Callum Smith vs John Ryder Scorecard by Guy Incognito


scorecard by GUY INCOGNITO
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
CALLUM SMITH
10
10
10
9
10
10
9
10
10
10
9
9
116
JOHN RYDER
9
9
9
10
9
9
10
9
9
9
10
10
112

Fight:



More:

Callum Smith

John Ryder



We do need help growing, please share:

Comments

Champion97's picture

Responding here to avoid clogging up the fight page.

You have dodged questions, I've asked you straight questions, and you've responded with gish gallop. I'm willing to give you an opportunity to answer those questions now, but I think the reason you didn't answer them was because you had no idea what to say.

Do you dispute that Golovkin, Gassiev, Beterbiev are all better inside fighters than Kovalev?
Do you dispute that they are less vulnerable and have less weaknesses?
that they are less vulnerable and have less weaknesses?
Do you dispute that Kovalev can control distance with his jab and use it to set up the right hand better than the otherĀ 3?
In rounds 5-7, 9-12 against Pulev, Hughie landed neither more punches or the better punches, didn't hurt Pulev, do you dispute that?

These are 5 questions I asked you, in a boxing debate, you did not answer them, to me, that's relinquishing a debate, are you willing to answer them now?

Guy Incognito's picture

'Do you dispute that Golovkin, Gassiev, Beterbiev are all better inside fighters than Kovalev?'

Yes. Kovalev is a better inside fighter than Gassiev in my opinion.

'Do you dispute that they are less vulnerable and have less weaknesses?
that they are less vulnerable and have less weaknesses?'

?

'Do you dispute that Kovalev can control distance with his jab and use it to set up the right hand better than the other 3?'

No.

'In rounds 5-7, 9-12 against Pulev, Hughie landed neither more punches or the better punches, didn't hurt Pulev, do you dispute that?'

Yes. Hughie landed some of the better punches.

Questions answered. Debate over. Case closed. You have been repeating these questions for a while now. Let it go already. Move on. Accept that I am capable of answering questions about boxing (which should have been evident to any normal human being by now, although in your defence, you are not exactly normal).

EDIT: I apologise for taking so long to reply, by the way. It is rather late at night in my time zone, and I did not notice that you responded here for a while. I thought that it was relevant to point this out since you are prone to accusing me of being too slow at responding.

Champion97's picture

I don't think anyone else would agree on that, I think there is a right answer, I've seen no evidence to support what you say. What about Golovkin and Beterbiev, better inside fighters than Kovalev?, what I'm getting at is, if you knew more about boxing, and were willing to learn about it, you would know by now, Kovalev is not a bigger and scarier version of Golovkin, he is a different fighter with a very different style.

Stop mucking about, it's an accidental repeat, a mis-type, but the question and the wording is still there, still very clear, just answer the question.

Right, does that not support that Beterbiev and Gassiev are more similar to Golovkin than Kovalev is?

No he didn't, in those 7 rounds, he did not land more punches than Pulev, that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

And you accused me from stopping a debate I was losing, the difference is, you really are losing, I stopped a complete stalemate that was not only unrelated to boxing and clogging up this site, but also, completely repetitive, and therefore, pointless, you are trying to throw in the towell when there is more to be discussed. There was no evidence to supoort either one of us winning any of our non-boxing discussions, but dodging questions is obviously losing a debate. Question, do you quit? Or are you willing to continue this boxing debate?

Believe me, now you've answered the questions, I won't ask those same questions again, I repeated the questions because they were unanswered. You are capable of providing an answer, but you are reluctant to do so, and I don't think there is any confidence behind your answers because the knowledge isn't there and neither is interest in boxing or the willingness to learn.

Again, I'm sorry you're upset, if denying I'm a normal human being makes you feel better, keep doing it, because it doesn't bother me in the slightest, but all I'm doing now is trying to have a rational boxing debate, on a boxing forum, grow up.

You are from the UK are you not? I waited for your response, I accused you if being slow to respond in the past because there seemed to be a pattern, there seems to be a continuation of that pattern now. You always seem less interested and go quiet whenever I make it about boxing, there is never a delay with the other topics, and your answers to boxing related questions usually seem less carefully answered, so the most likely explanation was that you didn't want to answer them, for the reason that boxing is not a topic you are interested in debating.

Guy Incognito's picture

'Kovalev is not a bigger and scarier version of Golovkin'

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I accept your opinion. It is about time that you do the same thing back to me.

'Stop mucking about'

no u

'Right, does that not support that Beterbiev and Gassiev are more similar to Golovkin than Kovalev is?'

Not necessarily.

'No he didn't

Yes he did.

'he did not land more punches than Pulev, that's not an opinion, it's a fact.'

Agreed. But that is completely unrelated to my response. I said that Hughie landed some of the better punches. You know that there is a difference between amount of punches and quality of punches, right? I thought that you were an expert on boxing. Guess not. You either need to read my responses more carefully, or actually learn about boxing.

