BoxRec

Tuan_Jim wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote: Fact is, he was pounding the piss out of Chris Byrd for most of that fight with only one arm and while being in a lot of pain. That loss had nothing to do with anything Byrd did to him.. It was a torn rotator cuff. Lewis was getting his ass handed to him for the first four rounds prior to the punch that caused the cut.

This is as wildly inaccurate as your cast-iron fact statements that David Haye was a 'southpaw' or that Ron Lyle was a 'moderate hitter'.

He wasn't pounding anything out of Byrd, he missed the first half, injuring himself, and backpedalled the second half before quitting on his stool in "too much pain".

Lewis was losing prior to his punches turning the tides. Right, so, standard boxing then? Vitali would have won, if only he didn't lose.

Dude, seriously...f-ck off. I'm not the least bit impressed with what you THINK you know about boxing and the fact that I've ignored every post you've directed at me for the past two months should have given you a hint. You're running all over this forum making comments to posters like " you're so uninformed" is obnoxious and tedious to say the least... Byrd was getting his stool pushed in before Vitali quit due to something that had nothing to do with byrds tremendous abilities... Deal with it. Lewis was behind in the first four rounds and taking a beating before the cut but at no point did i ever claim that it wasn't a legit win. Now if you had paid attention to the argument going on here rather than selectively nitpicking to stick in one of your ankle biting rants, you'd see that i don't think klitscko is great... Only that I disagree with alp that TWENTY FIVE men would have had an EASY night with him.. Do YOU honestly think that men like Max Schmeling, Ken Norton, and Rocky Marciano would walk in the ring and walk out against Vitali Klitscko and not even work up a sweat? Because if you do I'd have to question both your honesty as well as sanity. and Ron Lyle WAS a moderate hitter meaning he wasn't feather fisted but he wasnt elite on the level of Foreman, Tyson, Shavers, Liston, or Lewis. You try to turn it around as if I called the guy hector camacho, thinking that you actually had something to run with... Maybe if you weren't such a douche bag, you'd be better liked around here..

Whether you respond to me is irrelevant. What you write is so frequently riddled with factual inaccuracies the readers out there need someone better researched to provide footnotes and corrections.

As far as Vitali Klitschko's injury having 'nothing to do' with Byrd's abilities, are you really that naive? You think Vitali tore his rotator cuff walking up the ringsteps? All that swinging and missing can injure any athlete, particularly a big injury prone muscle man.

Byrd made your man quit on his stool, perhaps you should deal with that.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Whether you respond to me is irrelevant. What you write is so frequently riddled with factual inaccuracies the readers out there need someone better researched to provide footnotes and corrections.

As far as Vitali Klitschko's injury having 'nothing to do' with Byrd's abilities, are you really that naive? You think Vitali tore his rotator cuff walking up the ringsteps? All that swinging and missing can injure any athlete, particularly a big injury prone muscle man.

Byrd made your man quit on his stool, perhaps you should deal with that.

I'm confident that I'm familiar with the fights I've seen without your help, thanks. Byrd was losing that fight and by a freak occurrence he got lucky. Let's not try and turn it into anything heroic that Byrd did, or use that performance as a gauge for why Vitali might fail against someone else, unless you think he'll tear a cuff every time.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Whether you respond to me is irrelevant. What you write is so frequently riddled with factual inaccuracies the readers out there need someone better researched to provide footnotes and corrections.

As far as Vitali Klitschko's injury having 'nothing to do' with Byrd's abilities, are you really that naive? You think Vitali tore his rotator cuff walking up the ringsteps? All that swinging and missing can injure any athlete, particularly a big injury prone muscle man.

Byrd made your man quit on his stool, perhaps you should deal with that.

Ibeabuchi was somehow able to overcome Byrd's pesky ways, managed to keep from blowing his main valve, and came up with the ever important paydirt moment.

Vitali? Not so much.

BoxBuzz wrote:Ibeabuchi was somehow able to overcome Byrd's pesky ways, managed to keep from blowing his main valve, and came up with the ever important paydirt moment.

Vitali? Not so much.

Little bit different when you have two arms to fight with minus the distraction of being in a lot of pain. But of course it was Byrd's master plan from the very beginning to strategically calculate the tearing of Klitschko's rotator cuff and proceed to lose most of 9 rounds while patiently waiting for a much anticipated corner retirement.. Dude's a genius.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Ibeabuchi was somehow able to overcome Byrd's pesky ways, managed to keep from blowing his main valve, and came up with the ever important paydirt moment.

Vitali? Not so much.

Little bit different when you have two arms to fight with minus the distraction of being in a lot of pain. But of course it was Byrd's master plan from the very beginning to strategically calculate the tearing of Klitschko's rotator cuff and proceed to lose most of 9 rounds while patiently waiting for a much anticipated corner retirement.. Dude's a genius.

