"Americanised" is a vague term used to generalize.

While we all might agree that CHJ is a witty and intelligent poster, his coining of terms such as "americanised" seems simple and easy. Will CHJ please define "amercanised" and provide a similar definition for one who is not "amercanised"? I usually prefer to observe this board, as I am a relatively new fan of boxing. However, no one can seem to articulate their frustration w/ CHJ. He sets a line between himself and others, CHJ playing the role of subaltern and those who are "americanised" as the hegemonic force of capitalist american media. It should probably be noted that the UK is entirely implicated in this system. Being a British (which I assume you are in some form) subaltern is really no different than being in a similar position in the United States. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that CHJ broadly attacks others in a rather simplistic manner, and no one knows who to respond. Although, he certainly does have a point with his views on the problems of American media, which are definitely at work in the boxing world. I might be wrong, but perhaps CHJ is suggesting that we refuse views inhereted by the American boxing media, because they contain agendas that are based on economics and power structures? We should develop our own views on boxing, based in reaction to those that exist while simultaneously coming up with new ideas and proposals. After all, ESB is much more progressive and changeable than the proper boxing media could ever be. Something to take into account...

 

I'm not China hand Joe. I was just reading the ESB P4P committee thread. I mean, I respected your comments, sues2nd. I'm only saying that there seems to be a communication problem btw people on this forum that is inhibiting forward movement. I"m not arguing about Hopkins, only the way that CHJ and you (amongst others) argue about Hopkins. It's very antagonistic.

 

By the way, i don't think this should be moved to the lounge or deleted because it is discussing a specific issue involved with the general forum. I mean, I'm talking about the methods of discussing active fighters, am I not?

 

Oh, and MrStayMan, I appreciate the response. CHJ always needs to say something drastic in order to (what he seems to think) make a movement. What I'm saying is that posters need to look at his overall stance on things and compare their general stance, rather than get lost in specifics (although these are useful, such as the Hopkins-Johnson point brought up by Zakman). He's able to take a radical stance only because people won't take his argument apart in the right way. For instance, look at his (self-said) agenda: establishing Calzaghe as the #1 P4P fighter from 2001-2006 (?). And how? Using your gut (Colbert). He's starting to venture into the land of truthiness with that eyeballed judgement of P4P fighters. Seriously. Their resumes have nothing to do with it?

 

Exactly. We need a suggestion on how to improve on this rather than merely criticize it.

 

You see, I disagree with you, Lance. CHJ says things that sound radical to get a rise, but does so as to propel an agenda. Do you really think that he's only a clown? It seems to be a long-running joke if he has thousands of posts, does it not? Is his thread on PBF so unreasonable?