'you really are losing'

Nope.

'I stopped a complete stalemate'

That is what I am trying to do here.

'you are trying to throw in the towell when there is more to be discussed. There was no evidence to supoort either one of us winning any of our non-boxing discussions, but dodging questions is obviously losing a debate. Question, do you quit? Or are you willing to continue this boxing debate?'

Ha. Nice try. I see what you are trying to do here. You are claiming that when I try to end a discussion it must be because I am losing, but when you do the same, you claim that it is because the discussion has reached a stalemate. If anything, it is the other way around. It seems to me that you quit our previous debate because you are losing, and I am trying to end this one because it has reached a stalemate and is growing rather repetitive. We can both make our arguments defending whatever side we are on here. That will not get us anywhere. So, sorry, but I saw through that one. Try again. Better luck next time.

'You are capable of providing an answer'

Correct.

'but you are reluctant to do so''

Incorrect.

'Again, I'm sorry you're upset'

Thanks, but I am not upset. I am disappointed, and I pity you.

'it doesn't bother me in the slightest

Good for you.

'grow up'

no u

'You are from the UK are you not?'

Goodness me. Just because I am British and originally from the UK does not necessarily mean that I still currently live there. That is something that you need to understand as an internet user: anyone can be from anywhere. That is simple enough to understand. I will not reveal to you where my time zone is, because that does not concern you in anyway whatsoever, but I will inform you that it is rather late at night now where I live.

'boxing is not a topic you are interested in debating.'

Incorrect.

Champion97's picture

I would respect your opinion if you could back it up, which evidently, you can't.

That's not an answer, so I ask again, do you dispute that Beterbiev, Gassiev, Golovkin are all less vulnerable and have less weaknesses than Kovalev?

Yes it does, it doesn't independently prove it, definitively, but it supports it, it's more conclusive than anything you've been able to venture.

Fury did not land more punches than Pulev in any of those rounds, it just didn't happen.

No you didn't, you are contradicting yourself now, you said Hughie landed more, now you're saying he landed better, which is it? Both? If both, then why was your initial answer only that he landed more? Amount of punches and quality of punches are different criteria for boxing scoring, which I've been writing about for 8 years. You're not making any sense.

Edit
I see what you did there, you changed your comment, you originally said Hughie landed more punches, you then edited it and said he landed some of the better punches to try and duck my response, and because you decided that the better punches was a harder aspect to find the answer to. For the record, in those rounds, Hughie most certainly did not land the cleaner or more powerful punches overall, like him landing more punches, it just did not happen. That was a tactic to get me off your back about Pulev vs Fury, clearly, it failed, it was never going to work, it proves you have no answer because your opinion on that fight is based only on bias. If you are averse to discussing boxing with me, don't talk to me, this is a boxing forum, don't forget that.

You really are losing because you are refusing to answer questions, you've as good as thrown in the towell.

This isn't a stalemate, I have plenty to say to back up my point, you've got nothing. You really are trying to stop a debate you are losing.

You are losing, you're reluctant to answer questions, you can't back up your points, don't forget, I stopped non-boxing related arguments, you're trying to stop a boxing argument. It was a stalemate because everything said in our most recent posts had already been said several times. Don't lie, come on man, there is plenty more to say on this.

So why did it take 5 times to ask the question to get a straight answer out of you?

No rush, I'd buy your explanation for the delayed response if your non-boxing replies hadn't come so quickly.

Do you really believe the reason why Golovkin's stamina is so much better than Kovalev's is because they are 2 weights apart?

Guy Incognito's picture

'I would respect your opinion if you could back it up, which evidently, you can't.'

And I would respect your opinion if you could back it up validly, which evidently, you can't.

'That's not an answer'

Yes it is. Answer definition: a thing that is said, written, or done as a reaction to a question, statement, or situation.

'do you dispute that Beterbiev, Gassiev, Golovkin are all less vulnerable and have less weaknesses than Kovalev?'

Yes. In my opinion, Gassiev is more vulnerable and has more weaknesses than Kovalev. And Beterbiev has as many weaknesses as well. But I am not sure how Murat Gassiev is relevant to this discussion at all. To be honest, I can hardly remember what it is about. You have just been repeating this pointless discussion constantly. Let. It. Go.

'Fury did not land more punches than Pulev in any of those rounds, it just didn't happen.'

Correct. But amount of punches thrown and quality of them are very different, however. I believe that I have already quite clearly pointed this out to you. Perhaps you are just unwilling to learn boxing? Are you sure that I am the one unwilling to learn? And so much for your claims about being a boxing expert.

'Amount of punches and quality of punches are different criteria for boxing scoring

Correct. You have finally figured it out.

