Toney vs. Tiberi scorecard thread

It's bizarre, you are literally just endlessly repeating yourself with a series of points i've already answered.

I already told you, if you want to produce an analysis of round 4, I'll take a look at it and then do one of my own.

Before doing it, you make another post calling me a "runner" (for the 15th or 20th time) despite the facti've already agreed to "score round four with" you and asking me if I want you to "quote you arguing with yourself" - i've already told you, yes, i find the idea of you spending your time searching my posts for contradictions separated by a decade genuinely funny. I do want you to do it, yes.

I'll have a look at the two or three paragraphs you wrote on this round tomorrow, probably.

 

OK; I did take another look at the round. Didn't use that YouTube window though, got it fired up on the HD, although it's still running from DVD. Your thoughts were very basic, Mendoza, which was pretty disappointing after all the build up and the great mystery of "score a round with me". I thought you meant an actual breakdown of the round. I'm going to go into a bit more detail, but obviously with the very basic input above, i'm not going to go crazy.

The first 28 seconds here are basically the round in microcosm for me. Tiberi comes out fast but scores little of great meaning; more cuffing, half blocked shots. Even up to the very final punch of this exchange, the punches swapped were such that Toney, though throwing less, was right there with Tiberi so far as who you would score these seconds to. Then he lands what would likely remain the best punch of the round - a whipping, meaty right hand that comes in wide over the top. It lands pretty flush and it clearly bags Toney the first thirty seconds of the round for me. Right behind it, he half-lands another right-hand that sets him up nicely for the next thirty seconds, too.

Of course, a person has to be careful about scoring a fight in this way, especially if it becomes a question of breaking down a fight into sections and scoring them off - so and so leads 2-1, it's not a game of sets within sets. For me, it's always been about who does damage, that's what leads the line, generalship second.

Anyway, for what it is worth, Tiberi wins the second little section, but it is again Toney who lands the best punch of the sequence. He's missing plenty too, but he lets Tiberi row the boat then hits him with a body-shot and a right hand; Tiberi has landed bodyshots during those 25 seconds in charge but it's Toney who lands the best bodyshot of the sequence, for all that Tiberi wins that "section" with activity. The problem is the more memorable punches from the first minute are unquestionably for Toney. Tiberi is workmanlike throughout, and this gets the job done for me in a winning effort, but it didn't work all the time and what people who score this fight for Toney - and there are plenty of them - are seeing is superior punching in technique.

The first minute is done and it's basically a knife-edge but I like Toney for the better torque and cleaner landed shots.

Tiberi clearly wins the next thirty seconds of the fight, but at 1:20 remaining, Toney once again lands a punch that is clearly the superior of any other shot landed in that sequence, it is a right hand over the top again. Tiberi's punches in the preceding thirty seconds, they are "prods" and they are doing absolutely no meaningful damage. This isn't amateur boxing and Tiberi is not landing clearly, or affectively in my book. Toney on the other hand does, but less frequently. The second minutes bounds out in similar fashion.

So at this point I have Toney a needle ahead based upon the very early work of the first minute, though that's arguable depending upon what you like. Anything close going into the final minute is OK by me I'd say. Either way, Toney clearly wins the final minute of the round, and I don't think that is in dispute. If I did a top six for punches in the round, I suspect Toney would hold them all.

Conclusion:I can only consider that those that score the round for Tiberi appreciate his cuffs in the early part of the round way more than I did. I don't actually find that objectionable as this is clearly a very, very close round. In the end, I'm happy with my treatment of it and don't find cards to the contrary objectionable.

 

What possible reason do you have for saying this to me? Didn't you read what I wrote? I appraised the whole round in far, far more detail than you did. I absolutely have nowhere even remotely suggested that he won the round by winning the final minute; i say the exact opposite.

Not a great start....

And this is why you struggle so badly with scoring professional fights. You are obsessed with punchstats, even though the punchstat creators themselves are clear that their technology is not to be used to score fights. You always score for the person who throws and lands more. OK. Most of the rest of us do not, and I certainly do not.

So eye on the ring, which you previously dismissed as being relevant because it makes the fight between Toney and Tiberi close, you now want to use as a source of "data" because you feel it helps your case? Jesus H Christ Mendoza.

Ok, if you're allowing EOTR again, the point I would make is that half of the people on that site agree with the official decision as it was rendered.

I say, "I understand that but disagree."

I've already said that in the post above.

I'd also point out that there are three rounds on that site which are universally scored in agreement, that is three rounds which everyone agrees upon. 4 is not one of them.

Yes, like many, many ringsiders I had that fight a draw. It is in no way an unusual card - in fact, I have never, ever seen more drawn cards from ringside than at that fight.

