"Americanised" is a vague term used to generalize.

Look at it this way. Even if it IS CHJ in disguise, it opens up a conversation that perhaps needs to be had. Anyone can start a conversation with an agenda, but its up to us what we do with that conversation and the information provided.

 

Bottom line is no matter who it is CHJ is a biased moron who should only be ignored.

 

Have you by any chance been reading an obscene amount of Gramsci, Laclau & Mouffe etc.??

 

The Clam is clearly NOT China_hand_Joe; he is more eloquent than CHJ...CHJ could never write like that...

We DO have a solution...it is called: Lampley's Official ESB Rankings! :nod It is our attempt to "set the world to right".

 

Yes. That is the root of it, I used to explain that to them on a dailly basis. Now I have somewhat given up on the world and now tend to just post in an agressive antagonistic manner. The positive bias tends to be towards any fighters promoted by the rich influencial Americans, this of course includes foreign fighters based in the USA and certainly includes many, many South Americans. Americaniz(/s)ed views are those which have been pushed by the American media. These views are pushed due to the influence of the promoters. Even totally independant writers suffer from sheep-syndrome, so the effects are very wide-spread indeed.



One place where Americanisation signals its presence is with the bookmakers. For instance Arturo Gatti - Carlos Baldomir, in which Baldomir was a 2/1 underdog.
A simple logical approach tells you Judah could not stop Baldomir, Gatti therefore cannot stop Baldomir. Gatti was fighting above the weights where he had success. Baldmir had o problems landing on Judah, therefore he would land on Gatti too. A Baldomir win was inevitable. Anyone ignoring the 'experts' knew what the result would be. Gatti however was a cash-cow for his promoter, therefore the media was very pro-Gatti, the public brouught into it all and this was reflected upon in the fight-odds.

Another perfect example is Calzaghe - Lacy. There was zero reason to doubt Calzaghe going into that one. He had just beaten his last opponent one handed (I believe Ashira once knocked Lacy down too). Lewis - Tyson is another criminal example. Whilst there are other factors such such as a fighter's style and personality that effect odds and general opinion due to other biases people have. The promoters and media are a hugely influencial force.


There are of course counter-examples, but they are outweighed by such a degree they are rendered pretty much neglible.

There is nothing you can do to help these people however. You explain it to them politely. Insult them. Prove them wrong repeatedly via fight results but nothing will get through to them. Their views have been conditioned by the media.




As discussed with Kg_number I appreciate similar things happen all around the world. Britain is another bad offender. This is why I, when the time is right will stake money against fighters such as Amir Khan. And have done in the past against Lee Haskins going into his match against an African fighter (a relative unknown) Munyai. Munyai too now has likely been over-hyped. And as pointed out Americanisation is simply far more infuencial making it a big target for those whom are enlightened.

A none Americanised person is one with the capabilities to ignore what the media tell them regarding fighters with links to America. A subcategory of this would those who are unfairly biased against these fighters. I am certainly not the latter.

 

I mean no disrespect, but this is common logic. Most people will believe what their told as long as it is accompanied by a probable or should I say desired explanation. You are suggesting that this is some kind of conspiracy on behalf of the American media well it is just as much a consequence of the masses wanting to buy into the stories the American media "sells". Naturally most people will not listen to your explanation as it does not fit theire desired view of the (boxing)world.

Keep on trucking!! :smoke

 

I agree that it is common logic, which makes all the complaints and denial quite amusing.

However, there was a deliberate conspiracy against European promoted Joe Calzaghe up until very recently. There had to be, otherwise Hopkins and co would have been destroyed. Joe Calzaghe would have single-handedly destroyed the reputation of American boxing once and and for all.

It is funny Americanised persons deny its influence on them. Just like English football fans deny being delusiona is funny.

 

All football fans strive to be delusional, ignorance is bliss enlightenment is torture:scaredas:

 

Since you are talking to yourself over and over, I will join in.

First, you know, just as recently as about a month ago, I was one of your biggest supporters. You were one of my favorite posters by far, and I always qualified it as "When its not about Joe Calzaghe, CHJ is actually very knowledgable.".

