Punch Stats Inside the Numbers Klitschko vs. Lewis
Charles Beauchamp
More about the fight from Saturday night to refute the Lennox fans.
In every round Klitschko threw more punches.
In rounds 1-5 Vitali landed more power punches. Round 6 Lennox landed more
power punches 10-8. (Hardly the sudden rise in power punches that Lennox
fans have been claiming).
As for jabs round 3 was even at 17 jabs landed apiece. In the other 5
rounds Vitali landed more jabs.
So...let's see, Klitschko threw more punches in every round (by far). In
rounds 1,2, 4 and 5 Vitali landed more jabs and more power punches.
There is no round that shows Lennox controlling in either punch volume or
apreciable punches landed.
The entire idea that Lennox was suddenly getting the upper hand comes from
two punches landed right before the end or round 6. Yet....it was Lennox
literally collapsing to his stool right before the Doctor ended it.
Just being real. Lennox is the champion on a bare technicality. He lost
the fight.
v/r Beau
Robert Phillips
Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> The entire idea that Lennox was suddenly getting the upper hand comes from
> two punches landed right before the end or round 6.
Have we witnessed the birth of another of Boxing's Urban Legends? the
one about how "Lewis had taken control anyway"?
Pie
Isaiah
> http://www.compuboxonline.com/stats/stats_lewisklitschko.shtml
<big snip>
Uh, you are aware that the bout was conducted under the rules
governing professional fights, right? Right?
> Just being real. Lennox is the champion on a bare technicality. He lost
> the fight.
A technical knockout, yes. He won the fight.
-Isaiah
gsk
> A technical knockout, yes. He won the fight.
Yes, he did win the fight, but he still lost every round. He also lost
respect from boxing fans except for a few moron trolls on this ng. The champ
looked more like a chump and was very fortunate to retain his belt. After
the beating he took over six rounds he won't dare give Vitali a rematch.
Lewis really should retire now while he is still on top.
Nomad
Lewis up 4-2 . Now they have another scorecard and it shows Vitali up
4-2 rounds. I saw the last 2 rounds and they were close rounds. too bad
the fight was stopped due to a cut but them is the rules.
SuperCalo
"gsk" <gr...@on.aibn.com> wrote in message
news:xygKa.3422$Fe3.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > A technical knockout, yes. He won the fight.
>
> Yes, he did win the fight, but he still lost every round.
no he didn't perhaps you have not seen the results
speedy
"Charles Beauchamp" doing his best impression of Nicholas D spewed
forth......
> More about the fight from Saturday night to refute the Lennox fans.
>
> In every round Klitschko threw more punches.
Correct. Is anyone seriously disputing this ?
On this criteria we can expect Troy Dorsey to be inducted any year now.
> In rounds 1-5 Vitali landed more power punches. Round 6 Lennox landed
more
> power punches 10-8. (Hardly the sudden rise in power punches that Lennox
> fans have been claiming).
A rise none the less.
You seem to be suggesting that a greater number of punches is the only way
to win a fight.
It seems obvious that Lewis caused greater damage by landing fewer punches.
It is possible to conclude that Lewis' power punches carried more weight.
> As for jabs round 3 was even at 17 jabs landed apiece. In the other 5
> rounds Vitali landed more jabs.
Not all jabs are created equal.
Vitali jabbed fairly well, they certainly had an effect on Lewis. However,
Lewis' jab had an effect each time it landed. Sure Vitali was outlanding
Lewis but it seems to me that Vitali was also feeling it in there.
> So...let's see, Klitschko threw more punches in every round (by far). In
> rounds 1,2, 4 and 5 Vitali landed more jabs and more power punches.
> There is no round that shows Lennox controlling in either punch volume or
> apreciable punches landed.
Can't argue with the stats.
> The entire idea that Lennox was suddenly getting the upper hand comes from
> two punches landed right before the end or round 6. Yet....it was Lennox
> literally collapsing to his stool right before the Doctor ended it.
>
> Just being real. Lennox is the champion on a bare technicality. He lost
> the fight.
>
> v/r Beau
It surprises me that a post like this comes from you Beau.
You seem almost as biased as Nich D. I don't totally disagree with you but
you seem to have taken it so personally when I just know that you have seen
many far more blatant robberies. Why has this one got to you so much ?
For the record I had the fight 4-2 Klitschko.
I thought that Vitali could have taken Lewis out in the second but blew the
chance.
The 2 rounds I scored for Lewis were close and I would have no argument with
anyone who scored them for Klit.
The 4 rounds I scored for Klit were clear cut.
I am surprised at all the posts in here making out that Vitali beat the
living daylights out of Lennox Lewis for 6 rounds but just happened to have
a minor cut and then get stopped by a dodgy doctor.
What I saw was 2 fighters, one in very poor condition, both displaying very
poor boxing skills. Klitschko landing more punches but not being able to
take out the "weak-chinned" Lewis. Lewis landing fewer punches but clearly
doing greater damage.
Prior to the unfortunate stoppage Klitschko was *marginally* less exhausted
than Lewis. Lewis was gaining *some* momentum and I think the most likely
victor would have been the champ had the fight continued. One of the Lewis
uppercuts was easily the most productive punch of the fight and Klitschko
took it well but was discouraged by it. The cut was absolutely hideous and I
can't see how anyone in here can dismiss it lightly.
That is about it in a nutshell.
I admire Vitali for his performance and determination to continue and I
think he was winning the fight at the time of the stoppage. But the large
majority of posts in here are rabidly biased towards one fighter or the
other and that is just ridiculous. Had the fight continued either fighter
could have still won via KO in the next round.
speedy
ps. Lewis was a complete dick in the post-fight interview.
incipent
> speedy
>
> ps. Lewis was a complete dick in the post-fight interview.
Remember you ARE what you EAT!
Charles Beauchamp
"Robert Phillips" <rp...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3EF97D3...@cfl.rr.com...
It would appear so. The fact is that Lewis really did not win any of the
rounds.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
"Isaiah" <isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dae06db6.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "Charles Beauchamp" <cebea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<fL6cnQgaI64...@comcast.com>...
> > http://www.compuboxonline.com/stats/stats_lewisklitschko.shtml
>
>
> <big snip>
>
>
> Uh, you are aware that the bout was conducted under the rules
> governing professional fights, right? Right?
>
>
Um, yes I am Isaiah. Nice of you to miss the entire point of the article I
wrote though.
> > Just being real. Lennox is the champion on a bare technicality. He
lost
> > the fight.
>
>
> A technical knockout, yes. He won the fight.
>
>
He lost the fight. He won the match. It is not the same thing. Perception
in this most subjective of all sports is more important then in any other.
Much as Bowe did not gain any credibility by winning twice against Golota,
Lewis did not gain any credibility with his "victory" over Klitschko since
he did not actually stop Klitschko. The doctor did.
Final point being, that there is no creditable challenger for Lennox Lewis
until he steps into the ring with Vitali Klitschko for a rematch. Not Byrd.
