The Ten Calzagments

[PrideOfWales]

And then, at the top of the valley, Joses returned with two tablets that were to become The Ten Calzagments... the way by which the religion of Calzagism should be lived day to day for all its followers.

Thou shalt always believe in Calzaghe, in both trouble times in the ring and injured times outside it.
Do not worship any other boxer. Respect, nod and smile, but remember Calzaghe is the only true boxer.
Do not misuse the name of Calzaghe (Calfaggi, Joke Calslappy etc)
Honour his father (and trainer) and mother
Do not lie (yes - he almost lost against Reid and was hurt against Mitchell)
Do not steal (no matter how much you want tickets to his next fight and think they're a rip off)
Love thy neighbour (even Frank ****** does good deeds like giving a no-hoper a title shot)
You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods (Kessler holds other belts, but this, I assure you, is nothing to be upset about)
You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy. Please do not watch re-runs of Calzaghe victories on a Sunday - 6 days a week is enough.
You shall not make for yourself any idol - all merchandise MUST be bought directly through [Only registered and activated users can see links]******.tv/Armed with the Calzagments, go forward friends and live a life of glee. A pilgrimage to the site of the old gym is required at least once during your lifetime.

[Toopretty]

And then, at the top of the valley, Joses returned with two tablets that were to become The Ten Calzagments... the way by which the religion of Calzagism should be lived day to day for all its followers.
Thou shalt always believe in Calzaghe, in both trouble times in the ring and injured times outside it.
Do not worship any other boxer. Respect, nod and smile, but remember Calzaghe is the only true boxer.
Do not misuse the name of Calzaghe (Calfaggi, Joke Calslappy etc)
Honour his father (and trainer) and mother
Do not lie (yes - he almost lost against Reid and was hurt against Mitchell)
Do not steal (no matter how much you want tickets to his next fight and think they're a rip off)
Love thy neighbour (even Frank ****** does good deeds like giving a no-hoper a title shot)
You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods (Kessler holds other belts, but this, I assure you, is nothing to be upset about)
You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy. Please do not watch re-runs of Calzaghe victories on a Sunday - 6 days a week is enough.
You shall not make for yourself any idol - all merchandise MUST be bought directly through [Only registered and activated users can see links]******.tv/Armed with the Calzagments, go forward friends and live a life of glee. A pilgrimage to the site of the old gym is required at least once during your lifetime.


:rofl:rofl:rofl:lol::lol::good:good:good Now that is Funny...lol..I dont know if I want to be a converted Calzaghian...lol...As long as I dont have to be baptised with any of his bodily fluids..lol

[MrMagic]

I believe Calzlapper will get his ass spanked by Kessler, basically because Kessler is more godlier, better jab, more ring generalmanship and allover talent at this point. His father ain't really that good of a trainer, he's just a big mouth and has lived off Calslappy's success in the SMW division.. he was hurt against Mitchell and barely won against Reid the ungodly.. I stole my tickets :oops: Frank ****** is a scumbag and deserves to get his teeths knocked in, Kessler's got the better belts and the better recent wins, Calslappy will lose, I'm telling you! Frank******.tv is a ripoff.

:hi:

[Quik]

I believe Calzlapper will get his ass spanked by Kessler, basically because Kessler is more godlier, better jab, more ring generalmanship and allover talent at this point. His father ain't really that good of a trainer, he's just a big mouth and has lived off Calslappy's success in the SMW division.. he was hurt against Mitchell and barely won against Reid the ungodly.. I stole my tickets :oops: Frank ****** is a scumbag and deserves to get his teeths knocked in, Kessler's got the better belts and the better recent wins, Calslappy will lose, I'm telling you! Frank******.tv is a ripoff.

:hi:

Yup, Kessler is gonna slap ur god guys sorry.

[Toopretty]

Yup, Kessler is gonna slap ur god guys sorry.

blasphemy.:scaredas:

[China_hand_Joe]

You shall not make for yourself any idol - all merchandise MUST be bought directly through [Only registered and activated users can see links]******.tv/

The official Calzaghe website is far less than reliable for prompt deliveries. frank******.tv is the way to go I'm sure.

[DanePugilist]

And then, at the top of the valley, Joses returned with two tablets that were to become The Ten Calzagments... the way by which the religion of Calzagism should be lived day to day for all its followers.
Thou shalt always believe in Calzaghe, in both trouble times in the ring and injured times outside it.
Do not worship any other boxer. Respect, nod and smile, but remember Calzaghe is the only true boxer.
Do not misuse the name of Calzaghe (Calfaggi, Joke Calslappy etc)
Honour his father (and trainer) and mother
Do not lie (yes - he almost lost against Reid and was hurt against Mitchell)
Do not steal (no matter how much you want tickets to his next fight and think they're a rip off)
Love thy neighbour (even Frank ****** does good deeds like giving a no-hoper a title shot)
You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods (Kessler holds other belts, but this, I assure you, is nothing to be upset about)
You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy. Please do not watch re-runs of Calzaghe victories on a Sunday - 6 days a week is enough.
You shall not make for yourself any idol - all merchandise MUST be bought directly through [Only registered and activated users can see links]******.tv/Armed with the Calzagments, go forward friends and live a life of glee. A pilgrimage to the site of the old gym is required at least once during your lifetime.Since nobody is perfect, I have a problem with no. 2, 9 and 10.

[DanePugilist]

I believe Calzlapper will get his ass spanked by Kessler, basically because Kessler is more godlier, better jab, more ring generalmanship and allover talent at this point. His father ain't really that good of a trainer, he's just a big mouth and has lived off Calslappy's success in the SMW division.. he was hurt against Mitchell and barely won against Reid the ungodly.. I stole my tickets :oops: Frank ****** is a scumbag and deserves to get his teeths knocked in, Kessler's got the better belts and the better recent wins, Calslappy will lose, I'm telling you! Frank******.tv is a ripoff.

:hi:Good post though. Did you steal any extras?

[ChuckYoungblood]

[Armed with the Calzagments, go forward friends and live a life of glee. A pilgrimage to the site of the old gym is required at least once during your lifetime.[/quote]

Yes, my brother, now I see the light. These old Kessler inscriptions are crap! I hope to be cleansed in the Calzaghian pool of radiance, where can i post my credit card numbers to support the fastest growing religion on ESB?

[Toopretty]

Why did all of these Danish non believers show up...They are the anti-calzaghe....I scorn you.....We shall smash down your false Idol in kessler who is a mere mortal. Scorn I say. SCORN!

[compukiller]

And then, at the top of the valley, Joses returned with two tablets that were to become The Ten Calzagments... the way by which the religion of Calzagism should be lived day to day for all its followers.

Thou shalt always believe in Calzaghe, in both trouble times in the ring and injured times outside it.
Do not worship any other boxer. Respect, nod and smile, but remember Calzaghe is the only true boxer.
Do not misuse the name of Calzaghe (Calfaggi, Joke Calslappy etc)
Honour his father (and trainer) and mother
Do not lie (yes - he almost lost against Reid and was hurt against Mitchell)
Do not steal (no matter how much you want tickets to his next fight and think they're a rip off)
Love thy neighbour (even Frank ****** does good deeds like giving a no-hoper a title shot)
You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods (Kessler holds other belts, but this, I assure you, is nothing to be upset about)
You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy. Please do not watch re-runs of Calzaghe victories on a Sunday - 6 days a week is enough.
You shall not make for yourself any idol - all merchandise MUST be bought directly through [Only registered and activated users can see links]******.tv/Armed with the Calzagments, go forward friends and live a life of glee. A pilgrimage to the site of the old gym is required at least once during your lifetime.


:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

PURE GOLD!!!!!!!:yep :yep :yep :good

[DanePugilist]

Why did all of these Danish non believers show up...They are the anti-calzaghe....I scorn you.....We shall smash down your false Idol in kessler who is a mere mortal. Scorn I say. SCORN!This is your best post by far - keep it up.

[Toopretty]

This is your best post by far - keep it up.

Yours as well. Short with not much to say. Thats the best you.. you can be. Keep up the good work. And all hail Calzaghe. King of 168pds and boxing as a whole. My brothers in faith will hold down this thread.

[Amsterdam]

:rofl:rofl:rofl:lol::lol::good:good:good Now that is Funny...lol..I dont know if I want to be a converted Calzaghian...lol...As long as I dont have to be baptised with any of his bodily fluids..lol

You will soon realise that a peak Calzaghe who is fully focused is one of the most dangerous fighters of all time.

[THN]

Why did all of these Danish non believers show up...They are the anti-calzaghe....I scorn you.....We shall smash down your false Idol in kessler who is a mere mortal. Scorn I say. SCORN!
Thats the diffrence, your man is a god. Kessler is good, and I'm sorry
he'll ruin your "god". Your world will break down,you have to find a new god, feel free to use Kessler he will be the new god.:good

[Toopretty]

You will soon realise that a peak Calzaghe who is fully focused is one of the most dangerous fighters of all time.

Ok ok..I believe you darn.. I done converted..what else do you want..lol

[Amsterdam]

Ok ok..I believe you darn.. I done converted..what else do you want..lol

I don't believe that you have converted.

Who wins -

Calzaghe or James Toney at SMW -qm-

Calzaghe or Bernard Hopkins now -qm-

Calzaghe or Jermain Taylor -qm-

Calzaghe or Marvin Hagler SMW -qm-

Calzaghe or Dariusz Michalczewski at LHW -qm-

I shall critique your answers.

[DanePugilist]

Yours as well. Short with not much to say. Thats the best you.. you can be. Keep up the good work. And all hail Calzaghe. King of 168pds and boxing as a whole. My brothers in faith will hold down this thread.Yes, complementing others is the best I can be. I will try and make it short and without much context for you in the future, since you appreciate that so much.

[Toopretty]

I don't believe that you have converted.

Who wins -

Calzaghe or James Toney at SMW -qm-

Calzaghe or Bernard Hopkins now -qm-

Calzaghe or Jermain Taylor -qm-

Calzaghe or Marvin Hagler SMW -qm- I am uncertain on this one. Hagler was a 160 guy but he had skill and was one of the best in-fighters of all time. I think he would out-tough Calzaghe.

Calzaghe or Dariusz Michalczewski at LHW -qm-

I shall critique your answers.


:lol::lol: Damn...you got me....I wont even try. But here is my answers anyway. I have been excommunicated from the covenant. lol

[Amsterdam]

:lol::lol: Damn...you got me....I wont even try. But here is my answers anyway. I have been excommunicated from the covenant. lol

Of course I knew. Anyone who picks Toney over Calzaghe is not a true arrogant Calzaghe fan.

Hagler over Calzaghe is even more ridiculous, specifically when looking at styles alone.

You are not invited into the Calzaghe mafia, good day.

[Toopretty]

Of course I knew. Anyone who picks Toney over Calzaghe is not a true arrogant Calzaghe fan.

Hagler over Calzaghe is even more ridiculous, specifically when looking at styles alone.

You are not invited into the Calzaghe mafia, good day.

:oops::oops::|

[DanePugilist]

Of course I knew. Anyone who picks Toney over Calzaghe is not a true arrogant Calzaghe fan.

Hagler over Calzaghe is even more ridiculous, specifically when looking at styles alone.

You are not invited into the Calzaghe mafia, good day.:rofl Touché.

[Amsterdam]

And nobody who isn't an original fan to begin with, or an original 'outside respect' viewer prior to when Calzaghe impressively annihilates an ELITE fighter in Kessler is invited.

Especially those who have bashed Calzaghe prior to the event, only to be amazed and then want in, no Johnny come lately's, our 'mafia' comprises of some of the best analysts around.

[DanePugilist]

I still have a problem with no. 2, 9 and 10 though - so no cottoncoat and tommyguns for me:verysad

[Toopretty]

And nobody who isn't an original fan to begin with, or an original 'outside respect' viewer prior to when Calzaghe impressively annihilates an ELITE fighter in Kessler is invited.

Especially those who have bashed Calzaghe prior to the event, only to be amazed and then want in, no Johnny come lately's, our 'mafia' comprises of some of the best analysts around.

Those are some strict standards. La Costra Calzagha.

[cuchulain]

I don't believe that you have converted.

Who wins -

Calzaghe or James Toney at SMW -qm-

Calzaghe or Bernard Hopkins now -qm-

Calzaghe or Jermain Taylor -qm-

Calzaghe or Marvin Hagler SMW -qm-

Calzaghe or Dariusz Michalczewski at LHW -qm-

I shall critique your answers.

While I'm a fan of the great Joe, I don't believe in monogamy, so #2 precludes my inDRAGONation into that church.

Your list, however, is not much of a test. Prime Joe beats all of the names mentioned. In fact, with the exception of Roy, prime Joe beats anyone who's boxed at SMW.

[cuchulain]

And then, at the top of the valley, Joses returned with two tablets that were to become The Ten Calzagments... the way by which the religion of Calzagism should be lived day to day for all its followers.

Thou shalt always believe in Calzaghe, in both trouble times in the ring and injured times outside it.
Do not worship any other boxer. Respect, nod and smile, but remember Calzaghe is the only true boxer.
Do not misuse the name of Calzaghe (Calfaggi, Joke Calslappy etc)
Honour his father (and trainer) and mother
Do not lie (yes - he almost lost against Reid and was hurt against Mitchell)
Do not steal (no matter how much you want tickets to his next fight and think they're a rip off)
Love thy neighbour (even Frank ****** does good deeds like giving a no-hoper a title shot)
You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods (Kessler holds other belts, but this, I assure you, is nothing to be upset about)
You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy. Please do not watch re-runs of Calzaghe victories on a Sunday - 6 days a week is enough.
You shall not make for yourself any idol - all merchandise MUST be bought directly through [Only registered and activated users can see links]******.tv/Armed with the Calzagments, go forward friends and live a life of glee. A pilgrimage to the site of the old gym is required at least once during your lifetime.

Great post !

[Lance_Uppercut]

You're probably a johnny come lately yourself Amsterdam. I've been a fan and watching Joe C since before I joined this board.

[Amsterdam]

You're probably a johnny come lately yourself Amsterdam. I've been a fan and watching Joe C since before I joined this board.

Your lies do not work. My first Calzaghe fight was the Eubank bout, I have followed him since.

That dates back 10 years. I wish you had 10 years of 'quality' boxing experience, then you could perhaps come into the debates with something other than regurgitated nonsense and then I could fire back accordingly.

Until then, it's no big deal.

[Amsterdam]

While I'm a fan of the great Joe, I don't believe in monogamy, so #2 precludes my inDRAGONation into that church.

Your list, however, is not much of a test. Prime Joe beats all of the names mentioned. In fact, with the exception of Roy, prime Joe beats anyone who's boxed at SMW.

It is a test, if you pick anyone but Roy to beat Joe at SMW then you have not studied him well enough and therefore are not a heavy fan.

[Lance_Uppercut]

Your lies do not work. My first Calzaghe fight was the Eubank bout, I have followed him since.

