Comparing Calzaghe and Hopkins

Calzaghe fought only bums and old men. :hi:

 

Calzaghe beat only bums and old men. :hi:

 

here is the post i was replying to.

you are saying that the fact the american fighter is not rated above the non-american fighter who is fighting twice as often & winning titles in multiple weight classes while the american fighter twiddles his thumbs...
proves that ring magazine has absolutely no bias towards americans.

sorry if i pissed you off by pulling you up on this...but that proves nothing. it didn't "shoot down" anything.

the fact that ring is not so blatantly biased as to be laughable does not prove it is not biased.

& only a joker would use that particular example...especially as the non american fighter is HUGELY popular in the us & fights in the us which sort of negates the original point (altho i know you don't agree "geography" geography" ya ****ing autistic)...& regardless...perhaps you could highlight the quote that says "EVERY american fighter is ALWAYS ranked higher than EVERY non-american fighter." so pointing out that it is true in one case & saying that this means it is always true is a weak argument & doesn't prove anything. or "shoot it down".

& of course, having a guy who only has 2 fights in 4 years as your p4p no.2 does not scream objectivity...in fact i'm sure some could use it as an example of an american bias...but i won't.

& also it is a **** argument to make as that was not the level that was being discussed in the original post...which compared the number of ring ranked opponents faced by 3 fighters to show which of them had faced the tougher opposition...which of course came out massively in favour of the american fighter as many of his domestic opponents were ring ranked because they were visable in america where ring magazine is produced.

so yeah...i pointed out that that particular argument proved nothing cos it in no way proves what that guy said wrong...even tho i don't agree with eerything that guy said.

then you started talking about geography & ****. atsch kinda missing the point, really.

no. see above.

& altho i say ring magazine was biased primarily toward the american market & hyping fights for american tv...yeah...it is biased toward americans too...nothing you've said has disproved that...so what's your point? "a non american can become ring p4p no.1...this proves that ring magazine is not biased toward american fighters." do you also believe that since obabma became president there is no more racism?

ok...that was a bull**** comment...fair enough...sounded good...bit meaningless...hyperbole...oh well...:thumbsup

but as for citing a "conspiracy"? not a "conspiracy". but ring magazine is an american magazine that primarily deals with the american market. of course it favours american & us based fighters.

& it's easier to crack the ring top 10's if you are visable in america... for example: peter manfredo. quite a few of the non-ring ranked fighters calzaghe faced were a **** of a lot better than peter manfredo. there were plenty of fighters at 168 who deserved to be ranked higher than peter manfredo. but manfredo was a ring top 10 fighter...cos he was american & fought in america & people knew his face off the telly.

americans (or us based) get more coverage/higher rankings cos they're right there. which is fair enough...they'd be stupid to ignore what's on their doorstep...& of course that doesn't mean overseas fighters don't get ranked...that would be ******ed...but it's something to remember when you nuthug ring rankings like they really mean anything...

now tell me i don't understand geography or whatever nitpicking point you were trying to make. :thumbsup

 

Calzaghe fought only bums and old men. :hi:

 

A very long way of making a complete fail.

That guy said The Ring was biased towards American fighters and biased against American fighters.

I said that The Ring keeps a Filippino at p4p#1 rather than replace him with an American, which many American fans would like.

Therefore, the point is irrefutable. Simple, yet utterly irrefutable.

Type another essay or two, but you will not affect the fact that I was right in my post, and still am. :smoke

 

The middleweight Eubank was a formidable overall package, as Benn and Watson would testify.

Calzaghe beat a version of Eubank that was 6-7 years past his prime, and had not fought top opposition for 2 years (a fight that he lost anyway).

To even mention that fight here is silly. It's like saying David Diaz must be better than Erik Morales because he beat him.

 

I care about my scorecard, because I value quality of work over workrate, and although that is not what many judges today value, that is what boxing should be about, and once was about.

If we stick rigidly by the official cards, then Sweet Pea has a loss on his record to Ramirez and Lewis only got a draw with Holyfield first time out. Yet we know these things are untrue.

You call it as you see it, that's all any of us can do. And Hopkins landed the more effective punches in more rounds than Joe Calzaghe did, for all Joe's many inaccurate swings.

 

Hopkins has the better resume and is the better fighter, that's all there is to it.

Do you know why a man in his forties can still win at the top level (and even in defeat make it debatable)?

Because he is more skilled than the likes of Calzaghe, Taylor, Pavlik, Tarver and Pascal.

 

Far more technically skilled than any of them. It really beats me how anyone could even dream of disputing this.

 

ring magazine is biased toward american fighters. pacquiao being p4p no.1 does not change this & if you think it does you are ******ed...

which is what i said in my first post...& what i say now.

 

That chump said the magazine strives to keep non-Americans down. He failed. Abysmally.

In other news, I also believe The Ring is biased towards American fighters, as the recent inexplicable high ranking of the unproven Timothy Bradley will testify.

However, the bias is not endemic, not unique, not unusual, and not particularluy severe, as both he and you seem to think. The very fact that The Ring keeps a Filippino as their number 1 when many (most?) American fans want them to recognize an American proves that.

British magazines will rank Froch over Ward even though Ward beat Kessler who beat Froch, and even though Ward is undefeated while Froch is not. By contrast, American magazines will rank Ward over Froch even though Froch has fought and beaten a higher standard of competition.

Most countries have biases towards their own fighters, the UK sure as hell does judging by the rather ludicrous overrating of Joe Calzaghe on this very thread.

 

you said pac being p4p no.1 proved ring isn't biased towards us fighters. it does not. as you admit in this next bit...good stuff.

yeah...but if you go back & check that guy's quote...he said "Ring magazine ranks Americans highly to help sell their rag."

last time i checked p4p no. 2 is ranking someone pretty highly...especially if they have only had 2 fights in 4 years. maybe you should check that quote again :deal

i agree...publications/tv/journalits focus primarily on the fighters in their own country. it is understandable. however no-one is on this thread is bringing up bbc rankings or the opinions of british magazines to say one fighter is better than another.

they are all biased...but people are actively treating one like it is a gospel.