Chris Byrd vs Vitali Klitschko (Highlights)

[JAB5239]

good reasonable post, something Tunney/Freedom is not capable of

Its not a good nor reasonable post because he is picking which posts to respond to in order to post something like this. Lets keep it on boxing and the facts. How about he answer the post reprinted in post #80? Nothing hateful or exaggerated in that post at all, is there?

[Ubermensch]

Klit won most of the rounds, not many would argue against that. But the rounds were very close and Byrd was backing Vitaly up nearly as much as he got backed up despite the huge disadvantages he was at.

Scoring criteria is based on

1. Clean punches
2. Effective aggression
3. Ring generalship
4. Defense

Vitaly landed 8 more punches thru the entire fight and obviously landed the harder punches of the two. Slight advantage to Vitaly in Category one.

While Vitaly only landed 26% of his total punches but he threw nearly twice as many keeping Byrd on the defensive. When Byrd did throw though he landed at 44%, but overall not active enough to win the effective aggression category. Advantage Klitschko.

Byrd moved and did as he pleased either standing in front of Klit or moving out of danger without the ring being cutoff on him and was the more apt of the two to give angles. Vitaly on the other hand was content to move in straight lines both offensively and defensively. Advantage Byrd in ring generalship.

Byrd blocked, ducked and slipped punches making Vitaly land at a career low connect rate and was never visibly hurt in this fight. Advantage Byrd in the defensive category.

Depending on what one prefers, if you favored a defensive fight, an argument could be made Byrd actually won. Myself, I prefer the guy throwing punches looking to make something happen offensively therefore had Vitaly winning the majority of rounds. Anyone trying to claim the rounds weren't close based on the criteria of judging a fight is just foolish though and only choosing to see what the want to see instead of everything that was happening.

Tell me, what is not factual or on point with this post?

Nothing. My initial response was to yet another of your "I like Vitali, but...." posts. And your need to keep rehashing this tired issue.

As far as I'm concerned, Vitali was ahead, he got hurt and retired (the same kind of injury that may now end Robert Helenius' career, so Vitali's stopping was a very good idea) from the fight, Byrd won, and that is that.

It's also true that Vitali was comfortably ahead on the scorecards. Whether or not the rounds were close is ultimately of little consequence.

So it's a loss on his record, but not a definitive loss to Chris Byrd. Hardly the horrible catastrophe that you seem to want to portray it as. It's the heavyweight division: **** happens.

[Ubermensch]

Its not a good nor reasonable post because he is picking which posts to respond to in order to post something like this. Lets keep it on boxing and the facts. How about he answer the post reprinted in post #80? Nothing hateful or exaggerated in that post at all, is there?

Yes, but the problem is, "the facts" are inseparable from the person who is presenting them.

That's why lawyers will always be in great demand. A lawyer who can powerfully present "the facts" in a way favorable to his client is highly coveted.

You are trying to say that you are just presenting "the facts," free of any personal bias, and that is just not the case. It's likely not even possible to do that. You want to persuade people to your side, of course, and that side is anti-Vitali, whether you want to admit it or not.

[JAB5239]

Nothing. My initial response was to yet another of your "I like Vitali, but...." posts. And your need to keep rehashing this tired issue.

As far as I'm concerned, Vitali was ahead, he got hurt and retired (the same kind of injury that may now end Robert Helenius' career, so Vitali's stopping was a very good idea) from the fight, Byrd won, and that is that.

It's also true that Vitali was comfortably ahead on the scorecards. Whether or not the rounds were close is ultimately of little consequence.

So it's a loss on his record, but not a definitive loss to Chris Byrd. Hardly the horrible catastrophe that you seem to want to portray it as. It's the heavyweight division: **** happens.

The rounds were very close and it is for this reason the possibility Vitaly didn't rematch Byrd. He was obviously uncomfortable with his style while his brother found it much easier to solve.

And no, its not a catastrophe. But its worth talking about when certain posters on here want to portray Vitaly as some indestructible beast.

[JAB5239]

"If I lost to a guy and got criticized and thought I was winning easy, I would want a rematch," said Byrd of Vitali's predicament. "I asked for one but they wanted me to fight Wladimir instead, which is a harder style for me and he's very strong. I thank God that I had the opportunity to fight the both of them, nobody wants to go to Germany. But if you have to do it, you just do it."

[Ubermensch]

The rounds were very close and it is for this reason the possibility Vitaly didn't rematch Byrd. He was obviously uncomfortable with his style while his brother found it much easier to solve.

And no, its not a catastrophe. But its worth talking about when certain posters on here want to portray Vitaly as some indestructible beast.

It does seem that in doing so, you have to return to the same few hobby horses previously mentioned, so this can also be looked at another way: that there are remarkably few things to legitimately criticize Vitali Klitschko about. And even those are not all that devastating.

I mean, I don't see constant threads about Lennox Lewis getting knocked out by Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman. I can only imagine the field day you'd have if that had happened to Vitali (and I've seen the field day anti-Klitschko types have with Wlad's losses). So Vitali's few problem areas seem mild in comparison.

[JAB5239]

It does seem that in doing so, you have to return to the same few hobby horses previously mentioned, so this can also be looked at another way: that there are remarkably few things to legitimately criticize Vitali Klitschko about. And even those are not all that devastating.

No, there are plenty of things to criticize just like with any other fighter.

I mean, I don't see constant threads about Lennox Lewis getting knocked out by Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman. I can only imagine the field day you'd have if that had happened to Vitali (and I've seen the field day anti-Klitschko types have with Wlad's losses). So Vitali's few problem areas seem mild in comparison.

See this is the problem with you and other nuthuggers. You want to over rate (or allow him to be over rated) Vitaly and than when he gets taken down a peg you complain "I don't see constant threads" about other fighters. Well I don't see such hero worship for any other fighters besides Pac and Floyd. And I had my battles about them years ago.

By the way, its good to see you back "Lucky Jim". Or should I say Stones?

[RubenSonny]

Nothing. My initial response was to yet another of your "I like Vitali, but...." posts. And your need to keep rehashing this tired issue.

As far as I'm concerned, Vitali was ahead, he got hurt and retired (the same kind of injury that may now end Robert Helenius' career, so Vitali's stopping was a very good idea) from the fight, Byrd won, and that is that.

It's also true that Vitali was comfortably ahead on the scorecards. Whether or not the rounds were close is ultimately of little consequence.

So it's a loss on his record, but not a definitive loss to Chris Byrd. Hardly the horrible catastrophe that you seem to want to portray it as. It's the heavyweight division: **** happens.

It is an absolutely definitive loss.

[JAB5239]

It is an absolutely definitive loss.

See this is what gets me. Some fans think this fight and the one with LL should have an asterisk next to them, like durability isn't part of boxing. Its also what make me wonder why V never rematched him if it was such an easy fight up until the time of injury.

[Ubermensch]

It is an absolutely definitive loss.

Definitively un-definitive.

A guy who loses because he suffers an injury while leading comfortably on the scorecards. And that's "definitive?"

In what way?