'You're not making any sense.'

no u

'Edit
I see what you did there, you changed your comment, you originally said Hughie landed more punches, you then edited it and said he landed some of the better punches to try and duck my response, and because you decided that the better punches was a harder aspect to find the answer to.'

Incorrect. Completely and utterly incorrect. I did not edit my response at all. You do not 'see what [I] did there at all. Stop making false claims and start moving on, and developing the ability to construct valid arguments. That is what I originally wrote, you fool.

'don't talk to me, this is a boxing forum'

Ha. You just completely contradicted yourself.

'You really are losing because

no u

'This isn't a stalemate, I have plenty to say to back up my point, you've got nothing. You really are trying to stop a debate you are losing.'

Incorrect. But if you want to claim that I am losing this debate to make yourself feel better, you may do so. It does not bother me in the slightest.

'You are losing, you're reluctant to answer questions, you can't back up your points'

no u. And again, if you want to claim that I am losing this debate to make yourself feel better, you may do so. It does not bother me in the slightest.

'Don't lie'

I am not lying. I have not lied to you at all. Not once. Do not lie that I am lying.

'come on man, there is plenty more to say on this.'

Not really, but okay.

'No rush, I'd buy your explanation for the delayed response if your non-boxing replies hadn't come so quickly.'

You know that I have been typing this response early in the morning, right. Unlike you, I have a life outside of this forum.

'Do you really believe the reason why Golovkin's stamina is so much better than Kovalev's is because they are 2 weights apart?'

Not necessarily.

Now quit it already. This is a dead topic. Drop it.

Champion97's picture

I'm always logical and rational about boxing, you saying otherwise is a lie, you already have your mind made up, you have no willingness to learn, I've seen people come to this site, completely new to boxing, and they learn more in a day than you have since you got your account. Tell me, where's the invalidity to you when it comes to anything I've said about boxing? I'm actually interested to see you try to find something, because I can back up everything I say with logic, but also because you don't have the knowledge to find anything invalid even if that wasn't the case.

Despite being given a lesson, Usyk never hurt him, Dorticos couldn't hurt Gassiev, which was a big problem for him, we've seen Kovalev come apart, I don't believe Gassiev has been down, I see technical limitations, but not weaknesses like I see from Kovalev. He's as relevant as Beterbiev, I'm logically explaining to you why Beterbiev and Gassiev are more similar to Kovalev than Golovkin is.

'Let. It. Go', 'please calm down', 'please don't swear', and I'm the one that begs. You really are running from a debate you are losing, but you are only losing because you are taking me on when you don't have the knowledge to have a boxing debate.

He did land more than Pulev earlier today until you realised you could more easily lie about quality of punches.

Again, I've been writing about it for 8 years, you've already given me credit as a boxing expert, don't backtrack just because you are so angry.

You are the one who contradicted yourself which shows you have no confidnce in your baseless arguments.

Yes there is, Kovalev and Golovkin are very different for a lot of reasons, and I could venture a lot of examples of when I've seen them break fighters down in different ways.

Think that if you want, but it is not true, don't make this personal, you know nothing about me personally, and how little you can know about anybody on an anonymous boxing forum is something you need to understand.

That was your only explanation when we discussed before.

Kovalev tires after 6-8 rounds, he is weak to the body, we saw a weakness to the body for Golovkin against Derevyanchenko, but historically, we've seen him take body shots a lot better than Kovalev, he is much more durable, he's never been down, it seems like I'm arguing Golovkin is a lot better than Kovalev, I think he's better, but that's also a testament to how good Kovalev is despite his weaknesses, his ability to control opponents with that jab, set up the right hand is brilliant, it's not just the power or weight behind the jab, it's the judgement of distance. Golovkin and Kovalev are both well schooled Eastern Europeans who are knock out artists, which is why they are not as different as 2 fighters can possibly be, but they are not similar, and Kovalev is certainly not a bigger, scarier version of Golovkin, do you understand that now?

This is by no means a dead topic, I'm making points I haven't made before. You told me I have no place here, but it's you who has no place here, because you are so uncomfortable, insecure, angry when I make it about boxing, which is what this site is about, I've been here for 6 years, I always enjoy a rational boxing debate. Nobody is forcing you to engage with me, if you want so badly for this to be over, I can't force you to keep replying.

Guy Incognito's picture

'I'm always logical and rational about boxing, you saying otherwise is a lie'

That is a matter of opinion . . .

'you already have your mind made up, you have no willingness to learn'

Incorrect.

'I can back up everything I say with logic'

That is a matter of opinion . . .

'Dorticos couldn't hurt Gassiev'

Incorrect

'You really are running from a debate you are losing'

no u

'you realised you could more easily lie about quality of punches.

Incorrect.

'Again, I've been writing about it for 8 years, you've already given me credit as a boxing expert, don't backtrack just because you are so angry.

I am not angry. You are always angry. I am just beginning to doubt your apparent 'expertise'.