Not Jones. Any other opponent will be perceived as Lewis ducking the real
threat.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
He is not on top but that is a different matter. What should be obvious is
that Lennox is in fact overrated. If the best argument his staunchest
supporters can come up with is that he did not take Klitschko seriously then
F*** him. He is the Heavyweight Champion of the flipping Planet. It is not
unreasonable to ask his majesty to get his ass in shape once a year to
fight.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
"SuperCalo" <ca...@supercalo.com> wrote in message
news:bdd3du$56t$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> "gsk" <gr...@on.aibn.com> wrote in message
> news:xygKa.3422$Fe3.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > > A technical knockout, yes. He won the fight.
> >
> > Yes, he did win the fight, but he still lost every round.
>
> no he didn't perhaps you have not seen the results
>
He did in fact get outfought in every round. That is an indisputable fact
according to the punch stats.
v/r Beau
Blade Of Sorrow
I agree, and I have to suspect that most posters here wanted to put it so well,
but emotions ran amok. I, for one, thought that Lewis looked bad, but if anyone
paid attention to my earlier posts, though I thought Lewis would win in about
the 5 round I did mention his age might be catching up to him. Seems I was
right on both counts.
While I felt that Vitali was winning the fight by a good margin, despite
getting the better of Lewis, opening alot of eyes and earning the respect of
many, I still think he was a bit sloppy in his performance. He could have taken
Lewis out in the second round, but if you noticed, for a big puncher he didn't
seem to hurt Lewis much after that.
He did hurt Lewis, but did not manage to knock him down much less knock him
out. Does that mean that Rahman hits harder? It's difficult to tell whether he
eased up for the long haul, or just doesn't generate *that* much power. Though
Lewis was getting spanked, he was not the usual retreads of limited scared
opponents so that could put Vitali's punching power in proper perspective.
Maybe I am wrong, it's hard to tell yet. One thing I do know. He has failed to
knock out both fighters that were ranked. We will see in time.
Dennis
> It seems obvious that Lewis caused greater damage by landing fewer punches.
> It is possible to conclude that Lewis' power punches carried more weight.
>
>
>
But Lewis is the one that was wobbling and his legs were gone. 2 more
rounds at best and Lewis was a KO victim.
Charles Beauchamp
"speedy" <rich.nix@no spamntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1TqKa.815$MO2...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
>
> "Charles Beauchamp" doing his best impression of Nicholas D spewed
> forth......
>
> > More about the fight from Saturday night to refute the Lennox fans.
> >
> > In every round Klitschko threw more punches.
>
> Correct. Is anyone seriously disputing this ?
> On this criteria we can expect Troy Dorsey to be inducted any year now.
>
Nice way to parse a statement and to throw an irrelevant non-comparison into
the thesis. It fails though because it does not evaluate the totality of
the statement.
BTW, in fact yes many Lennox fans seem to be disputing this with the
revisionist "Lennox was gaining the momentum" argument regarding round 6
(Klitschko held a 60-33 punch advantage in that round!)
>
> > In rounds 1-5 Vitali landed more power punches. Round 6 Lennox landed
> more
> > power punches 10-8. (Hardly the sudden rise in power punches that
Lennox
> > fans have been claiming).
>
>
> A rise none the less.
> You seem to be suggesting that a greater number of punches is the only way
> to win a fight.
> It seems obvious that Lewis caused greater damage by landing fewer
punches.
> It is possible to conclude that Lewis' power punches carried more weight.
>
It seems obvious? Strange, that does not seem to be the general opinion.
There is nothing to actually support this idea that Lennox did more damage.
He did superficial cut damage. He looked beaten himself and took horrible
damage that was both visible and obvious as his own punch numbers suggest.
>
>
> > As for jabs round 3 was even at 17 jabs landed apiece. In the other 5
> > rounds Vitali landed more jabs.
>
>
> Not all jabs are created equal.
> Vitali jabbed fairly well, they certainly had an effect on Lewis. However,
> Lewis' jab had an effect each time it landed. Sure Vitali was outlanding
> Lewis but it seems to me that Vitali was also feeling it in there.
>
Again purely subjective on your part. There is nothing that can be seen
from the actual fight to suggest that any of Lewis' few jabs were
particularly damaging. Virtually the entire fight it was Klitschko steadily
moving forward yet throwing the greater number of jabs and landing them in
greater volume.
>
> > So...let's see, Klitschko threw more punches in every round (by far).
In
> > rounds 1,2, 4 and 5 Vitali landed more jabs and more power punches.
> > There is no round that shows Lennox controlling in either punch volume
or
> > apreciable punches landed.
>
>
> Can't argue with the stats.
>
Only thing I am pointing out.
>
> > The entire idea that Lennox was suddenly getting the upper hand comes
from
> > two punches landed right before the end or round 6. Yet....it was
Lennox
> > literally collapsing to his stool right before the Doctor ended it.
>
> >
> > Just being real. Lennox is the champion on a bare technicality. He
lost
> > the fight.
> >
> > v/r Beau
>
>
> It surprises me that a post like this comes from you Beau.
> You seem almost as biased as Nich D. I don't totally disagree with you
but
> you seem to have taken it so personally when I just know that you have
seen
> many far more blatant robberies. Why has this one got to you so much ?
>
I find it strange that simply stating the numbers can be taken as showing a
bias. On fight night I scored it 58-56 for Klitschko, but it is obvious now
that Lennox actually lost every round. There simply is no reason to score
any of the rounds in this fight for Lewis in retrospect.
I do not want to see this fight misrepresented in the short term in a
fashion that allows the champion to simply rush off now to defend against
Jones or to take on Byrd. The single most deserving contender in the world
until shown otherwise is Vitali Klitschko.
> For the record I had the fight 4-2 Klitschko.
> I thought that Vitali could have taken Lewis out in the second but blew
the
> chance.
It didn't seem like it at the time, but having watched the replay last night
it is clear that his best moment was right there. He missed the opportunity
of a lifetime right there.
> The 2 rounds I scored for Lewis were close and I would have no argument
with
> anyone who scored them for Klit.
> The 4 rounds I scored for Klit were clear cut.
>
Statistically all of the rounds were clearly Klitschko's. I scored rounds 5
and 6 for Lennox but it is clear that this was incorrect.
> I am surprised at all the posts in here making out that Vitali beat the
> living daylights out of Lennox Lewis for 6 rounds but just happened to
have
> a minor cut and then get stopped by a dodgy doctor.
> What I saw was 2 fighters, one in very poor condition, both displaying
very
> poor boxing skills. Klitschko landing more punches but not being able to
> take out the "weak-chinned" Lewis. Lewis landing fewer punches but clearly
> doing greater damage.
I saw two fighters putting on one of the better action HW Title fights we
might ever see. It was exciting given what was on the line. I do not see
Lennox doing the greater damage. In fact I find this commentary baffling.