That dates back 10 years. I wish you had 10 years of 'quality' boxing experience, then you could perhaps come into the debates with something other than regurgitated nonsense and then I could fire back accordingly.

Until then, it's no big deal.
10 years of watching Joe C? Wow. Kudos mate! :good

I've been a fan of ALL FIGHTERS since the late 80's. Either way, with all that accumulated knowledge, you have nothing else better to post about then how great Joe is :roll: and how bad Taylor is.

And you don't even debate anything worth debating because you place your opinion too much as fact. Here's a fact, you're a twat.:good

[Amsterdam]

10 years of watching Joe C? Wow. Kudos mate! :good

I've been a fan of ALL FIGHTERS since the late 80's. Either way, with all that accumulated knowledge, you have nothing else better to post about then how great Joe is :roll: and how bad Taylor is.

And you don't even debate anything worth debating because you place your opinion too much as fact. Here's a fact, you're a twat.:good

I talk about plenty of subjects, Taylor is a current event, he won't be mentioned much after the aftermath of him getting destroyed and that will be nice, because he was wrongfully ranked in the first place.

My opinion is not fact, your opinion is regurgitated and the only subjects you bother with is the welterweight division and then of course retorting to my or CHJ's material.

[Lance_Uppercut]

I talk about plenty of subjects, Taylor is a current event, he won't be mentioned much after the aftermath of him getting destroyed and that will be nice, because he was wrongfully ranked in the first place.

My opinion is not fact, your opinion is regurgitated and the only subjects you bother with is the welterweight division and then of course retorting to my or CHJ's material.

You're opinion is based on your nuthugging of Calzaghe. That has become blatantly obivous on recent posts by you. You can bitch and cry, and that is what you are doing, about Taylor's place on some mythical P4P list, but at least he's fought dangerous foes. Your hero, Joe C, has faced mainly hand picked chumps that you have to build up.

If my opinion was regurgitated, as you claim, I wouldn't be one who disagrees 99% of the time with the rest of the nuthuggers.

[Amsterdam]

Amsterdam, your opinion is washed up bullshit as seen by how wrong you get it if you don't have me in your corner giving you the reasons why a fighter is going to win.

At least your ass will fuck right off in the next week or so when Taylor simply goes to continue proving a single fact - I'm the true analyst here, son.

Ah, Blockhead.

You're more enjoyable to debate with than Lance and NervousXtian, but you also have to go, even with the comedic element that you bring, I'm sorry it's that way, you just picked the wrong fighter and have too big a mouth.:yep

[Lance_Uppercut]

Ah, Blockhead.

You're more enjoyable to debate with than Lance and NervousXtian, but you also have to go, even with the comedic element that you bring, I'm sorry it's that way, you just picked the wrong fighter and have too big a mouth.:yep

Like I said, you don't debate. You post bullshit opinion and try to pass it as fact. Ohm that and kiss CKH's ass. :patsch

Say what you want about me, but at least I don't act as if I am some know-it-all.

[Amsterdam]

You're opinion is based on your nuthugging of Calzaghe. That has become blatantly obivous on recent posts by you. You can bitch and cry, and that is what you are doing, about Taylor's place on some mythical P4P list, but at least he's fought dangerous foes. Your hero, Joe C, has faced mainly hand picked chumps that you have to build up.

If my opinion was regurgitated, as you claim, I wouldn't be one who disagrees 99% of the time with the rest of the nuthuggers.

Again, that's the way you percieve it. I tend to stick up for all underrated talents that do not get their credit and chances, Joan Guzman for example, in my avatar, he's 31 and fading and was heavily avoided like the plague for a while, just one example.

Calzaghe happens to be my favourite fighter and in the middle of MW-LHW, which is a deep region in general and lesser fighters than he take claim to boxing's highest regard, while he was stuck with only limited chances for years, so I seek to put things to perspective in all area's for ALL fighters, not just the Calzaghe situation, I go over this pretty often and tend to support any underrated fighter.

What I mean by 'regurgitated' is that you only follow the names essentially and lack the analysation skills to seek out and spot underrated guys, except for Margarito, whom was a piss fighter to begin with and the fact that you thought he was going to lay claim to top Welterweight wins proves my point here. People went on how Margarito was 'underrated', everyone bought it. People go on about things and others don't see it and they buy it.

Do you think DLH would ever fight Dzinziruk, or any name for that matter? Of course not, too dangerous, but Dzinziruk would smoke DLH and that level of 'name' fighter and that's the tragedy involved.

Grow up and learn not to take everything to heart, you are dealing with a forum.

I'm not even going to discuss this material after the aftermath of Taylor/Pavlik is done, in which you all will hopefully be in agreement on the subject of Taylor, in which I will not seek to insult or brutally dish out any crow, just seek to collectively educate everyone on the subject of this overrated joke, who I'd despise if I was never a fan of Calzaghe to begin with, I have despised the overrating of this cunt known as Taylor all the way back to 2004, when Calzaghe/Taylor match ups were not even in the question.

Anyways, that's all I am going to say.

[Amsterdam]

Like I said, you don't debate. You post bullshit opinion and try to pass it as fact. Ohm that and kiss CKH's ass. :patsch

Say what you want about me, but at least I don't act as if I am some know-it-all.

Ah, but I do debate, you just aren't around on any subjects not involving what I stated you get involved with above.

[Amsterdam]

Like I said, you don't debate. You post bullshit opinion and try to pass it as fact. Ohm that and kiss CKH's ass. :patsch

Say what you want about me, but at least I don't act as if I am some know-it-all.

Ah, but I do debate, you just aren't around on any subjects not involving what I stated you get involved with above.

[Lance_Uppercut]

Again, that's the way you percieve it. I tend to stick up for all underrated talents that do not get their credit and chances, Joan Guzman for example, in my avatar, he's 31 and fading and was heavily avoided like the plague for a while, just one example.

Calzaghe happens to be my favourite fighter and in the middle of MW-LHW, which is a deep region in general and lesser fighters than he take claim to boxing's highest regard, while he was stuck with only limited chances for years, so I seek to put things to perspective in all area's for ALL fighters, not just the Calzaghe situation, I go over this pretty often and tend to support any underrated fighter.

What I mean by 'regurgitated' is that you only follow the names essentially and lack the analysation skills to seek out and spot underrated guys, except for Margarito, whom was a piss fighter to begin with and the fact that you thought he was going to lay claim to top Welterweight wins proves my point here. People went on how Margarito was 'underrated', everyone bought it. People go on about things and others don't see it and they buy it.

Do you think DLH would ever fight Dzinziruk, or any name for that matter? Of course not, too dangerous, but Dzinziruk would smoke DLH and that level of 'name' fighter and that's the tragedy involved.

Grow up and learn not to take everything to heart, you are dealing with a forum.

I'm not even going to discuss this material after the aftermath of Taylor/Pavlik is done, in which you all will hopefully be in agreement on the subject of Taylor, in which I will not seek to insult or brutally dish out any crow, just seek to collectively educate everyone on the subject of this overrated joke, who I'd despise if I was never a fan of Calzaghe to begin with, I have despised the overrating of this cunt known as Taylor all the way back to 2004, when Calzaghe/Taylor match ups were not even in the question.

Anyways, that's all I am going to say.
You write a lot, but you don't really say much. I get the idea you're the type who likes to see their own words more then others.

And please, don't go ruin Guzman for a lot of other fans. I have been watching him since his 122 days. You're probably another 'bandwagoner' with him too.:-(

[Lance_Uppercut]

Ah, but I do debate, you just aren't around on any subjects not involving what I stated you get involved with above.

