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

[Tiozzo]

Do you seriously think fights are or should be scored on the basis of punch stats? If you really think that, you must believe Calzaghe won all 12 rounds against Hopkins - whereas all boxing experts thought that fight was actually extremely close and some thought Hopkins should have got the decision. Punch stats have absolutely nothing to do with how professional fights are scored. You're confusing professional boxing with the amateur game.

Two of the three judges were American - so if there was any bias in the judging it would have been in Byrd's favour. And HBO also scored it massively in favour of Klitschko.

When most of your punches are weak, ineffective punches, which most of Byrd's were, you need to outland a hard-hitting opponent like Vitali by a large margin in order to win rounds. Byrd couldn't outland him at all, except in two rounds - despite the fact that Vitali tore his rotator cuff in the third round, and couldn't use his left as effectively as normal from then on.

Furthermore, Vitali improved massively after 2000. He has a much better ability to judge space and distance now than he had back then.

You are so dishonest, manipulating all I've said, that it's depressing. I have never said fights should be scored based on punch stats : I used the punch stats to prove you were wrong when you were saying that BYRD WAS TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE. Just admit it, you were wrong, and now, you try to discredit me acting like I said or suggested things I've not...

My point has never been that Byrd was winning, I said all along he was losing, but he was competitive in the fight and landed almost as much as Vitali. That was my point. Landing around 40%-45% of your punches on Vitali, that's pretty effective to me. Punch stats often reflect more what happened during the course of the fight then the scoring. Of course Byrd's punches didn't have a big impact on Vitali, Byrd is not a puncher ; neverthless, he was scoring and making Vitali miss a lot. The punch stats show that. They don't show who was landing the better and harder punches, but at least, they show how much you landed. Those punch stats invalidate your earlier statement that Byrd was totally ineffective, as I have already said. Now if you still look to come back with another dishonest reply, please refrein yourself.

By the way, it rarely happens, but there is no doubt the punch stats of the Calzaghe-Hopkins match were ****ed. There is no way Joe landed 200+ punches on Hopkins. That just didn't happen. It was a very close fight, and Hopkins would have won a unanimous decision if he didn't run out of gas in the last rounds.

[Tiozzo]

Quitting against Leonard didn't stop Duran being regarded as an ATG - in fact, Duran is in many boxing historians' top 10 fighters of all time. Vitali more than made up for that fight in his subsequent career.

Quitting doesn't erase all you have done and will achieve, but you can't erase it with past or future achievements, it is a stain on your legacy forever. Historians rate Duran very high, as he should be, but they also like to remind people he quit in the rematch against Leonard. That's part of his legacy too, so it's just normal. You can't make up for quitting. When you quit once, you are a quitter forever.

[Tiozzo]

Wlad did it with his jab. But Vitali couldn't jab properly after the third round, because of his torn rotator cuff.

Excuses. Wlad and Vitali, aside of their physique, are night and day as boxers. Wlad has the better jab, and the better all-around skills too.

[Dave Rado]

I have never said fights should be scored based on punch stats : I used the punch stats to prove you were wrong when you were saying that BYRD WAS TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE.

They don't prove any such thing. To be competitive you have to win a reasonable number of rounds. Punch stats don't measure competitiveness for many reasons. Here are the main ones:

First because throwing a lot of pitty pat punches does not necessarily make you competitive. One really solid punch can outscore 10 pitty pat punches. A pitty pat puncher needs to out-land a big puncher by a large margin in order to be competitive. Second because fights are scored round by round, not in terms of overall punches. Vitali was out-landing Byrd 2:1 in the first four rounds. Then his rotator cuff reduced his effectiveness, but even then he won most of the remaining rounds, not only on the cards, but in the opinion of almost everyone. Third because punch stats are just as subject to human error as scoring is. Fourth because effective aggression is also part of the scoring.

My point has never been that Byrd was winning, I said all along he was losing, but he was competitive in the fight and landed almost as much as Vitali.

He landed almost as many punches but they were mostly pitty pat punches. They were not effective, and he was therefore not competitive.

By the way, it rarely happens, but there is no doubt the punch stats of the Calzaghe-Hopkins match were ****ed. There is no way Joe landed 200+ punches on Hopkins.

Many of the punches the stats said landed didn't land cleanly, but punch stats don't take into account whether a punch lands cleanly or not, nor whether a punch is effective or not. They simply chalk up every punch that lands, even if it's a slap, even if it's a glancing blow that barely touches the opponent.

It was a close fight because Hopkins' punches were much cleaner and much more effective than Calzaghe's punches - but Calzaghe did land far more punches than Hopkins did, it's just that most of them were not clean, and were not effective. So no, I don't accept that the stats were wildly innacurate. They were extremely misleading in terms of how a fight should be scored, but the guy pressing the button was simply doing what he was supposed to do. It's the whole concept of punch stats being meaningful that is wrong. Punch stats are not meaningful.

