighting contenders in 4 decades) or finds himself a worthy man to have as a nemisis in a legendary trilogy like Graziano and Zale or gather belts in 6 divisions or - well I think you get my drift :happy

[Marciano Frazier]

I was beaten too it, but here is what I came up with...
Mostly good lists, but this one seemed starkly unfair...

ARCHIE MOORE
vs. Muhammad Ali (0-1)
vs. Ezzard Charles (0-3)
vs. Rocky Marciano (0-1)
vs. Charley Burley (0-1)
vs. Joey Maxim (3-0)

Why would Johnson, Marshall, Williams and Bivins count on Walcott's, Burley's and Charles' lists, but not on Moore's? I would certainly think those guys should rank as high as Maxim- especially Johnson, who was pretty clearly a cut above Maxim's level, in my opinion. Moore was 4-1 against Johnson, 2-0 against Marshall, 1-1 against Williams, and 4-1 against Bivins.

[Marciano Frazier]

All right, I haven't been on here much lately, but scanning back through the earlier pages of this thread, I find myself a little confused...
Once you have done this, list the 5 finest opponents of those 8 names (the 8 Charles opponents) you have just listed (excluding Charles) and again list their records against those opponents.

Once you have done so, I will objectively analyze the data, for the benifit of you all.
This concludes lesson one.
I see about three one-sentence posts which have nothing to do with the Charles'-record-against-best-opponents thing in between here. Did you not promise to explain how Charles' record winning three of every four fights against Hall-of-Fame championship-level opponents from middleweight to heavyweight for over a decade was somehow un-special and unimpressive?

[Wige247]

Haha...I can't believe you guys are falling for this. I'll bet CHJ's analysis comes back something like:

"And the evidence shows 94% of ESBers have no life and will go on fool's errands just b/c someone tells them..."

[Bo Bo Olson]

Cal is the guy who dodged Ottka by offering him 1/3 of a purse for lots less than he made fighting in germany. Think he offered Ottka DM500,000 when Ottka was making Dm 2,000,000 in Germany vs anyone.
Cal is the guy who beat an out of shape old Eubank, and Mitchel the guy Ottka beat for his title...and Lacy.....cant forget Lacy, even if everyone else has...what ever happened to Lacy any way?
Charles was a much better fighter, and Cal would get docked points for slapping against the rules even back against Charles.....

[Bo Bo Olson]

Charles like anyone else back in the bad old days fought to eat...some of Walcots losses were such. There was no vidios to study...with luck you got to see a man you hoped to fight by going ot the fight, an that was expensive by train, rat trap black man's hotel, and so on...so many fights were half assed planned for today's way...Well he fight's like xxx, mostly...is often all a man knew about another before the first round.
Trash talking was very primitive..."I'll murder the bum"....one knew better than to trash some one's mother....because the fight would happen for free and now....

[Amsterdam]

:rofl :rofl :rofl

I still love his work.