There were numerous moments in which Lennox got stunned. In round 6 Lennox
got tagged early on in the round and was continually holding and grabbing
(which is simply a great demonstration of his vast experience).
I do also think that this fight should put to rest any of the talk that
either fighter has a weak chin.
A grazing right hand that did not land solidly caused the most damage in the
fight as it opened a cut over the left eye. A strawberry on the left cheek
was irrelevant and likely caused initially by one of the many clashes of
heads in the fight.
I saw no single moment in which Klitschko looked like he was about to go
down.
> Prior to the unfortunate stoppage Klitschko was *marginally* less
exhausted
> than Lewis. Lewis was gaining *some* momentum and I think the most likely
> victor would have been the champ had the fight continued. One of the Lewis
> uppercuts was easily the most productive punch of the fight and Klitschko
> took it well but was discouraged by it. The cut was absolutely hideous and
I
> can't see how anyone in here can dismiss it lightly.
>
Lennox was in fact not gaining momentum. He only threw 33 punches in round
6. He threw many more in round 5. Klitschko threw 60 in round 6 which was
his lowest output and still landed more shots then Lennox did.
Further this continuing comment that Klitschko was discouraged by it. How
the heck can you say that? The punches landed. The bell ended the round.
Klitschko went to his corner. The HBO broadcast did not show him going to
his corner. It did show Lennox collapsing on his stool. The next shot we
had of Klitschko came after the doctor made his call to stop the fight since
what we actually were seeing was an add for an upcoming HBO television
program.
> That is about it in a nutshell.
> I admire Vitali for his performance and determination to continue and I
> think he was winning the fight at the time of the stoppage. But the large
> majority of posts in here are rabidly biased towards one fighter or the
> other and that is just ridiculous. Had the fight continued either fighter
> could have still won via KO in the next round.
>
> speedy
>
> ps. Lewis was a complete dick in the post-fight interview.
>
>
Frankly I was pretty disappointed with Lennox after the fight. One of the
most rediculous interview performances I have ever seen.
Pastor Marc
much as I wanted to see an interesting, competitive fight go on, I can
understand why they stopped it. Lewis by TKO.
Calvin7s
If the fight were allowed to continue 1-2 more rounds, the odds of Lewis
being KO'd were much higher than Vitali being KO'd.
That wraps it all up in a nutshell. If we can't all agree on that, then we
will never be able to find some common ground because I think any logical
person would draw this conclusion.
PS - And put the Lewis uppercut (we all know the one because it was a good
one) in perspective. If you throw haymakers all night long, the odds of one
landing are high. Ask Tyson. I think the uppercut was a great punch, but
possibly visually misleading because Klitschko clinched but actually let up
on the clinch very quickly and seemed immediately composed. So either it
looked worse than it was or Vitali has a granite chin. I may go with the
latter because the uppercut did look like it would have put 99% of the
heavyweights out for a count of 40.
PPS - Just to throw out an olive branch; even though I have never dismissed
Lewis' chin as glass (even on RSB after the Rahman 1 fight I was arguing
against that perception), Lewis' chin fared much better than I thought it
ever could have. If Vitali goes on to brutally KO a well-respected chin, it
will only help Lewis escape the 1 punch and he's out stigma in a historical
perspective.
Mike Haught
bit if someone wanted to give Lewis three rounds.
But, Lewis looked like he'd shot his bolt after the 6th. Klitschko looked fresh
by comparison. Lewis didn't look to be capable of standing much longer and
attempting to throw punches. Let alone absorb any more.
-mwh
NICHOLAS D.
news:sUxKa.2754$BM.16...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> PPS - Just to throw out an olive branch; even though I have never
dismissed
> Lewis' chin as glass (even on RSB after the Rahman 1 fight I was arguing
> against that perception), Lewis' chin fared much better than I thought it
> ever could have. If Vitali goes on to brutally KO a well-respected chin,
it
> will only help Lewis escape the 1 punch and he's out stigma in a
historical
> perspective.
I missed the Vitali Byrd fight. How would you compare Vitali Byrd to Vitali
Lewis? In other words who has a better chin Byrd or Lewis?
-Nick
Calvin7s
always impressed me. However, I think that Byrd's ability to take a punch
has more to do with his extreme awareness in the ring. He doesn't get
caught with a punch he doesn't see coming. In that regard, then perhaps it
is not that far fetched to say the HW that has the highest chance of KOing
Byrd is Roy Jones.
Isaiah
> "Isaiah" <isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dae06db6.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > "Charles Beauchamp" <cebea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<fL6cnQgaI64...@comcast.com>...
> > > http://www.compuboxonline.com/stats/stats_lewisklitschko.shtml
> >
> >
> > <big snip>
> >
> >
> > Uh, you are aware that the bout was conducted under the rules
> > governing professional fights, right? Right?
> >
> >
>
> Um, yes I am Isaiah. Nice of you to miss the entire point of the article I
> wrote though.
Really? In another post you claim that the punch stats provide
indisputable proof that Klitschko won every round.
> > > Just being real. Lennox is the champion on a bare technicality. He
> lost
> > > the fight.
> >
> >
> > A technical knockout, yes. He won the fight.
> >
> >
>
> He lost the fight. He won the match. It is not the same thing.
We're not talking about a bad decision here. Klitschko was *stopped*.
I'm not apologizing for Lennox. Frankly, I think both fighters looked
like shit. If Lewis can't stop Klitschko in the first two rounds in
the rematch, he should retire. But. But, there is no legitimate
controversy over the fight. Klitschko had the type of injury that,
under consistent application of the rules, calls for a stoppage.
Perception
> in this most subjective of all sports is more important then in any other.
> Much as Bowe did not gain any credibility by winning twice against Golota,
Hardly the same thing, as Golota punted the win away by himself.
> Lewis did not gain any credibility with his "victory" over Klitschko since
> he did not actually stop Klitschko. The doctor did.
This is an argument that no unbiased fan would make. Most of the time
when there's a stoppage it's the ref's or doctor's discretion.
> Final point being, that there is no creditable challenger for Lennox Lewis
> until he steps into the ring with Vitali Klitschko for a rematch. Not Byrd.
> Not Jones. Any other opponent will be perceived as Lewis ducking the real
> threat.
I think Jones is credible against the Lewis we saw last week.
Obviously, Klitschko deserves another chance.
-Isaiah
Isaiah
> "speedy" <rich.nix@no spamntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:1TqKa.815$MO2...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Charles Beauchamp" doing his best impression of Nicholas D spewed
> > forth......
Good one, Speedy.
<snip>
> BTW, in fact yes many Lennox fans seem to be disputing this with the
> revisionist "Lennox was gaining the momentum" argument regarding round 6
> (Klitschko held a 60-33 punch advantage in that round!)
Whatever. Let me punch a hole in the stretched-out tissue paper that
passes for the bedrock of your argument: The fifth round was obviously
Lewis' best to that point and the sixth was better than the fifth.