I've seen you 'debate'. You almost say the same thing over and over. :roll:

[Amsterdam]

You write a lot, but you don't really say much. I get the idea you're the type who likes to see their own words more then others.

And please, don't go ruin Guzman for a lot of other fans. I have been watching him since his 122 days. You're probably another 'bandwagoner' with him too.:-(

I'm not much of a Guzman fan per say, but I am in support of him getting his chance to shine, it's been long enough.

And I do debate well, again, you just have little to no realistic boxing knowledge. If I had no debating skills, then most posters would say so, for the most part, they like the addition that I bring to a debate and likewise I do with them.

Boxing is dynamic, it's a learning experience, you're just in the 1st grade, while we're all in high school and therefore you make it personal when you don't agree because you cannot debate back worth a damn when it comes to technicality, which technicality is what I run off of when making decisions.

Blockhead for all his nasty faults, at least has a semi-informed stance, with lots of flaws, you're just lost.

[Lance_Uppercut]

I'm not much of a Guzman fan per say, but I am in support of him getting his chance to shine, it's been long enough.

And I do debate well, again, you just have little to no realistic boxing knowledge. If I had no debating skills, then most posters would say so, for the most part, they like the addition that I bring to a debate and likewise I do with them.

Boxing is dynamic, it's a learning experience, you're just in the 1st grade, while we're all in high school and therefore you make it personal when you don't agree because you cannot debate back worth a damn when it comes to technicality, which technicality is what I run off of when making decisions.

Blockhead for all his nasty faults, at least has a semi-informed stance, with lots of flaws, you're just lost.

I guess if a bunch of teenybopper fans think you are a good poster, you must be right. :lol::lol: Dude...you've become more ridiculous then anything of late.

You can say what you want about me, pretty much all of what you are saying is said out of spite anyway. You're just a Joe C fan, not a real boxing fan anyway.

And now I'll leave you to play "boxing expert" again. Ciao kid.

[Amsterdam]

No, I'm a boxing fan first, but you wouldn't pick that up to begin with, going back to my assessment of your position of course.

[Lance_Uppercut]

No, I'm a boxing fan first, but you wouldn't pick that up to begin with, going back to my assessment of your position of course.

:lol: Sure you are. Just like the nuthuggers here aren't nuthuggers.

[Decebal]

Anyone surprised that as soon as the Calzagments were received, strife and disunity quickly followed? I am not...:-(

[Amsterdam]

Notice how he ignores the ass kicking I give him..? Does this in every thread, knows he can't compete.

Please Blockhead, we just don't bother with brutally owning you like we did earlier this year because it gets nowhere, you leave for a few weeks and come back with the same regurgitated nonsense.

The solution is that you are leaving for six months, but we still expect you to post under 'yesihavearm' occassionally, even though that's a slightly different personality.

[Lance_Uppercut]

Notice how he ignores the ass kicking I give him..? Does this in every thread, knows he can't compete.

Does he even debate anything? Because all it looks like he does is TELLS people how it is and how wrong they are. Somehow Amsterdam manages to stick his head up his own ass...:patsch

[cuchulain]

It is a test, if you pick anyone but Roy to beat Joe at SMW then you have not studied him well enough and therefore are not a heavy fan.


You miss my point.

Giving the correct answer to such an obviously easy question provides little or no real test.

With the exception of Roy, Joe beats anyone at SMW.

[Amsterdam]

Anyone surprised that as soon as the Calzagments were received, strife and disunity quickly followed? I am not...:-(

It's because we reside in absurdity.

[Decebal]

Whilst it is true that Amsterdam and China_hand_Joe are proselytising, you would have to be blind not to see that they are good, objective analysts!

[Lance_Uppercut]

He used to attempt it, caught him using my opinions almost word for word on Calzaghe, most of the time he just spouts a bunch of idiotic crap

He's already had a ban from this board, with which he said he'd never come back, pity he can't stick to that.

So he's a prick AND a hack? :patsch

[Decebal]

So he's a prick AND a hack? :patsch

Prick? He just makes things interesting around here! Hack? No way! Amsterdam thinks for himself, 100%!

[McGrain]

Whilst it is true that Amsterdam and China_hand_Joe are proselytising, you would have to be blind not to see that they are good, objective analysts!


Well the good part applies to Amsterdam for sure. Probably CHJ aswell.

But the objective part? Why do you say so? Amsterdam has admitted this is not the case and it's as plain as the nose on your face that the word "objective" doesn't fit CHJ.

[Decebal]

Objective analysts don't berate a undisputed middleweight champion as a disgrace when they've had four fights against against potential HOF'ers without losing one.

The reason Amsterdam goes over the top is because he says:

1. some of those were gift decisions
2. the only reason why his opponents are rated as highly as they are is because of circle-jerking and hype of the American boxing establishment
3. Taylor has had a few picked fights against opponents whose style he could deal with

...sure, this is just the state of play in boxing, but it doesn't make it right. Sure Taylor is good, but he is not as good as he thinks, or as good as he is usually ranked to be.

[cuchulain]

Struggles with Prime Eubank
Struggles with B-Hop (lets consider his 170 fight a fight at 168)
Struggles with James Toney

Should win all of the above fights, Hopkins poses the most risk.

Notwithstanding my little bit of hyperbole with Amsterdam, I believe that while Joe might struggle with any of the mentioned fighters, he would prevail.

Joe was not at prime when he defeated Eubank. One of them was nearing prime, the other, slightly past it.

He would defeat Toney in the same general way Roy did, but maybe not as convincingly.

BHop's recent victory over Winky neither adds or subtracts from my estimation of him at prime. (It DOES add to the longevity portion of his legacy, bigtime) but Winky was a natural 154 and slightly past his best.
Prime for prime at 160, BHop stops Winky.

I agree that BHop might have proved the most dangerous to Joe's 0.
Then again, Toney might have been more of a challenge.

[Amsterdam]

Prick? He just makes things interesting around here! Hack? No way! Amsterdam thinks for himself, 100%!

Magnum is the most knowledgable poster on the site bar none, he's league's above everyone here, I try to learn the most from him, even he thinks my Taylor hate is ridiculous.:lol:

Magnum's assessment of Taylor's abilities however are similiar to mine, the guy is rarely wrong when sizing a fighter up if he's seen plenty of tape, Blockhead is leaving for six months, plain and simple, Magnum picks Pavlik also.

You have to agree Decebal, some of this just gets too amusing.:yep

[Decebal]

Amsterdam has admitted this is not the case and it's as plain as the nose on your face that the word "objective" doesn't fit CHJ.


Oh...that's pure entertainment and propaganda! You find it funny too, so what's the problem? However, in between all that artifice, there lie certain facts: circle-jerking, bias against non-American fighters in the rankings, ranking by resume and NAMES defeated, dodging of non-NAMED non-US opponents by American NAMES, fighting NAMES instead of live threats, etc. These are serious, objective issues!

[Decebal]

Magnum is the most knowledgable poster on the site bar none, he's league's above everyone here, I try to learn the most from him, even he thinks my Taylor hate is ridiculous.:lol:

Magnum's assessment of Taylor's abilities however are similiar to mine, the guy is rarely wrong when sizing a fighter up if he's seen plenty of tape, Blockhead is leaving for six months, plain and simple, Magnum picks Pavlik also.

You have to agree Decebal, some of this just gets too amusing.:yep

I am surprised that they don't find your style amusing! What's wrong with making a serious point well in an amusing manner, on a forum?:huh

[McGrain]

Oh...that's pure entertainment and propaganda! You find it funny too, so what's the problem?

