BoxRec

polecateddy wrote:Anyway this is about Calzaghe/Johnson. Johnson was stopped 5 times, at least 4 of which were during his peak. The stoppages ranged from rounds 4 to 11. Round 8 was a round that featured more than once. He also dropped an 8 rounder to Mwale. He was either a little chinny or tended to gas. It looked like gassing to be honest against Muhammad. I doubt Marvin is one of the top 25 light-heavies in history. Yet he stops the 2nd best super-middle - I don't really think so!

The 4 times you mention that Johnson was stopped were against guys who would stop Calzaghe . Johnson not being top 25 at light heavy is debatable I don't know if he's in mine I would have to make a list . However The Ring had him # 20 all time . Being number 20 in a deep division could mean more than being number 2 in one of the sports weakest divisions.

Othro wrote:

polecateddy wrote:Anyway this is about Calzaghe/Johnson. Johnson was stopped 5 times, at least 4 of which were during his peak. The stoppages ranged from rounds 4 to 11. Round 8 was a round that featured more than once. He also dropped an 8 rounder to Mwale. He was either a little chinny or tended to gas. It looked like gassing to be honest against Muhammad. I doubt Marvin is one of the top 25 light-heavies in history. Yet he stops the 2nd best super-middle - I don't really think so!

The 4 times you mention that Johnson was stopped were against guys who would stop Calzaghe . Johnson not being top 25 at light heavy is debatable I don't know if he's in mine I would have to make a list . However The Ring had him # 20 all time . Being number 20 in a deep division could mean more than being number 2 in one of the sports weakest divisions.

Roy Jones and Calzaghe heading the supermiddles are probably two of the best pound for pound fighters for decades. That Calzaghe - a peak version I remind you - would be stopped by every light heavyweight who stopped a Johnson is just ridiculous as chin and recovery ability was one of the Welshman's best assets.

polecateddy wrote:

Othro wrote:

polecateddy wrote:Anyway this is about Calzaghe/Johnson. Johnson was stopped 5 times, at least 4 of which were during his peak. The stoppages ranged from rounds 4 to 11. Round 8 was a round that featured more than once. He also dropped an 8 rounder to Mwale. He was either a little chinny or tended to gas. It looked like gassing to be honest against Muhammad. I doubt Marvin is one of the top 25 light-heavies in history. Yet he stops the 2nd best super-middle - I don't really think so!

The 4 times you mention that Johnson was stopped were against guys who would stop Calzaghe . Johnson not being top 25 at light heavy is debatable I don't know if he's in mine I would have to make a list . However The Ring had him # 20 all time . Being number 20 in a deep division could mean more than being number 2 in one of the sports weakest divisions.

Roy Jones and Calzaghe heading the supermiddles are probably two of the best pound for pound fighters for decades. That Calzaghe - a peak version I remind you - would be stopped by every light heavyweight who stopped a Johnson is just ridiculous as chin and recovery ability was one of the Welshman's best assets.

An old Roy Jones had Calzaghe on Queer Street .
Look at who we're talking about, Saad Muhammad , Michael Spinks and Eddie Mustafa Muhammad.
All have knockout power and all of them fought at a higher weight.

As for Calzaghe being pound for pound in any decade for any reason I'd have to say you're yanking my chain.

calzaghe didn't take on enough top level opponents at their peak to make this an easy choice but it might be this;

joes best showing was against lacy - he boxed brilliantly and if he boxed like that against MJ he'd win. however marvin would pressure joe far more than lacy did and would be sure to connect with big punches. I'm taking the Welshman here because at his best he would be too smart for the yank.

or this;

marvin's pressure is too hot for joe and the Welshman boxes on the retreat. he is wobbled in the 4th. he bravely tries to duke it out with the dangerous Johnson but finds himself under big fire and is rescued by the ref in round 9.

which basically means...I dunno

It is a tough call. It usually is when you compare a guy who fought a lot of tough competition with mixed results against a fighter who dominated weak competition. Calzaghe usually looked good, but we never know how good given his competition.