Buzz makes a good point that Ibeabuchi had little trouble with Byrd, who supposedly is this great defensive fighter.

Even if he really had a torn rotator cuff (call me skeptical) he should not have quit. He was also having a lot of trouble with Byrd, and looked awful. I had Bryd up by a point and the guy I was watching it with had Vitaly up by a point. The real story of the fight was watching them throw pity pat jabs at each other's gloves. What was that all about? It was actually pretty funny.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Buzz makes a good point that Ibeabuchi had little trouble with Byrd, who supposedly is this great defensive fighter.

That may be true, but its also irrelevant. What I think you're suggesting ( unless I'm wrong ) is that just because Ibeabuchi made short work of Byrd that Vitali should have.. There are two problems with this logic.

1. Styles make fights

2. Ike wasn't fighting Byrd with an injured shoulder.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Even if he really had a torn rotator cuff (call me skeptical) he should not have quit. He was also having a lot of trouble with Byrd, and looked awful. I had Bryd up by a point and the guy I was watching it with had Vitaly up by a point. The real story of the fight was watching them throw pity pat jabs at each other's gloves. What was that all about? It was actually pretty funny.

The officials scoring had Vitali ahead 89-82, 88-83, 88-83 after the 9 rounds. HBO's Harold Lederman also had it 88-83 to Vitali.
On April 6th 2000 (5 days after the contest) Vitali underwent major surgery to repair his rotator cuff in the Fleetlink Hospital, Hamburg, Germany.
Are you still sceptical?

SteveO wrote: The officials scoring had Vitali ahead 89-82, 88-83, 88-83 after the 9 rounds. HBO's Harold Lederman also had it 88-83 to Vitali.
On April 6th 2000

And that was with the disadvantage of only fighting with one arm for most of the contest. I don't recall exactly when it was discovered that he had the injury but if memory serves, I think it was around the third or fourth? A two handed Klitschko would have hammered Byrd.

Correct that is what the judges had it. So what. Should we always agree with Harold Lederman and the judges?

Yes I am still skeptical of the injury. Even, if that was the case, he couldn't have continued?
The bottom line is that it was an awful fight and both Klitschko and Byrd looked awful.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Buzz makes a good point that Ibeabuchi had little trouble with Byrd, who supposedly is this great defensive fighter.

That may be true, but its also irrelevant. What I think you're suggesting ( unless I'm wrong ) is that just because Ibeabuchi made short work of Byrd that Vitali should have.. There are two problems with this logic.

1. Styles make fights

2. Ike wasn't fighting Byrd with an injured shoulder.

It is relevant. It shows Bryd isn't as elusive as he was supposed to be.
1. No styles don't "make" fights. They are a factor, but aren't as important as the quality of the two fighters.
2. The "injury" happened during the fight; Vitaly didn't start the fight injured. Klitschko certainly didn't look good early in the fight either.

It is relevant. It shows Bryd isn't as elusive as he was supposed to be.

Byrd was plenty elusive and you're ignoring the fact that he was in the ring with an injured fighter with only one arm and a style that was dissimilar to that of Ike's

1. No styles don't "make" fights. They are a factor, but aren't as important as the quality of the two fighters.

Then by this logic, Tyson should have positively killed Buster Douglas on the basis that Jesse Ferguson, Mike White and Tony Tucker ( two of whom Tyson beat himself ) defeated Douglas. Styles are a huge factor and yes they DO make fights.

Vitaly didn't start the fight injured.

Neither do guys who suffer cuts due to head butts, but that doesn't mean that their opponents should be credited as besting them because of it, and the result certainly shouldn't be used a measure for how the injured guy would fair in a hypothetical match up with an entirely different opponent.

Klitschko certainly didn't look good early in the fight either.

being "unimpressive" isn't necessarily the equivalent of being "ineffective". He was winning the fight against a man who many found difficult to look good against. In either case its not a fight that I would use as any sort of berometer to gauge why Klitschko couldn't do well against other men. Kind of a ridiculous argument to be honest.

Ambling Alp II"]Correct that is what the judges had it. So what. Should we always agree with Harold Lederman and the judges?

I respect your opinion, but honestly you're the only person I have heard say that Byrd was actually winning that fight.