Does anyone dispute that? Even if you're unable to score the rounds
objectively, you must admit that the momentum was shifting on that
basis alone.
> > > In rounds 1-5 Vitali landed more power punches. Round 6 Lennox landed
> more
> > > power punches 10-8. (Hardly the sudden rise in power punches that
> Lennox
> > > fans have been claiming).
> >
> >
> > A rise none the less.
Righto.
> > You seem to be suggesting that a greater number of punches is the only way
> > to win a fight.
> > It seems obvious that Lewis caused greater damage by landing fewer
> punches.
> > It is possible to conclude that Lewis' power punches carried more weight.
> >
>
> It seems obvious?
Only to those not blinded by bias. I guess Speedy should have added
that.
> Strange, that does not seem to be the general opinion.
> There is nothing to actually support this idea that Lennox did more damage.
What is there to support the opposite conclusion? The only evidence
possible to support these observations is the visual record, the
interpretation of which is the subjection of this dispute.
> He did superficial cut damage. He looked beaten himself and took horrible
> damage that was both visible and obvious as his own punch numbers suggest.
How do punch numbers suggest anything about damage?
> > > As for jabs round 3 was even at 17 jabs landed apiece. In the other 5
> > > rounds Vitali landed more jabs.
> >
> >
> > Not all jabs are created equal.
> > Vitali jabbed fairly well, they certainly had an effect on Lewis. However,
> > Lewis' jab had an effect each time it landed. Sure Vitali was outlanding
> > Lewis but it seems to me that Vitali was also feeling it in there.
> >
>
> Again purely subjective on your part.
So is your position. That's not an argument.
<snip>
> > > The entire idea that Lennox was suddenly getting the upper hand comes
> from
> > > two punches landed right before the end or round 6. Yet....it was
> Lennox
> > > literally collapsing to his stool right before the Doctor ended it.
>
> > >
> > > Just being real. Lennox is the champion on a bare technicality. He
> lost
> > > the fight.
> > >
> > > v/r Beau
> >
> >
> > It surprises me that a post like this comes from you Beau.
> > You seem almost as biased as Nich D. I don't totally disagree with you
> but
> > you seem to have taken it so personally when I just know that you have
> seen
> > many far more blatant robberies. Why has this one got to you so much ?
> >
>
> I find it strange that simply stating the numbers can be taken as showing a
> bias.
Please tell me this thickness is being faked for rhetorical effect.
He's obviously speaking of your comments that accompany the numbers.
> > The 2 rounds I scored for Lewis were close and I would have no argument
> with
> > anyone who scored them for Klit.
> > The 4 rounds I scored for Klit were clear cut.
> >
>
> Statistically all of the rounds were clearly Klitschko's. I scored rounds 5
> and 6 for Lennox but it is clear that this was incorrect.
Newsflash: Professional fights are not scored by statistics.
> > I am surprised at all the posts in here making out that Vitali beat the
> > living daylights out of Lennox Lewis for 6 rounds but just happened to
> have
> > a minor cut and then get stopped by a dodgy doctor.
> > What I saw was 2 fighters, one in very poor condition, both displaying
> very
> > poor boxing skills. Klitschko landing more punches but not being able to
> > take out the "weak-chinned" Lewis. Lewis landing fewer punches but clearly
> > doing greater damage.
Exactly.
> I saw two fighters putting on one of the better action HW Title fights we
> might ever see.
Let's hope not.
<snip>
> > That is about it in a nutshell.
> > I admire Vitali for his performance and determination to continue and I
> > think he was winning the fight at the time of the stoppage. But the large
> > majority of posts in here are rabidly biased towards one fighter or the
> > other and that is just ridiculous. Had the fight continued either fighter
> > could have still won via KO in the next round.
> >
> > speedy
> >
> > ps. Lewis was a complete dick in the post-fight interview.
> >
> >
>
> Frankly I was pretty disappointed with Lennox after the fight. One of the
> most rediculous interview performances I have ever seen.
You make this same mistake a lot so, as a favor, I'll correct you:
r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s.
-Isaiah
Isaiah
> What is there to support the opposite conclusion? The only evidence
> possible to support these observations is the visual record, the
> interpretation of which is the subjection of this dispute.
Subject.
-Isaiah
Isaiah
No one is saying he "had taken control." He did win the two rounds
immediately prior to the stoppage after clearly losing the first four.
You don't deny the significance of that, do you? I think any unbiased
fan would agree that there's more significance to that than to the way
he sat down at the end of the round. Since when does that mean
anything?
-Isaiah
Charles Beauchamp
"Isaiah" <isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dae06db6.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "Charles Beauchamp" <cebea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<JA-dncbPqrm...@comcast.com>...
> > "Isaiah" <isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:dae06db6.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Charles Beauchamp" <cebea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:<fL6cnQgaI64...@comcast.com>...
> > > > http://www.compuboxonline.com/stats/stats_lewisklitschko.shtml
> > >
> > >
> > > <big snip>
> > >
> > >
> > > Uh, you are aware that the bout was conducted under the rules
> > > governing professional fights, right? Right?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Um, yes I am Isaiah. Nice of you to miss the entire point of the
article I
> > wrote though.
>
>
> Really? In another post you claim that the punch stats provide
> indisputable proof that Klitschko won every round.
>
Yes and I defended the claim with the actual numbers. Your simplistic
response above does not refute what I was stating. Simply put the punch
stats show that Klitschko should have won each round. Many people (myself
included on fight night) gave Lennox rounds 5 and 6. Turns out...we were
wrong.
>
> > > > Just being real. Lennox is the champion on a bare technicality. He
> > lost
> > > > the fight.
> > >
> > >
> > > A technical knockout, yes. He won the fight.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > He lost the fight. He won the match. It is not the same thing.
>
>
> We're not talking about a bad decision here. Klitschko was *stopped*.
> I'm not apologizing for Lennox. Frankly, I think both fighters looked
> like shit. If Lewis can't stop Klitschko in the first two rounds in
> the rematch, he should retire. But. But, there is no legitimate
> controversy over the fight. Klitschko had the type of injury that,
> under consistent application of the rules, calls for a stoppage.
>
I am not arguing that so I think you can drop that point since it is not
what I am stating. I am talking about spin though. Lennox did nothing to
win the fight outside of grazing the inseem of his right glove along an
eyelid in round 3. Otherwise his ass got kicked.
>
> Perception
> > in this most subjective of all sports is more important then in any
other.
> > Much as Bowe did not gain any credibility by winning twice against
Golota,
>
>
> Hardly the same thing, as Golota punted the win away by himself.
>
Precisely the same thing. The guy that technically did not win the fight
will be the one to gain credibility (well outside of those delusional Lennox
fans that are at least on this newsgroup attempting to characterize the
fight in a way that is completely untrue).