'You are the one who contradicted yourself which shows you have no confidnce in your baseless arguments.'

no u

'Kovalev tires after 6-8 rounds, he is weak to the body, we saw a weakness to the body for Golovkin against Derevyanchenko, but historically, we've seen him take body shots a lot better than Kovalev, he is much more durable, he's never been down, it seems like I'm arguing Golovkin is a lot better than Kovalev, I think he's better, but that's also a testament to how good Kovalev is despite his weaknesses, his ability to control opponents with that jab, set up the right hand is brilliant, it's not just the power or weight behind the jab, it's the judgement of distance. Golovkin and Kovalev are both well schooled Eastern Europeans who are knock out artists, which is why they are not as different as 2 fighters can possibly be'

Agreed.

'but they are not similar, and Kovalev is certainly not a bigger, scarier version of Golovkin'

I disagree.

'This is by no means a dead topic'

I disagree.

'you are so uncomfortable, insecure, angry'

no u

'I always enjoy a rational boxing debate'

Then debate rationally, already.

Champion97's picture

What round did Dorticos hurt Gassiev?

Let's talk about Hughie Fury, your support for him is interesting, the impression I get is that you are from Manchester, which is why you are biased in Fury's favour. You don't have to agree he's boring to watch, but if you accept he lost legitimately to Parker and Povetkin, and clearly to Pulev, that doesn't make you a traitor, it's clear to me, you know he didn't beat Pulev.

Hughie has made sacrifices, he has dedication, so why does he gas in fights? If Hughie is improving, why was the Povetkin fight, in terms of the margin, pattern of the fight, so similar to the Parker fight? I'll give you my answer if you try to provide an answer yourself.

Guy Incognito's picture

It looked like Dorticos spent most of the fight hurting Gassiev with his relentless endless charges forwards. Rounds where it looked like he particularly wobbled Gassiev were the second, third, fourth and tenth. Gassiev is rather static. He lacks decent head movement, and lets himself get hit too much without controlling range with his jab. That is why I think that Dorticos is the better fighter, and that would have won. It was Gassiev's sudden flurry and burst of energy at the finish that got him that lucky victory if you ask me. Dorticos was doing so well. Gassiev lucked out. And this fight happened nearly two years ago now. Come on, now. Drop it already. Move on.

I am not from Manchester. When I lived in England, I lived about as far from Manchester as one can in England. I do not think that I am biased in Fury's favour. He got a rotten decision against Parker, and his fights with Povetkin and Pulev were closer than the judges scorecards suggested.

And yes, I know that he did not beat Pulev. He lost. I know that he did not deserve to lose, but he did. Your point?

I am not biased. I defended Andy Ruiz Jr. after he defeated my fellow Englishman Anthony Joshua. Some friends of mine said that Ruiz was lucky to win, and I disagreed. I was not biased towards Joshua there. That is just one example of when I have been unbiased. You appear to be biased against Gennady Golovkin and Hughie Fury yourself. Also, if you think that someone else is being biased, remember that there is still a possibility that you may be the biased one.

And Hughie has made sacrifices, he has dedication, and that is why he does not usually appear to gas in fights very often to me. And the Povetkin fight, in terms of the margin, pattern of the fight, did not appear to be that similar to the Parker fight to me, either. You may think otherwise, but I disagree. There are going to be people you encounter who disagree with you. Accept that already. Do not be a bigot.

Champion97's picture

That's not what happened, Dorticos is heavy handed, and he pushed Gassiev back in the early rounds, but it didn't take long for Gassiev to start to take control, it was more or less all Gassiev from round 5 onwards, he had the better variety, the better inside game, and it went more and more his way as the fight went on, Dorticos had nothing left at the end. Gassiev was uncomfortable on the back foot in round 2 and 4, Dorticos had the momentum, took Gassiev's punches well, but most people gave Gassiev round 2 on punches landed, and more importantly, Dorticos never hurt him, he wasn't able to set himself in those rounds, Gassiev, but his legs were beneath him, Gassiev proved to have a great chin, because Dorticos can punch, he landed clean, Gassiev wasn't telegraphing the shots well, defence wasn't good, but Dortocis never hurt him. That's true about Gassiev to a degree, but that didn't matter against Dorticos, not after 4 rounds, Usyk was able to exploit those flaws, but Dorticos wasn't. The reason that makes no sense is because after 11 rounds, all the momentum had swung in Gassiev's favour, Dorticos was tired by then, there was no element of luck, I'm not going to tell you to watch it again if you don't want to, but if you watched it, you'd see exactly what everybody else sees. When you have a very controversial opinion that everyone else thinks is invalid, do you not think you might have gone wrong somewhere? Let's be realistic. There's no need for that, we're just having a boxing discussion, why are you trying to throw in the towell? There is plenty more to say on Gassiev vs Dorticos. Don't beg me to stop the boxing discussion, I'm not forcing you to reply, you're making the decision to keep talking.