Just reviewed most of the fight via highlight reel which covered moments from every round of the Byrd vs Klit bout. Vitali was hammering Byrd with that right hand, rendering him on the defensive for the first 3-5 rounds. It wasn't until after the 6th that Byrd started showing some balls. Based on what I saw, the 9th round was the only one I gave to Byrd and assuming because by that point the injury had taken its toll. No way was Byrd winning that fight to that point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FecLhLS8ibI

drunkenpiper36 wrote:Just reviewed most of the fight via highlight reel which covered moments from every round of the Byrd vs Klit bout. Vitali was hammering Byrd with that right hand, rendering him on the defensive for the first 3-5 rounds. It wasn't until after the 6th that Byrd started showing some balls. Based on what I saw, the 9th round was the only one I gave to Byrd and assuming because by that point the injury had taken its toll. No way did was Byrd winning that fight to that point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FecLhLS8ibI

Correct. I have the complete fight on DVD and IMO it's fair to say Byrd only won the 9th round.
Luckily Ambling Alp II is not a boxing judge or we'd have some very controversial scoring :-)

SteveO wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:Just reviewed most of the fight via highlight reel which covered moments from every round of the Byrd vs Klit bout. Vitali was hammering Byrd with that right hand, rendering him on the defensive for the first 3-5 rounds. It wasn't until after the 6th that Byrd started showing some balls. Based on what I saw, the 9th round was the only one I gave to Byrd and assuming because by that point the injury had taken its toll. No way did was Byrd winning that fight to that point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FecLhLS8ibI

Correct. I have the complete fight on DVD and IMO it's fair to say Byrd only won the 9th round.
Luckily Ambling Alp II is not a boxing judge or we'd have some very controversial scoring :-)

I don't like to question people's honesty, therefore I won't call him a liar for claiming that he's seen the fight. But I'm wondering if he's confusing this match with another. In the near 15 years since that fight happened, I have never ONCE heard anyone say that Byrd was winning that match, until Alp said it today.

There are many things that I have seen on this board that I have never seen before. I can't believe that people think Vitaly was completely dominating the fight. If you have him up by a point or 2, ok. However, it was a close fight. There certainly was little hammering.

As for the styles makes fights, I think that is one of the most over used lines in boxing. Yes, you can always find cases where an inferior fighter beat a better fighter. That doesn't automatically mean it was because of styles. The vast majority of the time the better fighter wins regardless of styles.

We can make all the excuses we want for Vitaly, but the bottom line is that in his two biggest fights, he lost. We can also come up with excuses for his opponents that he beat if we want to.

The scores are irrelevant, Vitali lost. His two best 'wins' are losses. His resume is putrid.

Thank God we're graced with the presence of the greatest boxing mind of all time.

Ambling Alp II wrote:There are many things that I have seen on this board that I have never seen before. I can't believe that people think Vitaly was completely dominating the fight. If you have him up by a point or 2, ok. However, it was a close fight. There certainly was little hammering.

As for the styles makes fights, I think that is one of the most over used lines in boxing. Yes, you can always find cases where an inferior fighter beat a better fighter. That doesn't automatically mean it was because of styles. The vast majority of the time the better fighter wins regardless of styles.

We can make all the excuses we want for Vitaly, but the bottom line is that in his two biggest fights, he lost. We can also come up with excuses for his opponents that he beat if we want to.

I base my opinions on what I actually see in the ring, and from what I can tell, Klitschko was winning that fight. I won't claim that the entire fight was a complete domination, but even if one does make such a claim, its far less removed from the truth than stating that " byrd was leading." Stylistic issues are huge in fights. Its a major part of what dictates the outcomes of boxing matches. Its the same reason why both Ken Norton and Joe Frazier were able to beat Muhammad Ali and Foreman wasn't, and its far more common at all levels of the game than you seem to wish to acknowledge, weather we're talking about all time greats or bottom end journeyman. I agree with you that Vitali lost both of his biggest fights and that it counts against him from a "legacy" standpoint. But given the nature of those defeats and the circumstances, I don't see them as pliable reasons for picking certain other men against him.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree about how close the fight was.

I don't think styles are irrelevant. However, I think they are way overused. Sure if the fighters are relatively close, styles can make the difference. However, if one fighter is clearly better than the other, he will almost always win even if the other guy has the style to beat him.
Everybody always loves to point to examples of a inferior fighter losing to a better one. Then they claim it was because of styles.
Of course they ignore that this is the exception, not the rule. The better fighter usually wins. They also assume that styles was automatically the reason that the inferior fighter won, but that isn't always the reason. Sometimes the lesser fighter won simply because the better fighter was off his game. Or the lesser fighter had the fight of his life and performed much higher than normal.

I think the two fights are crucial because Vitaly had so few important fights in his career. there is no evidence that those two fights were an abberration. Those are by far his two biggest fights.
I think he should have been able to win and that a great fighter would have won those fights fairly easily.
Sure we can say that he would have performed differently against someone esle that was a great fighter. However, we are just speculating. I think he would fall short against anyone really good because that is what happened to him in real life.

I'll leave it at that then.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:Thank God we're graced with the presence of the greatest boxing mind of all time.