No problem with that in and of itself. It's problematic when people start labelling it "objective analysis" though.


However, in between all that artifice, there lie certain facts: circle-jerking, bias against non-American fighters in the rankings, ranking by resume and NAMES defeated, dodging of non-NAMED non-US opponents by American NAMES, fighting NAMES instead of live threats, etc. These are serious, objective issues!

If they are then they are. If they are not then they are not. But Amsterdam has admitted that running down Taylor is "policy". Labelling guys like Hopkins and Wright NAMES might be accurate, but it's not in my opinion. Both are good fighters, to say the least.

[Amsterdam]

I am surprised that they don't find your style amusing! What's wrong with making a serious point well in an amusing manner, on a forum?:huh

There is nothing wrong with it, they just don't recieve it well, plus it helps to actually seek to understand the many facets of this great sport.:yep

By the way, Cuculain, I agree with all of that, peak Hopkins gives Joe a rough fight.

[Decebal]

If they are then they are. If they are not then they are not. But Amsterdam has admitted that running down Taylor is "policy". Labelling guys like Hopkins and Wright NAMES might be accurate, but it's not in my opinion. Both are good fighters, to say the least.

They are running away with a small contrast, in order to make it perfectly clear. Sure, NAMES are good fighters, but they're not as good as their ranking according to past conquests would suggest! That is why some of us call them NAMES! Sure, Amsterdam and CHJ have an agenda! But so does the American boxing establishment and the American promoters! I think they're fair game! Don't you?

[Amsterdam]

No problem with that in and of itself. It's problematic when people start labelling it "objective analysis" though.




If they are then they are. If they are not then they are not. But Amsterdam has admitted that running down Taylor is "policy". Labelling guys like Hopkins and Wright NAMES might be accurate, but it's not in my opinion. Both are good fighters, to say the least.

Hopkins and Wright are awesome fighters, who has denied this?

I claimed that they are used as 'names' and when they reach this level, they circle jerk with in house fighting instead of branching out like the old schoolers and taking on real risks. I hold nothing against Wright or Hopkins, these guys fought their way up to be where they are, but believe me, Hopkins' shutouts of all of his pre-Trinidad opponents nearly mean more to me than his KO 9 of DLH or his win over Wright, if you get what I mean by that.

Wright became absurdly overrated after the Trinidad loss, to the point where people thought he was one of the 'best defensive artists' of the era. The man is a technical pressure fighter the is centered around the jab and the tactical use to the guard as to apply the pressure, his handspeed and excellent timing and well rounded punch variety supplement this. But he also lost to Vargas, Harry Simon and could have had a draw with Mosely in the 2nd, the Trinidad win made people think he was 'nearly unbeatable' at the time, it's just more ridiculousness McGrain.

Then he goes on to win a razor thin decision over Soliman and the Taylor draw of course, he's also 35 this year and at least NOW, in 2007, nearing the end of the road.

[McGrain]

They are running away with a small contrast, in order to make it perfectly clear.

I understand that, but to stress, my point here is a counter-point to your "objective" claim, and here is another illustration (by your hand) of this lack of objectivity.

Sure, NAMES are good fighters, but they're not as good as their ranking according to past conquests would suggest!


Only if you accept the analysis presented by some concerning the quality of the fighters involved. I don't understand what is required of fighters if it is something other than fighting other fighters rated highly by the establishment who are also marquee draws and besting them.

Sure, Amsterdam and CHJ have an agenda! But so does the American boxing establishment and the American promoters! I think they're fair game! Don't you?

Well, let's work it out. If the American boxing establishment have an agenda and are fair game and Amsterdam and CHJ have an agenda are they not also fair game? And does this make it clearer to you why they are the subject of attacks by other on the board (fulfilling the same roll as Amsterdam and CHJ apparently fill in opposition to the American boxing establishment), because you seem quite confused about it in this thread.

[McGrain]

Hopkins and Wright are awesome fighters, who has denied this?

If you see them as awsome and have seen Taylor compete closely with both, why the derision of him as "pathetic"?

I hold nothing against Wright or Hopkins, these guys fought their way up to be where they are, but believe me, Hopkins' shutouts of all of his pre-Trinidad opponents nearly mean more to me than his KO 9 of DLH or his win over Wright, if you get what I mean by that.

Yes, I do understand this.

Wright became absurdly overrated after the Trinidad loss, to the point where people thought he was one of the 'best defensive artists' of the era. The man is a technical pressure fighter the is centered around the jab and the tactical use to the guard as to apply the pressure, his handspeed and excellent timing and well rounded punch variety supplement this. But he also lost to Vargas, Harry Simon and could have had a draw with Mosely in the 2nd, the Trinidad win made people think he was 'nearly unbeatable' at the time, it's just more ridiculousness McGrain.

Wright enjoys the swing that all previously unfashionable fighters enjoy, a "recovery" in popularity and repayment by the boxing establishment for seemingly unjust years on the road. "Ridiculousness" certainly seems a bit strong, but its is a little surreal.

I don't think Wright is and ATG, as some insisted a coule of years back. I do think he is firmly established as a p4p force in this era, fading or not.

[Decebal]

I understand that, but to stress, my point here is a counter-point to your "objective" claim, and here is another illustration (by your hand) of this lack of objectivity.

There is objectivity when fight/fighter analysis is involved and there is objectivity when the state of play of the professional game is involved. Two different things! Amsterdam and CHJ make points about both, sometimes in the same argument.


Only if you accept the analysis presented by some concerning the quality of the fighters involved. I don't understand what is required of fighters if it is something other than fighting other fighters rated highly by the establishment who are also marquee draws and besting them.

Wrong! Because if you lose to another marquee-drawn opponent, your ranking only goes down by a bit, not by as much as it would if you fought a live opponent who was as good, but wasn't a NAME! ("Circle jerk" always leads to rankings bias; you might argue that those usually described as circle jerkers are not in fact circle jerkers, but circle jerking, per se, always muddies the water!


Well, let's work it out. If the American boxing establishment have an agenda and are fair game and Amsterdam and CHJ have an agenda are they not also fair game? And does this make it clearer to you why they are the subject of attacks by other on the board (fulfilling the same roll as Amsterdam and CHJ apparently fill in opposition to the American boxing establishment), because you seem quite confused about it in this thread.

Amsterdam and CHJ are laughed at and attacked on a regular basis - they are used to it - for their analysis of the state of play of boxing. However, it would be silly to argue that they are not good, objective analysts of fights/fighters! This is what I argue! (Personally, I would say that they are objective analysts of the state of play too!)

[Amsterdam]

If you see them as awsome and have seen Taylor compete closely with both, why the derision of him as "pathetic"?


This is all just fun and games mate. But he is a poor champion, he's a terrible model spokesperson as the MW champion and therefore a potential big voice for boxing and all involved with that.

He was competitive for specific reasons, even though these guys are great fighters, they lack the intangibles that beat Taylor and Taylor and management sought to avoid those types of intangibles after it, until Pavlik became a mandatory and there was no way out, Wright was a mandatory for that matter also, people make out like Taylor and DiBella absolutely wanted Wright.

But Taylor and DiBella also thought they'd plow through a smaller man, but Taylor's too flawed to stick to a gameplan and his skills highly overrated.

He had a styles advantage over a fading Hopkins and still couldn't seal it clearly, this is the dilemma with rating him well. Some people were projecting that he'd be a fuckin' ATG for christs sakes, it was really absurd, he's mediocre all together when considering his physical talents and the hype.


Yes, I do understand this.


Cool.