The guy that did the kicking of ass lost the fight. Same thing. Well
almost...except for the other fact that get's lost in the Golota-Bowe stuff.
That being that Bowe was laying some pretty good leather on Golota as well.
Both guys got dropped.
Lennox was definitely not getting any upper hand on Klitschko.
>
> > Lewis did not gain any credibility with his "victory" over Klitschko
since
> > he did not actually stop Klitschko. The doctor did.
>
>
> This is an argument that no unbiased fan would make. Most of the time
> when there's a stoppage it's the ref's or doctor's discretion.
>
I am simply stating the facts and concluding based on them. Only a biased
Lennox fan or someone who did not actually see the fight would disagree with
what I am stating.
Secondly, I'm not a Klischko fan! I never was before the fight. I think
there is obvious evidence even on this newsgroup to that effect. I have
been a staunch Lennox defender. I am just realistic about it.
Lennox did nothing to win the fight outside of grazing the left eyelid of
Klitschko. That is the truth. That is exactlly how the cut opened.
Generally when someone sees that an opponent stopped someone on cuts, the
impression is that fighter A was taking control of the fight and doing the
damage. That is not what happened. Fact.
>
> > Final point being, that there is no creditable challenger for Lennox
Lewis
> > until he steps into the ring with Vitali Klitschko for a rematch. Not
Byrd.
> > Not Jones. Any other opponent will be perceived as Lewis ducking the
real
> > threat.
>
>
> I think Jones is credible against the Lewis we saw last week.
> Obviously, Klitschko deserves another chance.
>
>
I also conclude that the Lennox we saw last week is no one's fault but
Lennox and that entering the ring in such poor shape against a guy that was
generally regarded inside the sport as a legitimate contender (as opposed to
Kirk Johnson who had no real right to be challenging for the title anyways)
is a heavy knock on that legacy that Lennox seems to crave.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
"Calvin7s" <calv...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:sUxKa.2754$BM.16...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
Agreement here. I do not believe that Lennox has a glass chin. I do
believe that he has only average or mediocre recuperative power but he has
obviously learned how to clinch quite well. Still, against almost any of
the all time great HWs in prime shape Lennox would always have been at huge
punchers chance risk. Despite what Big George says about himself...I have a
hard time picturing any version of Lennox Lewis surviving the first 4 rounds
with a 1973 George Foreman.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
"NICHOLAS D." <ND...@OPTONLINEBULLSHIT.NET> wrote in message
news:dmEKa.22$2D1....@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Vitali won the first 8 rounds against Byrd maybe even more lopsidedly.
BUT...I don't recall Byrd looking like he was about to go out at anytime. I
would though think that Lennox could if in shape overwhelm Byrd easily.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
news:<nYScnWKjRv4...@comcast.com>...
> > "speedy" <rich.nix@no spamntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:1TqKa.815$MO2...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> > >
> > > "Charles Beauchamp" doing his best impression of Nicholas D spewed
> > > forth......
>
>
> Good one, Speedy.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > BTW, in fact yes many Lennox fans seem to be disputing this with the
> > revisionist "Lennox was gaining the momentum" argument regarding round 6
> > (Klitschko held a 60-33 punch advantage in that round!)
>
>
> Whatever. Let me punch a hole in the stretched-out tissue paper that
> passes for the bedrock of your argument: The fifth round was obviously
> Lewis' best to that point and the sixth was better than the fifth.
> Does anyone dispute that? Even if you're unable to score the rounds
> objectively, you must admit that the momentum was shifting on that
> basis alone.
>
Again this is not the case. Lennox threw 43 punches in that round...and
still was outpunched dramatically by Klitschko. In round 5 (and yes...on
fight night I scored the round for Lennox...though obviously in retrospect
should not have) Klitscho landed more jabs and more power punches in that
round.
And for the momentum to be changing that increased punch rate by Lennox
would have had to have a following result...there was none...and then his
punch output dropped in round 6. So...no actually the momentum was not
shifting at all. It was pretty much going as in the previous rounds.
Lennox throwing fewer then Vitali and landing fewer.
>
> > > > In rounds 1-5 Vitali landed more power punches. Round 6 Lennox
landed
> > more
> > > > power punches 10-8. (Hardly the sudden rise in power punches that
> > Lennox
> > > > fans have been claiming).
> > >
> > >
> > > A rise none the less.
>
>
> Righto.
>
>
> > > You seem to be suggesting that a greater number of punches is the only
way
> > > to win a fight.
> > > It seems obvious that Lewis caused greater damage by landing fewer
> > punches.
> > > It is possible to conclude that Lewis' power punches carried more
weight.
> > >
> >
> > It seems obvious?
>
>
> Only to those not blinded by bias. I guess Speedy should have added
> that.
>
Well only those that are blinded by pro-Lennox bias seem to be making this
rediculous argument of yours. Devoid of actual facts (mind you all I did in
this subject was post the numbers and base a conclusion on the numbers) you
are making an argument that is subjective in the extreme.
Since I have not got a pro or anti bias regarding either fighter (though by
the time the fight got going I found myself excitedly rooting for Klitschko
in much the way it is always fun to root for an underdog) I am responding
more to the strange spin being put on by a few pro-Lewis fans in this
newsgroup.
You on the other hand are simply disregarding the actual numbers I am
speaking of and making a conclusion that is not supported by anything other
then your subjective decisions masquerading in your posts as facts.
>
> > Strange, that does not seem to be the general opinion.
> > There is nothing to actually support this idea that Lennox did more
damage.
>
>
> What is there to support the opposite conclusion? The only evidence
> possible to support these observations is the visual record, the
> interpretation of which is the subjection of this dispute.
>
Ahem...that is what I am stating Isaiah. Get it now? The only thing that
supports the Lennox fanatics is...well...something absolutely subjective
that the facts do not support. The visual record of what I have seen of the
fight is supported by the numbers that I looked at after the fight.
This idea of Lennox gaining momentum in a fight in which he actually was
outfought in every single round has all the look of mythology to me.
>
> > He did superficial cut damage. He looked beaten himself and took
horrible
> > damage that was both visible and obvious as his own punch numbers
suggest.
>
>
> How do punch numbers suggest anything about damage?
>
Simple Isaiah (and frankly...what the F*** else are you going to use?). He
threw 33 punches in round 6. That is a tired fighter. The fact that he
dropped on his stool and looked like he was gassed completely out at the end
of the round....is easily a matter of recorded fact by...anyone who recorded
the fight on their VCR.
What is not supportable by either punch stats or the visual record of the
fighters at the end of the round is that Klitschko was taking more damage.
How could he be taking more damage then Lennox...when Lennos was throwing
fewer punches...and landing fewer punches?
You are simply guilty of not allowing the objective facts to reshape what
you originally concluded.
On fight night I had that perception that Lennox was winning rounds 5 and 6.
This turns out to be more the result of Lennox throwing a few more punches
then in prior rounds...then for anything he really was accomplishing.