[Tiozzo]

They don't prove any such thing. To be competitive you have to win a reasonable number of rounds. Punch stats don't measure competitiveness for many reasons. Here are the main ones:

First because throwing a lot of pitty pat punches does not necessarily make you competitive. One really solid punch can outscore 10 pitty pat punches. A pitty pat puncher needs to out-land a big puncher by a large margin in order to be competitive. Second because fights are scored round by round, not in terms of overall punches. Vitali was out-landing Byrd 2:1 in the first four rounds. Then his rotator cuff reduced his effectiveness, but even then he won most of the remaining rounds, not only on the cards, but in the opinion of almost everyone. Third because punch stats are just as subject to human error as scoring is. Fourth because effective aggression is also part of the scoring.



He landed almost as many punches but they were mostly pitty pat punches. They were not effective, and he was therefore not competitive.



Many of the punches the stats said landed didn't land cleanly, but punch stats don't take into account whether a punch lands cleanly or not, nor whether a punch is effective or not. They simply chalk up every punch that lands, even if it's a slap, even if it's a glancing blow that barely touches the opponent.

It was a close fight because Hopkins' punches were much cleaner and much more effective than Calzaghe's punches - but Calzaghe did land far more punches than Hopkins did, it's just that most of them were not clean, and were not effective. So no, I don't accept that the stats were wildly innacurate. They were extremely misleading in terms of how a fight should be scored, but the guy pressing the button was simply doing what he was supposed to do. It's the whole concept of punch stats being meaningful that is wrong. Punch stats are not meaningful.

Let's face it : you have good points, I have good points, and at least, both of us don't resort to the use of insults to make them points. Even though you still think Byrd was totally ineffective based on your arguments, how can you compare his so called ''ineffectiveness'' to the one of Arreola ? Byrd' punches may not be hard, but they are not all pitty pat punches, that's just not true. Byrd has a solid straight left hand, and Vitali tasted it on many occasions.

[Dave Rado]

Let's face it : you have good points, I have good points, and at least, both of us don't resort to the use of insults to make them points. Even though you still think Byrd was totally ineffective based on your arguments, how can you compare his so called ''ineffectiveness'' to the one of Arreola ? Byrd' punches may not be hard, but they are not all pitty pat punches, that's just not true. Byrd has a solid straight left hand, and Vitali tasted it on many occasions.

I agree that in the late rounds he looked a lot more effective than Arreola did (not so much in the early rounds, though). But IMO that has a lot to do with Vitali's improvement since 2000 - and to his injury in the 3rd round of that fight.

I also agree that the 2003 version of Toney would have given him a tough fight, although I don't think he'd have had any real chance of actually wiining.

[Tiozzo]

I agree that in the late rounds he looked a lot more effective than Arreola did (not so much in the early rounds, though). But IMO that has a lot to do with Vitali's improvement since 2000 - and to his injury in the 3rd round of that fight.

How has Vitali improved ? I thought his punches were more crisp and straighter before he retired. Maybe he has improved things I have not noticed. Ironically, Vitali was doing pitty pat punching against Johnson...

[Dave Rado]

How has Vitali improved ?

I think he's better at judging distance now. He seems to have developed an almost uncanny ability land his own punches while keeping just out of range of his opponent's.

[ChopperRead]

And there is a generalization of your own. I am a huge boxing fan, and that's why I dislike Vitali. Freddie Roach thinks they are boring too, and the man know what he's talking about, and he's no hater.

Freddie talks **** all the time. He's just pissed that he used to train Wlad and Wlad left him. You can bet if he was in Manny Steward's place he'd be saying how exciting they are. I don't need Freddie to tell me what fighters I like to watch.

[Tiozzo]

Freddie talks **** all the time. He's just pissed that he used to train Wlad and Wlad left him. You can bet if he was in Manny Steward's place he'd be saying how exciting they are. I don't need Freddie to tell me what fighters I like to watch.

Invalid argument. Roach is a much more honest man than that. When he talks ****, he does it to hype fights or act tough, not to bash fighters. When Roach says, for example, that Floyd was great at 130-135, but that he doesn't see his greatness past 140 lbs, he is honest, he doesn't say that to bash Floyd. Floyd was the most dominant when he was a jr lighweight-lightweight and his biggest achievements occured at those weights.

Most people think the Klits are boring (Wlad at least, as Vitali is a bit more entertaining). Of course you can like to watch the Klits do their thing. They don't even destroy their opponents as their fans like to emphasize, they just break them down, which is different. I personnaly don't like to watch a fighter solely relying on his reach and big stature to carry himself to victory. Obviously, I'm not the only one, and I'm not a hater for that. As I have said in the past, both Klits would never have become champions if they were average 6,2 or 6,3 heavyweights.