Comments Thread For: James Toney Too Risky For Vitali Klitschko, Says Goossen

[Mr. Invincible]

Toney is shot. So Vitali, like you said, wouldn't get credit.

As for the remark about Peter the club fighter, well, the club fighter was a hot contender back when he fought Toney, he was impressive, he lost the first fight (unofficially), then beat Toney, and don't forget he floored chinny Wlady 3 times... But Peter is shot too now.

Boxingwise, Peter was always a clubfighter next to a prime James Toney. That's what I intended to say in case you didn't get it.

[Mr. Invincible]

On the other hand, a 2003 version of Vitali would put any version of Toney in the grave.

No , lets be real with this. 2010 Vitali beats any version there ever was or could be of James Toney.......sorry to break that to the Toney fans here, but trust me, it's pure and simple truth. The Arreola that Klitschko destroyed would have Ko'd the current James Toney and probably went the distance with him at his heavyweight best.

[Mr. Invincible]

Here is the typical mark of ****** *******s who think they possess the truth and try to discredit everybody who have a different opinion. It means : ''only a moron would think otherwise than me''. Pathetic. Byrd gave Vitali trouble, Johnson gave Vitali trouble, and a 2003 Toney was slicker than both these guys. Vitali can't adjust to slick fighters : fact. So a 2003 Toney gives a competitive fight to Vitali, no doubt.

So.................how do you figure Johnson gave Vitali trouble? By simply not getting knocked out? Theres no concievable way he even won a single round.......

[Slowmotion426]

Either of the Klitchsko brothers would make Toney look like the fat slob that he is.

[Tiozzo]

I think what has been ignored in all the preceding posters, [for I haven't seen it even mentioned] is that in Klitschko we have a dominant champion, possibly the most dominent champion ever, who has never even been staggered, and has won all of his fights , except ONE, by KO. Even in his 2 losses from injury, he'd won almost every round, with the strong possibility that he'd have taken them by KO as well.

Vitali has won all by ko EXCEPT 2 . AND YES, HE HAS BEEN STAGGERED, BOTH BY LEWIS AND SANDERS, AND HE WOULDN'T HAVE KO'ED NEITHER LEWIS NOR BYRD.

Most dominant champion ever ? Please, let's be serious for a second. Lots of HW champs have been way more dominant than Vitali has, and fighting much better competition.

[Tiozzo]

So.................how do you figure Johnson gave Vitali trouble? By simply not getting knocked out? Theres no concievable way he even won a single round.......

He gave him trouble in the sense Vitali couldn't solve his tricky defense. That in itself is a flaw.

[Tiozzo]

When Vitali fought Byrd, he'd been a pro for less than 3 1/2 years.

You don't think it's possible that he's improved since then?

I haven't said I thought it was not possible he improved. I said I didn't notice what it is he had improved... Damn, I have to repeat everything over and over...

[SN!PER]

Klitschko is considered invincible, but the constant attention being given to this very real and controversial subject would suggest otherwise!

James Toney's genius in the ring is undeniable. Vitali's fear of Toney will force him into an early retirement after Haye.

[Tiozzo]

I actually was reading you with great enjoyment, watching you argue from the general to the general [instead of to the particuar] until you said that Hopkins did so well against Calzaghe. For me, you lost credibility right there. He lost by the proverbial "mile".

A major, well-ignored-by-you-point in your Byrd megillahs is that you completely don't seem to know that Byrd, as a shoe-shining puncher, could get of 5-6 tip-taps, whilst Klitschko might throw no more than 1 or 2. That Klitschko therw so many more than Byrd, [even with the close landing figures] shows that Byrd punched on a minimum of occasions during the fight. I have the fight, which, believe me, I only need to see once to know exactly how it played. And I've run it several times over the years.

You should be ashamed of yourself trying to deceive those who never saw the fight.

Hopkins did very well against Calzaghe. It was not a SD for nothing, and a lot of writers/observers/fans thought it was a close fight. Hopkins was landing the harder, more telling blows through much of the fight. He had an ugly strategy, but it was working. The fight could have gone either way (I favor Joe because of Bernard negativity).

As for the ''you should be ashamed'' thing, it's so ridiculous I prefer not to give my thought about it. The fight is on Youtube for everyone to watch. Just they watch, and make up their own minds, because I stand by my words : Byrd was not winning, but he was effective ducking, slipping and landing his own punches. And I have watched enough fights of Byrd to know what he's all about.

[Dave Rado]

I actually was reading you with great enjoyment, watching you argue from the general to the general [instead of to the particuar] until you said that Hopkins did so well against Calzaghe. For me, you lost credibility right there. He lost by the proverbial "mile".

It's you who have lost all credibility right there. There isn't a boxing expert anywhere in the world who didn't think it was very close. Even Calzaghe admitted it was very close. And quite a few respected boxing experts thought Hopkins should have got the decision.

If you think it wasn't close, you must be going on the punch stats. Boxing is not scored on punch stats. You should learn a bit about how fights are scored before posting in a boxing forum.