No fighter who is outpunched by 27 punches...and outlanded can be winning a
round. It is that simple.
>
> > > > As for jabs round 3 was even at 17 jabs landed apiece. In the other
5
> > > > rounds Vitali landed more jabs.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not all jabs are created equal.
> > > Vitali jabbed fairly well, they certainly had an effect on Lewis.
However,
> > > Lewis' jab had an effect each time it landed. Sure Vitali was
outlanding
> > > Lewis but it seems to me that Vitali was also feeling it in there.
> > >
> >
> > Again purely subjective on your part.
>
>
> So is your position. That's not an argument.
>
Nope. My opininion is simply an unbiased re-evaluation of what I thought on
fight night. Nothing could be less biased or less subjective then to
re-evaluate what one thinks based on later acquired information. That is
called learning Isaiah.
I am stating facts. More punches by Klitscko. You are stating subjective
opinion that Lennox was gaining momentum...but with no real reason to be
thinking such was the case.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > > > The entire idea that Lennox was suddenly getting the upper hand
comes
> > from
> > > > two punches landed right before the end or round 6. Yet....it was
> > Lennox
> > > > literally collapsing to his stool right before the Doctor ended it.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Just being real. Lennox is the champion on a bare technicality. He
> > lost
> > > > the fight.
> > > >
> > > > v/r Beau
> > >
> > >
> > > It surprises me that a post like this comes from you Beau.
> > > You seem almost as biased as Nich D. I don't totally disagree with
you
> > but
> > > you seem to have taken it so personally when I just know that you have
> > seen
> > > many far more blatant robberies. Why has this one got to you so much ?
> > >
> >
> > I find it strange that simply stating the numbers can be taken as
showing a
> > bias.
>
>
> Please tell me this thickness is being faked for rhetorical effect.
> He's obviously speaking of your comments that accompany the numbers.
>
Isaiah...my numbers speak for themselves. Exactly what else should I say?
Your argument seems to be...the numbers don't matter....your purely
subjective reasoning does...the fact that you have no actual reason to
conclude what you are makes you purely biased.
I have no bias. I am a long time Klitscko basher. I picked Lennox to win
the fight inside 5 rounds on the VANPRED pool. I have a long record even on
this newsgroup of defending Lennox as the greatest HW Champion since the
heyday of Larry Holmes.
I have simply stated the numbers and announced that my scoring on fight
night was wrong. In light of watching the replay this week Lennox lost all
6 rounds and the fight was not shifting momentum wise.
You simply are calling what are quantifiable facts irrelevant and accepting
your biased visual perception of the bout as factual.
>
> > > The 2 rounds I scored for Lewis were close and I would have no
argument
> > with
> > > anyone who scored them for Klit.
> > > The 4 rounds I scored for Klit were clear cut.
> > >
> >
> > Statistically all of the rounds were clearly Klitschko's. I scored
rounds 5
> > and 6 for Lennox but it is clear that this was incorrect.
>
>
> Newsflash: Professional fights are not scored by statistics.
>
Strawman.
Newsflash for you...it is a good idea after the fight to examine what
happened outside the limitations of personal bias and original perception.
Apparently I can do that but you are not. Try it. Then get back to me on
what you conclude honestly.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
Hey I like the word subjection. Kind of like that Michael Moore Fictition
thing a while back.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
"Mike Haught" <mwha...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:19DKa.3710$cJ5...@www.newsranger.com...
I know all about the preceptions...but the numbers say different. Klitschko
won every round of the fight.
I also think both fighters were tired, but Lennox literally flopped onto his
stool at the end of round 6 and didn't look like he had anything left.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
Except that he did not actually land more punches or throw more punches then
Klitscko in either of those two rounds...but hey...that shouldn't matter.
v/r Beau
Isaiah
It shouldn't. They landed about the same amount and Lennox was landing harder.
-Isaiah
Isaiah
> > > > Uh, you are aware that the bout was conducted under the rules
> > > > governing professional fights, right? Right?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Um, yes I am Isaiah. Nice of you to miss the entire point of the
> article I
> > > wrote though.
> >
> >
> > Really? In another post you claim that the punch stats provide
> > indisputable proof that Klitschko won every round.
> >
>
> Yes and I defended the claim with the actual numbers.
And there you go again. The guy that lands more punches doesn't
necessarily win the round in the pros. Shhh.
<snip>
> > > > A technical knockout, yes. He won the fight.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > He lost the fight. He won the match. It is not the same thing.
> >
> >
> > We're not talking about a bad decision here. Klitschko was *stopped*.
> > I'm not apologizing for Lennox. Frankly, I think both fighters looked
> > like shit. If Lewis can't stop Klitschko in the first two rounds in
> > the rematch, he should retire. But. But, there is no legitimate
> > controversy over the fight. Klitschko had the type of injury that,
> > under consistent application of the rules, calls for a stoppage.
> >
>
> I am not arguing that so I think you can drop that point since it is not
> what I am stating. I am talking about spin though. Lennox did nothing to
> win the fight outside of grazing the inseem of his right glove along an
> eyelid in round 3. Otherwise his ass got kicked.
Well, the fight was stopped prematurely. What we do know is that
Lennox won the last two rounds before the doctor decided that
Klitschko was in no condition to continue.
<snip>
> The guy that did the kicking of ass lost the fight. Same thing. Well
> almost...except for the other fact that get's lost in the Golota-Bowe stuff.
> That being that Bowe was laying some pretty good leather on Golota as well.
> Both guys got dropped.
Golota was doling out a much worse beating than Klitschko was. It's
not even close.
> > > Lewis did not gain any credibility with his "victory" over Klitschko
> since
> > > he did not actually stop Klitschko. The doctor did.
> >
> >
> > This is an argument that no unbiased fan would make. Most of the time
> > when there's a stoppage it's the ref's or doctor's discretion.
> >
>
> I am simply stating the facts and concluding based on them.
And I'm simply responding wit more facts in order to give a clearer
picture of the events in question.
<snip>
> Secondly, I'm not a Klischko fan! I never was before the fight. I think
> there is obvious evidence even on this newsgroup to that effect. I have
> been a staunch Lennox defender. I am just realistic about it.
I never said you were a Klitschko fan. You normally underrate Lewis a
little, but for some reason you've just jumped off the deep end when
it comes to this fight.
<snip>
> > > Final point being, that there is no creditable challenger for Lennox
> Lewis
> > > until he steps into the ring with Vitali Klitschko for a rematch. Not
> Byrd.
> > > Not Jones. Any other opponent will be perceived as Lewis ducking the
> real
> > > threat.
> >
> >
> > I think Jones is credible against the Lewis we saw last week.
> > Obviously, Klitschko deserves another chance.
> >
> >
>
> I also conclude that the Lennox we saw last week is no one's fault but
> Lennox and that entering the ring in such poor shape against a guy that was
> generally regarded inside the sport as a legitimate contender (as opposed to
> Kirk Johnson who had no real right to be challenging for the title anyways)
> is a heavy knock on that legacy that Lennox seems to crave.