Now, about the Americanized promotional influence...I 100% agree that it exists...but not nearly to the extent that you feel it sways our opinions. Especially not the ones on here that have PROVEN (myself, kg, brooklyn, etc.) not to have a biased bone in our bodies.

You MUST not be a gambler. Let me explain how odds works in this case (and many others). When the majority of people are favoring ONE fighter (or team), the odds in favor of that person rises. The number of bets and amount of money must be able to cover their loss if the underdog wins.

Bookies, gambling sites, casinos....are NOT in the buisiness of losing money.

This has nothing to do with who the bookie sees on the cover of Ring Magazine.

Again, I would have no problem with your bias (and HAD NO PROBLEM in the past with it), if you could base everything you say and feel on reality. Your views on how odds work definately is not.

So again, how is that a problem. The odds were too swayed? Then put some money down and win a nice sum.

So would you rather have promoters saying things like "Im not gonna put my fighter in with that guy, he will lose!" or "My guy is the best!!!". That is why they are promoters. So maybe (actually definately), American promoters have more money to make that second statement more widespread...but again, what is the problem there...its their job.

So instead you go to the other degree....? How does that help? Noone takes you at all serious when doing this. If you just pointed out things like Lacy would never beat Joe, he hits hard but he loops his shots slowly, is inferior skill wise and has no defense, while Joe is highly skilled and throws more straight, fast shots....which BTW was my exact reasoning behind backing Calzaghe in that fight. Rather than, Lacy is an AMERICANIZED MEDIA CREATION and you masses are only buying into him because of that...Joe will win. You would have more people listening to you (call me crazy, but most people dont like being called sheep).

And Im not saying you havent taken that route before....and I know you have in the past, but those times are outweighed by such a degree they are rendered pretty much negligable.

:yep

Sorry, but I dont agree here. I myself have proven you wrong on a few situations (and proven you bias blinded even MORE times), yet you still come with some of the same stuff (i.e. Hopkins workrate in the ring sucks....when it really was only bad in the Taylor fights...when that was his gameplan. Among other times).

Ive tried explaining my point of views to you politely, Ive tried insulting you...and as explained, Ive proven you wrong many times over....yet you still spout the same nonsense.

How are you any different or better in this right? Because you wont admit being wrong...or off...EVER?!?!?!? Is that why?

I would be ok with this if you left it at that. YOU feel Hopkins shouldnt be in the top ten p4p because of his age and therefor faded skillset. Thats fine....

I argue that resume should matter (again, as I have said, EVERYONE looks like the real deal fighting bums)...and that his timing, chin, defense and ring intelligence are still among the best in the sport (you could argue that he STILL IS THE BEST in all four of those), therefor, I can still see him beating the best in and around his weight class.

But because you dont agree with this (even tho I explained my thought process quite well if you ask me), my views are Americanized.

That is the problem, you cant take anyone elses opinions AT ALL....its agree 100% with you or your Americanized. No middle ground, no open mind, no at least respect for a well thought out arguement....etc. And that is ****ing insulting and off base.

And THAT is where the conflicts come in.

 

Well welcome to the board. Your contribution so far has been good, so perhaps you can be an open clam now. (That was bad I know)

 

Very, very bad......:blood

 

My opinions are often swayed, just not by Americans so often.

I was picking Taylor to beat Pavlik for months, confidently so too. Then it was pointed out to me the extent to which Taylor had been manufactored. That I too had been fooled by the media, that I too had become Americanised. I then changed my opinion as a result of my open mind. The occasions where I am required to be swayed are rare however.


And telling American fans Calzaghe was too fast, too skill, generally too good and an awful stylistic matchup for Lacy? I think it is quite obvious that would never get through to them.

 

The bookies often get things horribly wrong in boxing. Moreso than in most other sports. They two are effected by the American media...Peter - Toney II even money fight? Boxing is a relatively low variance sport. There is not a great deal of luck involved.

Then you of course get the odds shifting when droves of Gatti fans begin to stake their money.

Though I usually bet 1-3 times a year, usually on Gatti fights unless I am Americanised out of gambling...I believe it would be rather easy to create a winning betting system based upon Americanisation.