It is silly to think that someone thinks it means much that Calzaghe is supposed to be the # 2 super middle and Johnson is only around #25.
Super Middle has only been around for about 30 years and has rarely been that good. Light heavy has been around for over 100 and has numerous great fighters who are ahead of Johnson.

And here we are subjected to a familiar routine, the village idiots dismissal of a great fighter he admittedly knows nothing about, followed by the clutching at straws scrutinizing of the Boxrec numbers in order to validate his initial ignorance.

Why do we entertain the absurd views of this clear and undeniable retard?

We're arguing the virtues of Marvin Johnson with a man who doesn't know who he is, who with a straight face will dismiss all of the losses to journeymen of the likes of Dean Francis and Carl Thompson and elevate them to all-time greats, while at the same time denigrating Marvin Johnson for losses at world level to legitimate greats! Gentleman, we are dealing with a madman. We are trying to reason with the unreasonable.

See how he scans Boxrec, totals Johnson's losses and uses them against him. Johnson fought a monster in Matthew Frankin after only being a pro 4 years. That he lost to a killer puncher, in a hellish war, is a knock against him in the mind of Polecateddy. That Joe Calzaghe took no such risks, and preserved his record, and didn't fight a similarly dangerous world class opponent until FOURTEEN YEARS INTO HIS CAREER is actually considered a plus in the mind of Polecateddy. This is the reason and analysis he applies when looking at statistics and not performance.

See how Polecateddy glosses over the lack of meaningful opponents on Joe Calzaghe's record, and relies on redundant phrases like 'all-time great super middleweight' - in relation to a division that did not even exist as recently as 30 years ago! And yet he is an "all-time" great? Is there a more trite and moronic expression in all of boxing?

"Chin and recovery ability" were some of Calzaghe's best assets! Against who? Pick apart those stats, retard boy. They don't stand up to those of Saad, Galindez, Mustafa and Spinks, and you can write that in stone.

Tuan_Jim wrote:And here we are subjected to a familiar routine, the village idiots dismissal of a great fighter he admittedly knows nothing about, followed by the clutching at straws scrutinizing of the Boxrec numbers in order to validate his initial ignorance.

Why do we entertain the absurd views of this clear and undeniable retard?

We're arguing the virtues of Marvin Johnson with a man who doesn't know who he is, who with a straight face will dismiss all of the losses to journeymen of the likes of Dean Francis and Carl Thompson and elevate them to all-time greats, while at the same time denigrating Marvin Johnson for losses at world level to legitimate greats! Gentleman, we are dealing with a madman. We are trying to reason with the unreasonable.

See how he scans Boxrec, totals Johnson's losses and uses them against him. Johnson fought a monster in Matthew Frankin after only being a pro 4 years. That he lost to a killer puncher, in a hellish war, is a knock against him in the mind of Polecateddy. That Joe Calzaghe took no such risks, and preserved his record, and didn't fight a similarly dangerous world class opponent until FOURTEEN YEARS INTO HIS CAREER is actually considered a plus in the mind of Polecateddy. This is the reason and analysis he applies when looking at statistics and not performance.

See how Polecateddy glosses over the lack of meaningful opponents on Joe Calzaghe's record, and relies on redundant phrases like 'all-time great super middleweight' - in relation to a division that did not even exist as recently as 30 years ago! And yet he is an "all-time" great? Is there a more trite and moronic expression in all of boxing?

"Chin and recovery ability" were some of Calzaghe's best assets! Against who? Pick apart those stats, retard boy. They don't stand up to those of Saad, Galindez, Mustafa and Spinks, and you can write that in stone.