Bias seems the most likely explanation for your highly controversial opinions which seem to most people, invalid. He didn't get a rotten decision against Parker, he used the ring well, frustrated Parker, and we saw good boxing from him, in spots, but his own movement worked against him, and Parker won the last 2 rounds, when it was in the balance. I don't see why the cards were so wide, there seems to be a fair few that think Hughie nicked that fight, but it's very hard to argue it was a robbery because for so much of the fight, he was making Parker miss, but he wasn't making him pay. One thing I've learned over the years is that when there is not a lot to split the 2 fighters, neither is landing a lot of clean shots, one is aggressive, the other is defensive, the judges are likely to lean towards the aggressor, to out box someone, you can't just make them miss and neglect your own offence, you need to land your own shots, and Hughie wasn't able to do enough offensively against Parker. I agree the Povetkin fight was closer, I don't know about the Pulev fight because the judges disagreed on the margin amongst each other. Another thing I have learned is that although we think we see everything in the ring, the judges are ringside, so they can see the impact on every shot, they can see how cleanly certain shots land, and they are in a better position to score the fight accurately.

My point is that you are the only one on this site who thinks he won, I gave you 7 conclusive Pulev rounds, which were not Fury's rounds using any acceptable scoring method, be realistic, it's invalid to say Fury beat Pulev, therefore, you should accept you were off on that one. I've been where you are, where you score a fight, think your opinion is valid, you want to stand by your opinion, but sometimes, when it comes to controversial opinions which you can't back up logically, you have to swallow your pride, hold your hands up and accept you were wrong, it's part of the learning process.

I think you are biased for the Brits but don't like Joshua. Well new information has now come to light, which vindicates the luck aspect for Ruiz. My opinion on Hughie does not conflict with the consensus, I have praised Hughie for his professional when it comes to training, sticking at it, not only am I not biased against Hughie, there is no logical reason to think I am. My prediction for Golovkin vs Derevyanchenko turned out be accurate, an early knock down for Golovkin, a win, but signs of age, a struggle, and for predicting what happened, you falsely, ridiculously defensively accused me of being a Golovkin hater, you are obviously the one who's biased, you should have learned from that. I'm not biased in the slightest bit, if you don't want to take my word, look at the fight pages, look at my scorecards, look at my analyses, I've been praised specifically for being unbised, it is you who is biased, not me, that much is very obvious.

Yes he has, I acknowledged that, he deserves to achieve. Well he does gas, look at the last 2 rounds in all 3 fights, I'll tell you what I think based on my experience, I think Peter Fury is a poor trainer, is not bringing the best out if his son, I don't think Hughie has got significantly better or worse since the Parker fight, I see no mistakes he's stopped making or tools, strengths he's developed, I think he moves too much, so much so that it drains his legs, doesn't always frustrate the opponent because they know he can't sustain that level of movement for 12 rounds, and his excessive movement compromises his offence, he is not a good offensive fighter, he throws the jab and right hand with little confidence, someone said in their pre fight analysis for Povetkin vs Fury, that Fury suffers from performance anxiety, which seems possible. It was similar because he started well, but his legs slowed down as the fight went on, the aggressor was able to work his way into his punching range, and do enough in late rounds to win.

I'm not sure how many times I need to say it before you acknowledge it, but there are many people, all the time, who I encounter, we disagree very strongly, you must have seen some of the discussions, but we respect each others opinions, because we talk boxing rationally, are more than happy to back up our opinions, because we can, because we have honest, logical opinions, your opinions aren't based on merely a different viewpoint to mine, they are based on false perception, bias, and lack of knowledge. I know boxing, I have a lot to say on, you clearly don't know boxing, be prepared to learn about it, part of that is accepting you were wrong when all the evidence points to that.

Guy Incognito's picture

'That's not what happened, Dorticos is heavy handed, and he pushed Gassiev back in the early rounds, but it didn't take long for Gassiev to start to take control, it was more or less all Gassiev from round 5 onwards, he had the better variety, the better inside game, and it went more and more his way as the fight went on, Dorticos had nothing left at the end. Gassiev was uncomfortable on the back foot in round 2 and 4, Dorticos had the momentum, took Gassiev's punches well, but most people gave Gassiev round 2 on punches landed, and more importantly, Dorticos never hurt him, he wasn't able to set himself in those rounds, Gassiev, but his legs were beneath him, Gassiev proved to have a great chin, because Dorticos can punch, he landed clean, Gassiev wasn't telegraphing the shots well, defence wasn't good, but Dortocis never hurt him. That's true about Gassiev to a degree, but that didn't matter against Dorticos, not after 4 rounds, Usyk was able to exploit those flaws, but Dorticos wasn't. The reason that makes no sense is because after 11 rounds, all the momentum had swung in Gassiev's favour, Dorticos was tired by then, there was no element of luck'

I disagree, but okay. Unlike you, I accept your opinion. It is time that you do that back already.