Why don't we compare Lewis to other champions at similar ages? Ali
didn't keep himself in great shape in his late '30s. How old was Louis
when he got the gift decision over Walcott?
-Isaiah
Isaiah
<snip>
> > Whatever. Let me punch a hole in the stretched-out tissue paper that
> > passes for the bedrock of your argument: The fifth round was obviously
> > Lewis' best to that point and the sixth was better than the fifth.
> > Does anyone dispute that? Even if you're unable to score the rounds
> > objectively, you must admit that the momentum was shifting on that
> > basis alone.
> >
>
> Again this is not the case. Lennox threw 43 punches in that round...and
> still was outpunched dramatically by Klitschko. In round 5 (and yes...on
> fight night I scored the round for Lennox...though obviously in retrospect
> should not have) Klitscho landed more jabs and more power punches in that
> round.
Out thrown by a lot, but not outlanded by much. Lewis, again, was
landing the harder shots. The best punch of the fight was a Lewis
uppercut in the sixth.
> And for the momentum to be changing that increased punch rate by Lennox
> would have had to have a following result.
Nope. Lewis would have to be taking a greater amount of control under
professional scoring rules. Which, in fact, he was. As everyone but
you admits and as you admitted after the fight.
<snip>
> > > It seems obvious?
> >
> >
> > Only to those not blinded by bias. I guess Speedy should have added
> > that.
> >
>
> Well only those that are blinded by pro-Lennox bias seem to be making this
> rediculous argument of yours.
Remember, "ridiculous."
<snip>
> Since I have not got a pro or anti bias regarding either fighter (though by
> the time the fight got going I found myself excitedly rooting for Klitschko
> in much the way it is always fun to root for an underdog) I am responding
> more to the strange spin being put on by a few pro-Lewis fans in this
> newsgroup.
I think you've shown a clear anti-Lewis bias, although I don't rate
him more than a couple of slots higher on my all-time list.
> You on the other hand are simply disregarding the actual numbers I am
> speaking of and making a conclusion that is not supported by anything other
> then your subjective decisions masquerading in your posts as facts.
I've never masqueraded anything. Professional fights are scored on
impressions. Those impressions are supposed to be based on facts, but
they are, nevertheless, impressions. You seem unable to grasp that and
insist on having your opinions treated as indisputable facts. I think
it's a personality disorder.
> > > Strange, that does not seem to be the general opinion.
> > > There is nothing to actually support this idea that Lennox did more
> damage.
> >
> >
> > What is there to support the opposite conclusion? The only evidence
> > possible to support these observations is the visual record, the
> > interpretation of which is the subjection of this dispute.
> >
>
> Ahem...that is what I am stating Isaiah. Get it now? The only thing that
> supports the Lennox fanatics is...well...something absolutely subjective
> that the facts do not support. The visual record of what I have seen of the
> fight is supported by the numbers that I looked at after the fight.
The numbers that show Lewis landing more power shots in round six? Or
the two fighters landing about the same number in round five? Or what?
Where's the indisputable proof?
<snip>
> > How do punch numbers suggest anything about damage?
> >
>
> Simple Isaiah (and frankly...what the F*** else are you going to use?).
My eyes and my brain. The only things anyone can use for this purpose
unless you want to look at the effects of the punches on the fighters.
Your position doesn't hold up in that case.
He
> threw 33 punches in round 6. That is a tired fighter. The fact that he
> dropped on his stool and looked like he was gassed completely out at the end
> of the round....is easily a matter of recorded fact by...anyone who recorded
> the fight on their VCR.
No unbiased fan uses the way a guy sits down to measure anything.
<snip>
> > > > Not all jabs are created equal.
> > > > Vitali jabbed fairly well, they certainly had an effect on Lewis.
> However,
> > > > Lewis' jab had an effect each time it landed. Sure Vitali was
> outlanding
> > > > Lewis but it seems to me that Vitali was also feeling it in there.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Again purely subjective on your part.
> >
> >
> > So is your position. That's not an argument.
> >
>
> Nope.
It is an argument or your position isn't subjective? If it's the
former, please spell it out. If not, you're just wrong. Fights are
scored subjectively!
<snip>
> I am stating facts. More punches by Klitscko. You are stating subjective
> opinion that Lennox was gaining momentum...but with no real reason to be
> thinking such was the case.
I assume you saw the fight. I assume you know how to judge a fight. I
know posted earlier that Lewis won the final two rounds. I know that
all three judges as well as all but the most rabid Lewis-haters on RSB
also scored the final two rounds for Lennox. That was my visual
impression as well. Good enough?
<snip>
> > > I find it strange that simply stating the numbers can be taken as
> showing a
> > > bias.
> >
> >
> > Please tell me this thickness is being faked for rhetorical effect.
> > He's obviously speaking of your comments that accompany the numbers.
> >
>
> Isaiah...my numbers speak for themselves. Exactly what else should I say?
There is a correlation between landing more punches and winning the
round, but it's not an essential one. Furthermore, the punch stats
don't paint as clear a picture as you think. I believe power punches
in the last two rounds were 15-14 Klitschko and 10-8 Lewis.
> Your argument seems to be...the numbers don't matter....your purely
> subjective reasoning does...the fact that you have no actual reason to
> conclude what you are makes you purely biased.
The numbers don't really matter.
> I have no bias. I am a long time Klitscko basher. I picked Lennox to win
> the fight inside 5 rounds on the VANPRED pool. I have a long record even on
> this newsgroup of defending Lennox as the greatest HW Champion since the
> heyday of Larry Holmes.
But also thinking that he more or less the caliber of non-entity
Riddick Bowe and marginal great Holyfield.
> I have simply stated the numbers and announced that my scoring on fight
> night was wrong. In light of watching the replay this week Lennox lost all
> 6 rounds and the fight was not shifting momentum wise.
>
> You simply are calling what are quantifiable facts irrelevant and accepting
> your biased visual perception of the bout as factual.
Once again, visual perception is how fights are scored. Your own
visual perception agreed with his, but now you're calling it
ridiculous?!
> > Newsflash: Professional fights are not scored by statistics.
> >
>
> Strawman.
What's your point then? It seems to me that I have represented your
argument correctly.
<snip>
-Isaiah
Robert Phillips
Isaiah wrote:
>
> Nope. Lewis would have to be taking a greater amount of control under
> professional scoring rules. Which, in fact, he was. As everyone but
> you admits and as you admitted after the fight.
There's such a fine line here. Charles says (and I mostly agree) that
Lewis...well, he didn't quite get his ass kicked as bad in 5 and 6 as he
did from 1-4; he didn't lose those rounds as badly as he did the first
four. And if he won the rounds, hey, he did so by the slimmest margins,
while K had won his much more decisively.
You phrase it differently, and see it differently. You say that he was
"taking a greater amount of control" in 5-6 compared to 1-4.