You're clearly very young and immature, and are showing yourself up. I can't honestly be bothered. Granted not many share my views on Carl Thompson and say Dean Francis. They were more a suggestion than a cast iron view. Other than that I don't think many of my opinions are outside of the mainstream. In regards to the Joe Calzaghe, I would add that as he was leaner and better as a 12 stone fighter than a more 'padded' light heavy. It was his best division.

hhhmmmm...

Tuan_Jim wrote:
Why do we entertain the absurd views of this clear and undeniable retard?

.

Opinions are not outlawed.......yet.

And..... if too many people begin to share such a passion, I'm afraid it could happen. To suggest such a thing (regardless of how outlandish an OPINION being expressed), smacks of a developmental delay of some sort.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to express my opinion on the matter of the freedom to express opinions.

If this was meant to be humorous, please forgive me. I got no problem with humor, I rather enjoy it. Especially when I get it.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:
Why do we entertain the absurd views of this clear and undeniable retard?

.

Opinions are not outlawed.......yet.

And..... if too many people begin to share such a passion, I'm afraid it could happen. To suggest such a thing (regardless of how outlandish an OPINION being expressed), smacks of a developmental delay of some sort.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to express my opinion on the matter of the freedom to express opinions.

If this was meant to be humorous, please forgive me. I got no problem with humor, I rather enjoy it. Especially when I get it.

A man make your draft pick

When challenged, Polecateddy has rarely seen anything of fighters from prior to the late 80's. It's unrewarding to argue with a man who thinks Carl Thompson would beat Marciano, so I don't bother trying.

I agree. Polecats philosophy is : if they are bigger they are better. If they are modern fighters they are better than old school. No logic, reason ,research, nothing. Just these simple set of rules pulls him through.
Probably uses same logic for his girlfriend/boyfriend.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:
Why do we entertain the absurd views of this clear and undeniable retard?

.

Opinions are not outlawed.......yet.

And..... if too many people begin to share such a passion, I'm afraid it could happen. To suggest such a thing (regardless of how outlandish an OPINION being expressed), smacks of a developmental delay of some sort.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to express my opinion on the matter of the freedom to express opinions.

If this was meant to be humorous, please forgive me. I got no problem with humor, I rather enjoy it. Especially when I get it.

Do not understand me too quickly! I was asking why we, as posters, bother to even converse with the man. I was not implying that Polecat should be banned simply for having bizarre opinions that no one else shares.

As infuriating as I find the man, I don't dislike him. It's just his spin on fighters is so utterly inexplicable, so spectacularly insane that I cannot stop myself from reading and responding. He simply fascinates me. The inside of his brain must be a scene of total pandemonium.

Polecat is what I would call a 'good' bad poster.

Il Duce [and his multiple personalities] is simply a bad poster.

I think you're kind of all going way over the top. I certainly watched boxing from around 1986 and the advent of Frank Bruno. Although I'm well aware of boxers from earlier eras due to regular features in Boxing News and Monthly over the years. A lot of earlier era fights can now be found on You Tube. As I said a few of my 'far out' views aren't necessarily iron clad, and probably only really concerned three fighters - Carl Thompson, Johnny Nelson and Dean Francis, who I'm a fan of since he came onto the scene when he was 20. Generally my views are fairly conservative, for example, the other week I correctly predicted the Ricky Burns upset. I'm hardly some strange cave dwelling weirdo some of these posts above are trying to suggest. I'm 39, married, I've been in the police the last 11 years and write horror novels in my spare time. I once upon a time even did a little amateur boxing journalism for Saddo Boxing, and interviewed Clinton Woods.