'if you watched it, you'd see exactly what everybody else sees'

I watched it. Twice. And I saw what I saw.

'When you have a very controversial opinion that everyone else thinks is invalid, do you not think you might have gone wrong somewhere'

Maybe, but remember that I may not be alone in thinking this, and you appear to hold controversial opinions of your own . . .

'Let's be realistic'

Good thing I am being realistic, then. It is time that you do the same back already.

'why are you trying to throw in the towell'

I am not trying to throw in the towel.

'There is plenty more to say on Gassiev vs Dorticos'

Not really.

'Don't beg me to stop the boxing discussion'

Not begging.

'you're making the decision to keep talking'

And so are you. Don't you pin all the blame on me here.

'Bias seems the most likely explanation for your highly controversial opinions which seem to most people, invalid.'

How can you say that it seems invalid to most people? You are not most people. And having controversial opinions is not necessarily a bad thing. It is not necessarily good either, but everyone has the right to there own opinions. Unlike you, I accept your opinions, and they appear to be bizarre to me. It is time that you do that back already.

'He didn't get a rotten decision against Parker'

I disagree, but okay. Unlike you, I accept your opinion. It is about time that you do the same back already.

'he used the ring well, frustrated Parker, and we saw good boxing from him'

Agreed.

'Parker won the last 2 rounds'

You could make that argument. You could also argue against it.

'I don't see why the cards were so wide, there seems to be a fair few that think Hughie nicked that fight

So my opinion is not really controversial, then. And even if it was controversial, so what. I can back my opinion up, and so can you, so therefore our opinions are valid. We can call our opinions bizarre all we want. It doesn't matter.

'My point is that you are the only one on this site who thinks he won'

Kevin Johnson thought that Hughie won. He is not on this site, but he is a professional boxer. Maybe I am biased. Maybe you are biased. So what? What's it to you?

'be realistic'

That is precisely what I am doing.

'it's invalid to say Fury beat Pulev'

Not really.

'you should accept you were off on that one'

But I do not think that I was 'off on that one'.

'when it comes to controversial opinions which you can't back up logically, you have to swallow your pride'

But I can back up my opinions logically.

'hold your hands up and accept you were wrong, it's part of the learning process.'

And I have done that in the past, but I do not feel that I am wrong here.

'I think you are biased for the Brits but don't like Joshua'

Goodness me! You really are unbearable! I disagree with you, you thought that my opinion was invalid, you called me out on it, I backed it up logically, so now the only possible explanation you can muster is that I am biased of all Brits, except for Joshua because he is one example I gave of a fighter I was not biased to. I try not to be biased. Maybe I am, but you are not exactly free of being biased yourself. At least I do not make bizarre claims like saying that I am biased to all boxers of my nationality apart from one. That is foolishness. And you have got it all wrong; I do like Joshua.

'I think Peter Fury is a poor trainer,'

Yes. Of course. The trainer responsible for Tyson Fury's historic victory over Wladimir Klitschko is a poor trainer. That is a bizarre decision. However, I respect your opinion because you have backed it up. Maybe not very well, but you did. Unlike you, I accept your opinion. It is about time that you do the same back already.

' I don't think Hughie has got significantly better or worse since the Parker fight, I see no mistakes he's stopped making or tools, strengths he's developed, I think he moves too much, so much so that it drains his legs, doesn't always frustrate the opponent because they know he can't sustain that level of movement for 12 rounds, and his excessive movement compromises his offence, he is not a good offensive fighter, he throws the jab and right hand with little confidence, someone said in their pre fight analysis for Povetkin vs Fury, that Fury suffers from performance anxiety, which seems possible. It was similar because he started well, but his legs slowed down as the fight went on, the aggressor was able to work his way into his punching range, and do enough in late rounds to win.'

I disagree, but okay. Unlike you, I accept your opinion. It is about time that you do the same back already.

'but we respect each others opinions'

Then it is about time that you do the same to me already.

'we talk boxing rationally'

Then it is about time that you do the same to me already.

'you clearly don't know boxing'

Incorrect.

'be prepared to learn about it'

Good thing I am prepared to learn, then. It is time that you do the same back already.

'part of that is accepting you were wrong'

Good thing I accept that I am wrong, then. It is time that you do the same back already.

Champion97's picture

To start this, I'm going to be honest, I looked at your comment that said Hughie landed some of the better punches, and the time on the comment backs up that that is what you said, I didn't read it properly, I saw the words landed and punches in the corner of my eye, so that was my mistake, however, that's all it was, and Hughie did not land the better punches overall in any of those 7 rounds.