Wright enjoys the swing that all previously unfashionable fighters enjoy, a "recovery" in popularity and repayment by the boxing establishment for seemingly unjust years on the road. "Ridiculousness" certainly seems a bit strong, but its is a little surreal.


It is McGrain, I also dislike when these cunts like Lance and the even more idiotic 'Nervousxtian' make out like because I post from a semi-agenda(which is defending underrated fighters against exploitative rankings) and do so in an often comical manner, that I know nothing, when they know very little, nothing to the level of you for example, or KG0208 or the very knowledgable and classy 'Brooklyn1550', who we all get along with and have good discussion with.

Point being, these stupid cunts don't even grasp this, when we all do.


I don't think Wright is and ATG, as some insisted a coule of years back. I do think he is firmly established as a p4p force in this era, fading or not.


He is a P4P fighter, but not currently, a draw to Taylor and a loss to Hopkins should drop him off unless he secures something impressive, such as a victory over Abraham or a SMW win, I doubt both would come at this point.

No doubt he's not an ATG either, but he is a 'great' fighter. I suppose Wright in an era/era comparison would be like a Jimmy Bivins ranking, a 'great' but not an ATG.

[PrideOfWales]

~whistles nonchalently~

These boards would be a poorer place without all of you.

[cross_trainer]

You're probably a johnny come lately yourself Amsterdam. I've been a fan and watching Joe C since before I joined this board.

Oh yeah? I've been a Calzaghe fan before he was born.

[Decebal]

Oh yeah? I've been a Calzaghe fan before he was born.

Oh, yes, Mr. Abraham!:D The prophecy of JC has come true in your lifetime!:thumbsup

[bodhidarma]

:lol::happy:rofl:yep:good

Funniest post ever !

[Lance_Uppercut]

Magnum is the most knowledgable poster on the site bar none, he's league's above everyone here, I try to learn the most from him, even he thinks my Taylor hate is ridiculous.:lol:

Magnum's assessment of Taylor's abilities however are similiar to mine, the guy is rarely wrong when sizing a fighter up if he's seen plenty of tape, Blockhead is leaving for six months, plain and simple, Magnum picks Pavlik also.

You have to agree Decebal, some of this just gets too amusing.:yep

:lol: You said the exact same thing about CHJ. I guess I should know by now you're pretty much just a joker on this baord that no one should ever take serious. Just pretending to be a boxing fan.:good

[Decebal]

:lol: You said the exact same thing about CHJ. I guess I should know by now you're pretty much just a joker on this baord that no one should ever take serious. Just pretending to be a boxing fan.:good

He never said that about CHJ...about CHJ he says he has a 100% correct picking record.

[Lance_Uppercut]

Oh yeah? I've been a Calzaghe fan before he was born.
:lol: touche

[Lance_Uppercut]

He never said that about CHJ...about CHJ he says he has a 100% correct picking record.

Sure he was.

[Decebal]

Sure he was.

You two have to give each other a break! This is getting out of hand!

[Lance_Uppercut]

You two have to give each other a break! This is getting out of hand!

Sorry, but he did say that about CHJ. Or something extremely close.

[Decebal]

Sorry, but he did say that about CHJ. Or something extremely close.

He said: "CHJ is arguably the most knowledgable guy around when it comes to modern boxing, pay attention sometimes"

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I guess Magnum is the most knowledgeable OVERALL! :)

[China_hand_Joe]

He said: "CHJ is arguably the most knowledgable guy around when it comes to modern boxing, pay attention sometimes"

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
He doesn't consider me knowledgeable OVERALL! :)He doesn't consider me knowledgeable about all eras of boxing, as I pick Ray Robinson over Peter Manfredo.

[Decebal]

He doesn't consider me knowledgeable about all eras of boxing, as I pick Ray Robinson over Peter Manfredo.

Yeah...got lucky on this one!

[Lance_Uppercut]

He doesn't consider me knowledgeable about all eras of boxing, as I pick Ray Robinson over Peter Manfredo.

:lol: Robinson SD Manfredo.

[McGrain]

There is objectivity when fight/fighter analysis is involved and there is objectivity when the state of play of the professional game is involved. Two different things! Amsterdam and CHJ make points about both, sometimes in the same argument.

I disagree strongly where China_Hand_Joe is concerned. I think a great deal of his analysis is informed by his Calzaghe fixation. But perhaps you mean to say that he is objective when he discusses "the state of play in proffesional game"? I don't see how one can be independant of the other.




Wrong! Because if you lose to another marquee-drawn opponent, your ranking only goes down by a bit, not by as much as it would if you fought a live opponent who was as good, but wasn't a NAME! ("Circle jerk" always leads to rankings bias; you might argue that those usually described as circle jerkers are not in fact circle jerkers, but circle jerking, per se, always muddies the water!

I don't accept that this "jerk circle" situation exsists, at all. Top fighters fight other top fighters, as has always been the case. More recently (post King basically) fighters get away with fighting a lot of substandard fighters rather than other top fighters in an effort to protect the 0.

Secondly, what is with the fixation with rankings? So what if a fighters ranking only "goes down a bit" after he's fought a fighter with a better reputation than a lesser fighter? It is rare that fighters are "handed" a rep, whatever some might say.



Amsterdam and CHJ are laughed at and attacked on a regular basis - they are used to it - for their analysis of the state of play of boxing. However, it would be silly to argue that they are not good, objective analysts of fights/fighters! This is what I argue! (Personally, I would say that they are objective analysts of the state of play too!)

As you've seen I would present an argument contradicting their objectivity, and i'm surprise that you present the contrary, given that Amsterdam has admitted as much and I would have said nobody - literally - would have labelled CHJ as "objective", whatever else they might chose to say about him, positive or negative.

[RUSKULL]

Hilarious thred!

[McGrain]

This is all just fun and games mate.


I don't find it funny bro. At all.



He had a styles advantage over a fading Hopkins and still couldn't seal it clearly, this is the dilemma with rating him well. Some people were projecting that he'd be a fuckin' ATG for christs sakes, it was really absurd, he's mediocre all together when considering his physical talents and the hype.

I also think that people underestimate the drain of making 160 - at his age - had on Hopkins going into those fights. People criticse him for the way he fought, but I don't think he could have fought any differently. I personally don't have a problem with either decision (or a problem with people who do) but I do think that if Hopkins had another 2% he would have won both.




It is McGrain, I also dislike when these cunts like Lance and the even more idiotic 'Nervousxtian' make out like because I post from a semi-agenda(which is defending underrated fighters against exploitative rankings) and do so in an often comical manner,

Your agenda winds me up too, but I see where you're coming form and I always enjoy your posts. You're required reading as far as i'm concerned - I don't even know who these guys you speak about are, for whatever that's worth.


He is a P4P fighter, but not currently, a draw to Taylor and a loss to Hopkins should drop him off unless he secures something impressive, such as a victory over Abraham or a SMW win, I doubt both would come at this point.

I see him a p4p fighter that's fighting above weight, always interesting - I agree what he does next is cruical for him.

No doubt he's not an ATG either, but he is a 'great' fighter. I suppose Wright in an era/era comparison would be like a Jimmy Bivins ranking, a 'great' but not an ATG.

I rate Bivins that highly - and you know that :good

[McGrain]

Oh yeah? I've been a Calzaghe fan before he was born.

:lol:

[McGrain]

He doesn't consider me knowledgeable about all eras of boxing, as I pick Ray Robinson over Peter Manfredo.

Congratulations bro.