A lot of these negative comments I'm receiving stem from openly not being a fan of Rocky Marciano. I think it was 1999 I had a letter published in Boxing News which suggested Johnny Nelson would beat Rocky Marciano. For fun really I revisited the topic on here. I was really just using Carl Thompson as a cypher; a way to think outside the box if you like. I mean why should it only be marquee names like Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson who should beat Rocky? He was hittable, 189 pounds. My logic (for a bit of fun) was to suggest a somewhat forgotten Salford cruiserweight would also have a shout. Clearly not many other people on this forum enjoyed the idea of 'thinking outside of the box,' and I got labelled a looney! Lol Just so you know I wouldn't disagree that most of the heavyweight contenders these days are pretty lousy, and say Adonis Stevenson with all his protein shakes, interval and cross training probably would end up losing a war with Archie Moore.

polecateddy wrote:A lot of these negative comments I'm receiving stem from openly not being a fan of Rocky Marciano.

No it's because you are a cock as well as having no clue about boxing.

Tomasino wrote:

polecateddy wrote:A lot of these negative comments I'm receiving stem from openly not being a fan of Rocky Marciano.

No it's because you are a cock as well as having no clue about boxing.

Cheers for that. I won't be lowering myself to your base level! I did report you though.

polecateddy wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

polecateddy wrote:A lot of these negative comments I'm receiving stem from openly not being a fan of Rocky Marciano.

No it's because you are a cock as well as having no clue about boxing.

Cheers for that. I won't be lowering myself to your base level! I did report you though.

So you're a squealer too Eddy?

What in a Deliverance kind of way? lol it's just slightly frustrating to go to the trouble of writing two long messages explaining something, to get some numpty calling me names.

The trouble is Eddy, that when someone goes to the trouble of taking apart for you why your view is ludicrous, it becomes clear that you don't have the knowledge to back them up, and you retreat into implying that people are just closed minded. Marciano was a massive puncher, even against heavyweights, with a motor that meant he could go all night and deliver a ko late on. Thompson, (who I actually like a lot more than Marciano), was chinny against cruisers, had a tendency to gas, and lost when he really took it to the top level. A Eubank who was too shot to beat the ordinary Steve Collins still have him hell. Nelson was a slick European level boxer, but he didn't really find out how to win until late in his career, and even then it wasn't against the top cruisers. If Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles couldn't beat Marciano, then a man who froze against Carlos De Leon and James Warring won't.

And then I remember that I'm talking to someone who thinks that big puncher in the 50'swould suddenly be a non puncher now, and I realise it's time to stop bothering.

SamWise72 wrote:The trouble is Eddy, that when someone goes to the trouble of taking apart for you why your view is ludicrous, it becomes clear that you don't have the knowledge to back them up, and you retreat into implying that people are just closed minded. Marciano was a massive puncher, even against heavyweights, with a motor that meant he could go all night and deliver a ko late on. Thompson, (who I actually like a lot more than Marciano), was chinny against cruisers, had a tendency to gas, and lost when he really took it to the top level. A Eubank who was too shot to beat the ordinary Steve Collins still have him hell. Nelson was a slick European level boxer, but he didn't really find out how to win until late in his career, and even then it wasn't against the top cruisers. If Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles couldn't beat Marciano, then a man who froze against Carlos De Leon and James Warring won't.

And then I remember that I'm talking to someone who thinks that big puncher in the 50'swould suddenly be a non puncher now, and I realise it's time to stop bothering.

Like I said it was just a discussion point. In truth it's impossible to say how he would have done if magically transported fwd in time. Most sportsmen wouldn't have done well at all.

Calzaghe by decision. I can't see Calzaghe getting KO'd. And I can't see him losing on points to Johnson. And with weigh in times being different I don't see size being as big a factor.

It would be highly competitive though. If we are talking 15 rounds I'd expect Joe to win by 2 or 3...possibly getting off the floor to do it.

he cant be a squealer, can he? - he is a member of the police force after all

polecateddy wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

polecateddy wrote:A lot of these negative comments I'm receiving stem from openly not being a fan of Rocky Marciano.

No it's because you are a cock as well as having no clue about boxing.

Cheers for that. I won't be lowering myself to your base level! I did report you though.

Thanks. When you posted "twerp" in response to one of my posts you set the tone.

It's time you gave up the charade and went back to the tiddlywinks forum

How very adult!