Behaving like it's some sort of ridiculous card is preposterous.

But you DON'T score rounds that way. Every single thing you have ever posted subscribes your scoring method absolutely clearly: am. rules, landed punches.

It's why you get so confused about this stuff.

 

Yeah, and also my words:

I watched the fight, read the bumf, towed the line. SCORED the fight, changed my mind.

Why can't you understand that? And the reason is you genuinely believe that just watching a fight without scoring it is a valid way to form a valid opinion. I saw the fight and read the press and swallowed the tale then scored the fight and rendered a different opinion.

This is GOOD.

Don't be ridiculous, I have more scorecards on this forum than any other poster, bar none.

You're a fool, Mendoza, genuinely a stupid man if you think our disagreeing about round 4 in James Toney and my agreeing with the swathes of pressmen who scored GGG-Canelo 1 a draw makes it clear "I dont' know how to score a fight." I've produced proof, over more than a decade, i'm adept at scoring fights.

You abject simpleton.

At no time have I "criticised Eye on the Ring." At absolutely no time have i done that. YOU have done that. YOU said it was open to biases of posters and cannot be trusted where one fighter is more popular than the other. I have never criticised it.

This is what I will never understand. You read these posts - don't understand them - make baseless accusations based upon your failure to understand them. Then you spend hours and hours trawling through my posts in search of "contradictions." Then you don't understand when people think you stupid. It's like talking to a child.

ME: Eye on the Ring sees the Toney-Tiberi decision as pretty reasonable actually.
YOU: Eye on the Ring shouldn't be used for data for the Toney-Tiberi fight because it's open to the abuses of Toney fans.
ME: I disagree, but OK.
YOU: LOOK at this Eye on the Ring data, it PROVES that you're wrong about round four!
ME: You said we couldn't use that website because it was biased.
YOU: You DARE criticise Eye on the Ring!?

Indeed. I absolutely feel that way. It is me who tried to include data from Eye on the Ring, it is YOU who excluded it. You told me that it couldn't be trusted because "Toney fans" could have descended on the forum and made the fight a far less controversial one than you yourself consider it. In other words - YOU are the one who "dared" criticise it when it disagreed with you.

What you've done is tried to exclude EOTR when it disagreed with you - then, two weeks later, when you find somewhere where it agrees with you, you've tried to re-introduce it. It's laughable. It's ridiculous. It's pure you.

Yeah, that's called a "minority opinion in a disputed round".

It depends upon what you mean by "often". I think you've produced two examples? There are many others, but out of many hundreds of scorecards I've produced.

So again, it's just more BS from you. You're trying to make Toney-Tiberi - a fight where I disagree with you on one round - this collosal deal, despite the fact that you yourself produced hardly any analysis and barely engaged with mine. WE SCORE THE FIGHT THE SAME MINUS ONE ROUND. I have never, ever, seen so much riduclousness over one round in an agreed fight in all my living life. What is wrong with you?

Are you like this with everyone?? Is EVERYONE who EVER disagrees with you on ONE ROUND unable to score fights Our scores are identical but for ONE ROUND.

Mendoza, this is the tenth time you have said this to me, in the last four weeks. The tenth.

And here is my response for the tenth time.

It is not draw v GGG win v Canelo win for tallied scorecards. That is preposterous.

It's GGG win v Canelo win, that's fine.

But the draw basically has ONE available tally - 114-114. OF COURSE the draw is the lower score rendered. People have it 115-114 GGG, 116-112 GGG, 115-112 GGG, but they can only have the draw 114-114. The figures you are producing do not prove a draw is a bad card. The figures you are producing prove a draw is a GOOD card.

Now, this is the eleventh time i've provided you with this argument, which is all but infallible (you could get a post or two out of the possibility of 113-113 etc). If you understand it. But you either don't understand it, or are pretending not to understand it (i hope for your sake it is the latter).

Right, but i'm not arguining that 114-114 is the absolute answer. You ARE arguing that 114-114 is ridiculous, proof of incompetence, an awful scorecard beyond all belief.

But Mendoza, and i'm not even beating you with this any more, it's just sad - 15% of ringside scorecards having this a draw - that's an enormous amount. It's huge. 15% of ringsiders, it's really a lot.

Do you remember that really controversial split between Marquez and Pacquiao? The second fight? Fewer than 5% of ringsiders scored that a draw. 15% is a lot. A lot, is 15%. 15%? A lot that is.

5% is a lot. Everyone knows that second Pac-JMM fight is a very reasonable draw. It's crazy. You work so hard to produce this data and it proves the exact opposite of what you want.

15% of ringsiders, presuming youv'e got that right, very, very high indeed.