The Ten Calzagments

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 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.

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.

 

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

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.

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.

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

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

 

Congratulations bro.

 

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.

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.

No.

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.

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

 

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?

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.