I repeat. 'I'm not sure how many times I need to say it before you acknowledge it, but there are many people, all the time, who I encounter, we disagree very strongly, you must have seen some of the discussions, but we respect each others opinions, because we talk boxing rationally, are more than happy to back up our opinions, because we can, because we have honest, logical opinions, your opinions aren't based on merely a different viewpoint to mine, they are based on false perception, bias, and lack of knowledge. I know boxing, I have a lot to say on, you clearly don't know boxing, be prepared to learn about it, part of that is accepting you were wrong when all the evidence points to that'. No need to say anything else, I'll leave that with you.

The bias is clear because there is a pattern of you scoring Hughie's fights controversially.

A few, but they are always opinions I share with, though the minority, never as small a minority as you, and they are opinions I can back up with logic, with confidence, I'm always more than happy to back up my opinions, I called Bellew beating Haye, Fury beating Klitschko, I took stick for those controversial predictions, and I was vindicated. I'm only in the minority when it comes to a few controversial decisions which I think are only controversial because people were mislead either by the fight itself being deceptive or the commentators being off the mark, but I'm far from the only one who has those opinions even if I'm in the minority.

Great, so don't tell me to drop the boxing discussion and let it go.

It is controversial because you are saying it is a robbery, come on, don't be deliberately stupid, you know the difference between thinking a fighter nicked a fight and thinking a fight was a robbery, you know little about boxing, but not that little. That's where you are wrong, if you think all opinions are equal, you will never learn.

I'm not biased and there's nothing to suggest I am. It's nothing to me, but if you start a conversation with me, I will respond, you called me a keyboard warrior, I responded, you've brought this on yourself, I'm not forcing you to continue, you are choosing to.

It's not because you think all opinions, every single one, is equal, and you think there is never any right answer in boxing, boxing is subjective in some instances, but there right and wrong answers at times, if you deny that, you know less than I thought. It's invalid and I've explained why. All the evidence points to you being off on that one, don't forget, I've been where you are, I know it's not easy to accept you're wrong, but all the evidence backs up that you were wrong, all part of learning. Accepting you are wrong and lack knowledge is part of learning aside from boxing.

You can't, I'm not out to get you, I'm just being honest.

You've backed nothing up logically in the time I've talked to you, never, bias is not specific to nationality. Joshua has people who dislike him from every country, and you have said things that suggest you are biased. No logic to suggest I'm biased. I'm not 100% sure you are biased against Joshua, I didn't say you definitely were, but I don't think you like Joshua, and what's funny is, your friends were probably right, and you, the one who's supoosed to be boxing fan, were wrong.

Despite the Fury's talking about their proud fighting heritage, Tyson left Peter, he would not do that without good reason, for his age, Peter has little experience as a trainer, Tyson's boxing talent and Hughie being a fighter is why he's a trainer. Tyson beat Klitschko, true, but being a good trainer isn't something you prove with one fight, because sometimes the fighter knows what to do, and the trainer doesn't play that significant a role, especially when the fighter is as intelligent as Tyson, it speaks volume that he left his uncle. It takes a good trainer to develop a fighter, and I've seen no improvements from Hughie, he should be improving, it seems to me as if Peter is not bringing the best out of Hughie at this stage, based on that, I think he is a poor trainer, it's an opinion, but it's a valid opinion. To say I didn't back up well is a flat out lie, you keep doing that, I'm always very clear with my explanations, I can always back up my opinions with logic.

Talk boxing rationally is all I'm trying to do, and when I do that, is when you ask to end the discussion, you're more than happy to keep this back and fourth nonsense going, it's clear that when it's about boxing, is when you struggle, and when you want out.

You don't.

Whenever I've been wrong in the past, when discussing with other hard-core fans, I'm always happy to accept it, but I've never been wrong about boxing itself when you and I have discussed boxing.

Guy Incognito's picture

' looked at your comment that said Hughie landed some of the better punches, and the time on the comment backs up that that is what you said, I didn't read it properly, I saw the words landed and punches in the corner of my eye, so that was my mistake'

Okay.

'we respect each others opinions'

Then start respecting my opinion already.

'we talk boxing rationally'

Then start talking boxing rationally with me already me.

'[your opinions] are based on false perception, bias, and lack of knowledge'

Incorrect.

'you clearly don't know boxing'

Incorrect.

'be prepared to learn about it'

Then it is a good thing that I am prepared to learn more about boxing. It is about time that you start doing the same back.

'The bias is clear because there is a pattern of you scoring Hughie's fights controversially.'

I'm not biased, but okay.

'I'm only in the minority when it comes to a few controversial decisions'

Same here.

'don't be deliberately stupid'

I am not trying to be deliberately stupid. Not at all. How on earth did you come to that twisted and bizarre conclusion?

'if you think all opinions are equal, you will never learn.'

Then it is a good thing that I do not think that all opinions are equal.

'I'm not biased'

Uh-huh. Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say . . .

'It's invalid'

Not necessarily.

'I've explained why'

Not really.