[Decebal]

I disagree strongly where China_Hand_Joe is concerned. I think a great deal of his analysis is informed by his Calzaghe fixation. But perhaps you mean to say that he is objective when he discusses "the state of play in proffesional game"? I don't see how one can be independant of the other.

I think if you get CHJ away from the subject of JC...say, when he had to analyse MAB v. JMM, he was an objective, good, analyst. Privately, one-on-one, he is objective even when it comes to fights/fighters who impinge on JC and his career.

I don't accept that this "jerk circle" situation exsists, at all. Top fighters fight other top fighters, as has always been the case. More recently (post King basically) fighters get away with fighting a lot of substandard fighters rather than other top fighters in an effort to protect the 0.

Dodging for the "0" exists, but so does fighting the inner circle, a loss to a member of which wouldn't be catastrophic. The reason promoters prefer the inner circle is because they love it when fighters raise themselves by their bootstraps and pull an Indian rope trick out of the bag. In hindsight, using the NAMES on resume method of establishing legacy, all the fighters in the inner circle make it - none of them can lose, as long as they only fight each other, and nobody else who has not been annointed elite by the establishment. Circle jerking is alive and well, at all levels of boxing, not just at the highest level. It just makes sense! It's a protectionist practice; you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Secondly, what is with the fixation with rankings? So what if a fighters ranking only "goes down a bit" after he's fought a fighter with a better reputation than a lesser fighter? It is rare that fighters are "handed" a rep, whatever some might say.

Are you saying that the media/establishment don't buy into a fighter, don't build him up, don't hype him? Just look at Amir Khan for example. Just look at Manfredo! Your ranking and reputation are higher than they should be if the powers that be want you to succeed.

As you've seen I would present an argument contradicting their objectivity, and i'm surprise that you present the contrary, given that Amsterdam has admitted as much and I would have said nobody - literally - would have labelled CHJ as "objective", whatever else they might chose to say about him, positive or negative.

CHJ plays to courtly fool rather well; but that doesn't mean that behind much of his crazy tomfoolery and exaggeration don't lie objective truths. He does screw himself to get ahead in an argument, but often it is to destroy false perceptions/prejudices which have become deeply ingrained.

[McGrain]

I think if you get CHJ away from the subject of JC...say, when he had to analyse MAB v. JMM, he was an objective, good, analyst. Privately, one-on-one, he is objective even when it comes to fights/fighters who impinge on JC and his career.

Yes. It is possible for him to be objective where two non-American fighters who fight at nowhere near Joe's weight and in his time are concerned. On any fighters from the past, any fighters from America, any fighters who might fight/fail to fight Calzaghe he is not objective.



Dodging for the "0" exists, but so does fighting the inner circle, a loss to a member of which wouldn't be catastrophic. The reason promoters prefer the inner circle is because they love it when fighters raise themselves by their bootstraps and pull an Indian rope trick out of the bag. In hindsight, using the NAMES on resume method of establishing legacy, all the fighters in the inner circle make it - none of them can lose, as long as they only fight each other, and nobody else who has not been annointed elite by the establishment. Circle jerking is alive and well, at all levels of boxing, not just at the highest level. It just makes sense! It's a protectionist practice; you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

I really don't understand what you are suggesting as an alternative. If it's something along the lines of what Calzaghe or Valuev did I think we are most certainly talking about the lesser of two evils.

And I still don't see any problem at all with name fighters fighting each other.



Are you saying that the media/establishment don't buy into a fighter, don't build him up, don't hype him?

No.

Just look at Amir Khan for example. Just look at Manfredo! Your ranking and reputation are higher than they should be if the powers that be want you to succeed.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Media appeal can bring success. But there is no lying when you step into the squared circle.



CHJ plays to courtly fool rather well; but that doesn't mean that behind much of his crazy tomfoolery and exaggeration don't lie objective truths. He does screw himself to get ahead in an argument, but often it is to destroy false perceptions/prejudices which have become deeply ingrained.

I have never claimed that he is incapable of objectivity. I insist that labelling him "objective" is mildly ridiculous.

[Decebal]

Yes. It is possible for him to be objective where two non-American fighters who fight at nowhere near Joe's weight and in his time are concerned. On any fighters from the past, any fighters from America, any fighters who might fight/fail to fight Calzaghe he is not objective.

:D

I really don't understand what you are suggesting as an alternative. If it's something along the lines of what Calzaghe or Valuev did I think we are most certainly talking about the lesser of two evils.

And I still don't see any problem at all with name fighters fighting each other.

The alternative is, of course, to fight dangerous live threats, rather than have-been NAMES whose past resumes make impressive reading for boxing "genealogists". Why do we always have to choose between two evils, when there we could choose the good staring us in the face?

You're putting the cart before the horse. Media appeal can bring success. But there is no lying when you step into the squared circle.


It is the media that hypes up that puts the cart before the horse. And when their star loses to an ok guy, suddenly the quality of the ok guy is raised by association with their star...because the alternative is to take away from the shine! That this is true to a certain extent, I thought, was obvious!


I have never claimed that he is incapable of objectivity. I insist that labelling him "objective" is mildly ridiculous.

Ok, then let's agree! He is not objective, because he is proselytising. He feels that unless his lies don't counterbalance their lies, there is no way of getting to the truth. It's his strategy. The more extreme they get, in his eyes, the more extreme he has to get, to balance it all off. :good

[China_hand_Joe]

Ok, then let's agree! He is not objective, because he is proselytising. He feels that unless his lies don't counterbalance their lies, there is no way of getting to the truth. It's his strategy. The more extreme they get, in his eyes, the more extreme he has to get, to balance it all off. :good

Lies? What on earth are you on about? The most extreme thing I have ever said is David Starie could humiliate Joey Maxim and possibly defeat E. Charles and I stand by that.

[McGrain]

The alternative is, of course, to fight dangerous live threats, rather than have-been NAMES whose past resumes make impressive reading for boxing "genealogists". Why do we always have to choose between two evils, when there we could choose the good staring us in the face?

So when Hopkins fights Wright at 175 he is guilty of fighting a name rather than a live threat? Despite that fact that he goes into the fight as an underdog with many people on the boards picking against him?




It is the media that hypes up that puts the cart before the horse. And when their star loses to an ok guy, suddenly the quality of the ok guy is raised by association with their star...because the alternative is to take away from the shine! That this is true to a certain extent, I thought, was obvious!

This idea is not entirely accurate at all in my view. In fact the opposite may be true in the most extreme examples - guys beating a very popular champ are often never forgiven for it, for example.

But yes, if a media outlet (say Boxing Monthly or the BBC) rates a fighter very highly and another fighter beats that highly rated fighter, then the fighter doing the beating will normally rate higher than was previously the case. I do that too.

[Decebal]

Lies? What on earth are you on about? The most extreme thing I have ever said is David Starie could defeat E. Charles and I stand by that.

The first name means nothing to me...the second, quite little...sorry!:oops:

[Decebal]

Hey, China Joe! Instead of advocating your cause to your advantage, I seem to have made matters worse! Sorry, mate!:patsch

[cross_trainer]

He is not objective, because he is proselytising. He feels that unless his lies don't counterbalance their lies, there is no way of getting to the truth. It's his strategy. The more extreme they get, in his eyes, the more extreme he has to get, to balance it all off. :good

That's probably true, but it's a stupid strategy. When you use lies and exaggerations instead of facts, you eliminate reasonable discussion.

[McGrain]

That's probably true, but it's a stupid strategy. When you use lies and exaggerations instead of facts, you eliminate reasonable discussion.

Although to be fair, the same can be said of many of the worlds greatest things - booze and women (and for some reason, Vitali).