If it's a ratio that can be expressed in numbers (at least for
conversational purposes, if not for analytical purposes), what's the
difference here?
If Lewis "controlled" the first four rounds, like, 10%, did he increase
his level of control up to 15% for the next two? or from 20% to 25%?
You're right that Lewis was increasing his level of control - but
Charles is also right that he was still not "in control" of the fight,
nor was he even close (IMO) to it. A guy who collects rent on his one
property in Monopoly increases his portion of the money in use in the
game every time somebody lands on it, but if that's the only property he
owns while the other plays all have houses and hotels, then the increase
he gets really doesn't matter. Similarly, if Lewis was winning the
rounds 5-6 battles but losing the overall war (as I believe he was),
then winnings 5-6 really doesn't matter, and likely wouldn't have.
(The alternative philosophy that K was winning the battles but losing
the war is also correct and defensible.)
Both your points (yours and Charles's) are valid. You're both correct
in your basic points. The difference might be only in the phrasing, and
therefore in the perception.
Pie
Mr.Will
I didnt score it the way you did,
but the simple truth is Lewis won on cuts - seeing as you're so fond of
statistics and numbers:-
the simple facts are there.
Mr.Will
Isaiah
> Isaiah wrote:
>
> >
> > Nope. Lewis would have to be taking a greater amount of control under
> > professional scoring rules. Which, in fact, he was. As everyone but
> > you admits and as you admitted after the fight.
>
>
> There's such a fine line here. Charles says (and I mostly agree) that
> Lewis...well, he didn't quite get his ass kicked as bad in 5 and 6 as he
> did from 1-4; he didn't lose those rounds as badly as he did the first
> four. And if he won the rounds, hey, he did so by the slimmest margins,
> while K had won his much more decisively.
I agree with this. The reason this discussion has generated so much
heat is that Charles denies that there was any significant change over
the last two rounds and he keeps insisting that his positions are
objectively and indisputably true. Further, he uses the odd "doctor
stopped it" line. I understand where that comes from, but those are
the rules and you never hear that argument when anyone else wins by
stoppage.
> You phrase it differently, and see it differently. You say that he was
> "taking a greater amount of control" in 5-6 compared to 1-4.
> If it's a ratio that can be expressed in numbers (at least for
> conversational purposes, if not for analytical purposes), what's the
> difference here?
> If Lewis "controlled" the first four rounds, like, 10%, did he increase
> his level of control up to 15% for the next two? or from 20% to 25%?
More like 35-40% to 50-55%. I think it's significant that Lewis won or
at least fought even the last two rounds before the stoppage. That
argues against the whole "Lewis was lucky and about to be KOd" claim.
<snip>
> Both your points (yours and Charles's) are valid. You're both correct
> in your basic points. The difference might be only in the phrasing, and
> therefore in the perception.
Again my disagreement is not as much in our positions on the fight,
which, as you point out, are not that far apart. I disagree more with
his characterization of his opposition and the strength of his
position.
-Isaiah
Robert Phillips
>>Lewis...well, he didn't quite get his ass kicked as bad in 5 and 6 as he
>>did from 1-4; he didn't lose those rounds as badly as he did the first
>>four. And if he won the rounds, hey, he did so by the slimmest margins,
>>while K had won his much more decisively.
>
> I agree with this. The reason this discussion has generated so much
> heat is that Charles denies that there was any significant change over
> the last two rounds and he keeps insisting that his positions are
> objectively and indisputably true.
Well, again, he might be right that there was no *significant* change in
those last two rounds. As a viewer, I didn't feel that the tide of the
fight had changed, and as someone who always gets a kick out of watching
Lewis lose and who always gets a kick out of the underdog beating an
established champion, I wasn't much more worried after the fifth or
sixth rounds (pre-stoppage) as I was after the earlier rounds. That
doesn't mean that all six rounds were identical, or that I didn't notice
Lewis having any more success in the last two. It just meant that the
incrementally greater success I saw him having, to my eye, wasn't enough
to really alter my perception of how the fight was progressing.
>>If Lewis "controlled" the first four rounds, like, 10%, did he increase
>>his level of control up to 15% for the next two? or from 20% to 25%?
>
>
> More like 35-40% to 50-55%. I think it's significant that Lewis won or
> at least fought even the last two rounds before the stoppage. That
> argues against the whole "Lewis was lucky and about to be KOd" claim.
Not necessarily. In the same way that we can agree that, because of the
cut, Klitschko was "losing" the fight despite winning the rounds, one
might reasonably argue that based on an evaluation of how Lewis looked
during the last two rounds, and after the sixth, that he was heading
towards a disastrous loss despite those two rounds. As I said, even
after those last two rounds, I had no real sense that Lewis had much
more to give and I still considered it only a matter of time before he
collapsed under his own weight.
Pie
Isaiah
> Isaiah wrote:
> > Robert Phillips <rp...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3EFEF72F...@cfl.rr.com>...
> >>There's such a fine line here. Charles says (and I mostly agree) that
> >>Lewis...well, he didn't quite get his ass kicked as bad in 5 and 6 as he
> >>did from 1-4; he didn't lose those rounds as badly as he did the first
> >>four. And if he won the rounds, hey, he did so by the slimmest margins,
> >>while K had won his much more decisively.
> >
> > I agree with this. The reason this discussion has generated so much
> > heat is that Charles denies that there was any significant change over
> > the last two rounds and he keeps insisting that his positions are
> > objectively and indisputably true.
>
> Well, again, he might be right that there was no *significant* change in
> those last two rounds.
<snip explanation>
I don't deny that my perception of the progress of the fight was
colored by my belief that Lewis is much the superior fighter and my
belief that he was not fighting up to his ability to that point.
Still, the fact is that Lewis lost the first four rounds decisively
and either won or came close to winning the last two. I would expect
that someone who didn't see the fight and had no opinions about either
man would regard that as significant and as a hit against the belief
that the outcome was not in doubt.
> >>If Lewis "controlled" the first four rounds, like, 10%, did he increase
> >>his level of control up to 15% for the next two? or from 20% to 25%?
> >
> >
> > More like 35-40% to 50-55%. I think it's significant that Lewis won or
> > at least fought even the last two rounds before the stoppage. That
> > argues against the whole "Lewis was lucky and about to be KOd" claim.
>
>
> Not necessarily. In the same way that we can agree that, because of the
> cut, Klitschko was "losing" the fight despite winning the rounds, one
> might reasonably argue that based on an evaluation of how Lewis looked
> during the last two rounds, and after the sixth, that he was heading
> towards a disastrous loss despite those two rounds. As I said, even
> after those last two rounds, I had no real sense that Lewis had much
> more to give and I still considered it only a matter of time before he
> collapsed under his own weight.
Maybe. Lewis was clearly exhausted, but I think the fight was just
starting to get interesting to me when it was (correctly) stopped.
-Isaiah