'Accepting you are wrong and lack knowledge is part of learning aside from boxing.'

Then it is a good thing that I am capable of accepting that I am wrong.

'You've backed nothing up logically in the time I've talked to you'

Incorrect. And the problem is, you calling it logical is a matter of opinion.

'No logic to suggest I'm biased'

Incorrect.

'Tyson left Peter, he would not do that without good reason'

Just because a fighter leaves one trainer for another does not at all mean that his previous trainer must therefore be bad in anyway whatsoever. Surely that is common knowledge? So much for your claims about being a boxing expert.

'To say I didn't back up well is a flat out lie'

Incorrect.

'Talk boxing rationally is all I'm trying to do'

Then start talking boxing rationally with me, then.

'it's clear that when it's about boxing, is when you struggle'

Incorrect.

Champion97's picture

The difference is, I only stand by valid opinions, if I'm off, I'm able to realise it on reflection, if I had made the same mistake as you did with Pulev vs Fury and Gassiev vs Dorticos, I would have accepted the mistake, the invalidity, long ago.

Tyson leaving Peter doesn't prove alone that Peter is a bad trainer, but given how proud they are as travellers, given all the talk of fighting heritage, it doesn't look good for Peter as a trainer, I really don't think Fury would have left his uncle, who is part of his proud fighting heritage, if he thought peter was bringing the best out of him. It is possible that after the years out, Fury wanted a fresh start, and it wasn't because Peter wasn't up to the job, but I think don't think Peter is a good trainer, because of not only the reason I just said, but also because of the standstill Hughie seems to be at, and because being a trainer isn't Peter's life's work, he's a trainer because of his son and nephew, it doesn't mean he can't be a good trainer, Enzo Calzaghe wouldn't have been a trainer without his son, and he did a fine job, but most good trainers don't become trainers just because of a fighter who is a friend or relative. You're being deliberately stupid again, I obviously never said Tyson leaving Peter independently proves he is a bad trainer, that's one of 3 reasons I gave.

You have to understand, being a good trainer is something you prove over a period of time, not just about having a talented fighter who gets one great win, Peter has no other great fighters, look at the Reynosos, they have not only done a great job with Canelo, but Valdez, Aguilar have both gone to them, BoMac is a great trainer not just because he trained Crawford but because he still does and he can bring the best out of any fighter, look at the job he's done with Jamel Herring. Being a trainer is about bringing the best out of a fighter, we haven't seen Peter clearly succeed or fail in doing that because either I'm wrong about him being a bad trainer and Fury just wanted a fresh start, or because Fury thought Peter would fail, let's see if Hughie can improve and made the adjustments he needs to, but based on his what I've seen from him so far, he's making the same mistakes, hasn't significantly improved.

Guy Incognito's picture

'if I had made the same mistake as you did with Pulev vs Fury and Gassiev vs Dorticos, I would have accepted the mistake'

But I do not think that I made any mistakes.

And you can make that argument about Peter Fury not being a good enough trainer, but you could also make an argument against that. I accept your opinion.

Champion97's picture

I know, as I said, it's possible Tyson just wanted a fresh start, I have not heard any particularly bad advice from Peter in the corner, and the Klitschko win does give him some credibility, but as I said, I don't think he's a good trainer because he has very little experience as a trainer for his age, Tyson left him after all the talk of being from a proud fighting family, and I am seeing little to no improvement from Hughie.

Guy Incognito's picture

'I don't think he's a good trainer'

I disagree, but okay.

'I am seeing little to no improvement from Hughie'

I disagree, but okay.

Champion97's picture

I think Hughie's overused movement compromises his own offence, there is little purpose behind his jab, he often doesn't find the range for the right hand, I've seen that shot fall short, and go over the opponent's head, he seems to lack confidence in the ring. Fury doesn't need to move as much as he does, and by going from moving as much as he does, to being stationary, he makes it easy for his opponent to time his attacks, he needs to be more consistent, just move off to the side as the opponent comes forward. Fury doesn't set up his offence or control range when he engages, he should throw the jab with more conviction, establish the distance, use it to set up the right hand. I think the game plan for Parker, Pulev, Povetkin was exactly the same, which is another reason I don't think Peter is a good trainer.

Guy Incognito's picture

'there is little purpose behind [Hughie Fury's] jab [...] Fury doesn't set up his offence or control range when he engages, he should throw the jab with more conviction, establish the distance, use it to set up the right hand'

Agreed. He needs to work on that more.

'I think the game plan for Parker, Pulev, Povetkin was exactly the same'

You could make that argument, because they were similar, but not identical.

'I don't think Peter is a good trainer.'

I disagree. You have backed up your opinion, though, so I accept it, but I still disagree. Thank you for being rational.

Champion97's picture

And I think he can, he just needs to make these adjustments in camp, the hard work, the dedication is there, I would be happy for him if he got a win over a Pulev or Povetkin.