[China_hand_Joe]

That's probably true, but it's a stupid strategy. When you use lies and exaggerations instead of facts, you eliminate reasonable discussion.

I don't use exaggerations, though I do do something similar. I of course have some conventional beliefs about boxing, I only really bring up my extremist ones most of the time however.

[Decebal]

That's probably true, but it's a stupid strategy. When you use lies and exaggerations instead of facts, you eliminate reasonable discussion.

True, but let's not forget: if you repeat a lie many times, and make it big, many people will believe it! Or, at least, they will be easily programmed into looking at certain aspects in a cynical way, or into being weary of certain things! Sometimes that is all that is required to change public opinion.

[McGrain]

I of course have some conventional beliefs about boxing, I only really bring up my extremist ones most of the time however.


They sometimes peep out via PM.

[Decebal]

I only really bring up my extremist ones most of the time however.

Come on, isn't that objectively quite funny!?:lol: CHJ is a legend; I wouldn't change him for half of the board!

[cross_trainer]

I don't use exaggerations, though I do do something similar. I of course have some conventional beliefs about boxing, I only really bring up my extremist ones most of the time however.

As sockpuppets to stimulate discussion go, you work fairly well. I've examined era vs. era more thoroughly, and others have taken a second look at Calzaghe/Kessler/Hopkins. However, you should realize that exaggerations have a tendency to polarize opinion and discredit your case among those who take your utterances without a few tons of salt.

Take it as you like. :smoke

[China_hand_Joe]

Remember the thread where I claimed Joe Calzaghe would defeat Rocky Marciano. Well people thought that was unobjective or a joke. After being confronted on the issue it became quite clear to people I was serious. And to my best recollection 2/3rd of the board ended up having to agree with me having considered the evidence.

[Decebal]

As sockpuppets to stimulate discussion go, you work fairly well. I've examined era vs. era more thoroughly, and others have taken a second look at Calzaghe/Kessler/Hopkins. However, you should realize that exaggerations have a tendency to polarize opinion and discredit your case among those who take your utterances without a few tons of salt.

Take it as you like. :smoke

Hey, you win some, you lose most! What's the big deal, as long as the "some" are hard-core enough!;)

[cross_trainer]

True, but let's not forget: if you repeat a lie many times, and make it big, many people will believe it! Or, at least, they will be easily programmed into looking at certain aspects in a cynical way, or into being weary of certain things! Sometimes that is all that is required to change public opinion.

Except that most people don't get on boxing boards to be rallied parade-ground style. :yep

[cross_trainer]

Remember the thread where I claimed Joe Calzaghe would defeat Rocky Marciano. Well people thought that was unobjective or a joke. After being confronted on the issue it became quite clear to people I was serious. And to my best recollection 2/3rd of the board ended up having to agree with me having considered the evidence.

:lol:

Your best recollection doesn't accord with reality.

Then again, perhaps you are doing this solely as an intellectual exercise?

[Decebal]

Remember the thread where I claimed Joe Calzaghe would defeat Rocky Marciano. Well people thought that was unobjective or a joke. After being confronted on the issue it became quite clear to people I was serious. And to my best recollection 2/3rd of the board ended up having to agree with me having considered the evidence.

True! I love the fact that CHJ is prepared to shake the foundations of received, popular wisdom that is undisturbed by much critical thought and heavily soaked in NAME-worship...it takes some guts to even attempt to do so!:good

[McGrain]

True! I love the fact that CHJ is prepared to shake the foundations of received, popular wisdom that is undisturbed by much critical thought and heavily soaked in NAME-worship...it takes some guts to even attempt to do so!:good

The reason he is sometimes mistaken for a troll is that trolls do so all the time.

[China_hand_Joe]

As sockpuppets to stimulate discussion go, you work fairly well. I've examined era vs. era more thoroughly, and others have taken a second look at Calzaghe/Kessler/Hopkins. However, you should realize that exaggerations have a tendency to polarize opinion and discredit your case among those who take your utterances without a few tons of salt.

Take it as you like. :smoke

Those it has a strong negative effect on were never going to agree anyway.

[Decebal]

Your best recollection doesn't accord with reality.



:rofl I wouldn't put it past China Joe to pull a fast one!:-(

[cross_trainer]

True! I love the fact that CHJ is prepared to shake the foundations of received, popular wisdom that is undisturbed by much critical thought and heavily soaked in NAME-worship...it takes some guts to even attempt to do so!:good

Those methods do not involve critical thought. You're just replacing one set of slogans with another.

[Decebal]

The reason he is sometimes mistaken for a troll is that trolls do so all the time.

Yes...but trolls are rarely as funny and likable!

[Decebal]

Those methods do not involve critical thought. You're just replacing one set of slogans with another.

Sure, but once the consensus is shaken...people start thinking critically, having put aside all prejudice and fear of upsetting the holly of hollies - that is very healthy!

[China_hand_Joe]

Then again, perhaps you are doing this solely as an intellectual exercise?

I admit, one of my main motivations for posting here is to help maintain my high level of literacy.

[cross_trainer]

Those it has a strong negative effect on were never going to agree anyway.

Nah. You're just making it less palatable for people in the middle, and creating more extremists on either end.

If you were more willing to use facts and reasoned discussion, you would increase the middle ground. Then people would more easily drift toward logical conclusions.

[Decebal]

I admit, one large reason I post here is to help maintain my high level of litteracy.

You see! This man is F-U-N-N-Y! He is a stella fella!

[cross_trainer]

I admit, one large reason I post here is to help maintain my high level of litteracy.

You're training for the day when 10% of words begin with "Calzaghe"?

[China_hand_Joe]

Nah. You're just making it less palatable for people in the middle, and creating more extremists on either end.

If you were more willing to use facts and reasoned discussion, you would increase the middle ground. Then people would more easily drift toward logical conclusions.

Not at all. The other side resort to some crazy arguments. They start defending Antonio Tarver and other strange things, then you move in with the sound logic.

[Decebal]

Let's put it this way...would we appreciate Joe C. enough without China Joe to guide us and amuse us? This man is good for this site and for boxing in general! Boxing needs more supporters like him!:deal

[McGrain]

Let's put it this way...would we appreciate Joe C. enough without China Joe to guide us and amuse us? This man is good for this site and for boxing in general! Boxing needs more supporters like him!:deal

He runs down all fighters from the past, all fighters from America, all the fighters that Calzaghe failed to fight as a passport to his nut-huggery.

I would beg to differ.

[Decebal]

He runs down all fighters from the past, all fighters from America, all the fighters that Calzaghe failed to fight as a passport to his nut-huggery.

I would beg to differ.

But in doing so, he attracts attention to them, we discuss them, we appreciate them! You cannot break eggs without encouraging others to make an omlette!:p

[China_hand_Joe]

I rate Floyd Mayweather somewhat.

I do like to run down the Gatti's in modern boxing however.

[Decebal]

I rate Floyd Mayweather somewhat.

I do like to run down the Gatti's in modern boxing however.

China_hand_Joe rules OK!:good

[cross_trainer]

Not at all. The other side resort to some crazy arguments. They start defending Antonio Tarver and other strange things, then you move in with the sound logic.

When/if they retort with sound logic, and you revert to crazy arguments. It goes in a big circle.

[China_hand_Joe]

When/if they retort with sound logic, and you revert to crazy arguments. It goes in a big circle.

There is no logic which defends an old Bernard Hopkins' placement in the top 5 of current P4P rankings.

[Martini643]

Amen brother

[PrideOfWales]

Even in retirement, stay strong with the Calzagments.