Would Bruno Lose To Toney??

The risk has been realized.

I can't say that I recall having given it a great deal of thought. It would, of course, have been different - though, to what extent, I couldn't say.

In assessing fantasy head-to-head match-ups, I am more inclined to be guided by the quality of the action in actual fights, relevant to the Boxers in question, that is visibly verifiable on film - look at what they were actually capable of in the ring - look at the predominant features of style - find the consistency in displayed skills.

This doesn't necessarily require a win to determine. It requires the fighter in question being sufficiently challenged to bring out the best in himself. In Bruno, we have four world title challenges against, in the main, very highly regarded opposition to extract from (I draw very little from his failed defense against Tyson).

He lost three of these, but since this opposition was starkly superior to Maskaev, Ruiz, Rahman and heavyweight Toney, even these losses have worth in assessing Bruno head-to-head, relevant to the question. There are also a few other lower-profile Bruno contests, from which one can gather clues and form a view.

You tend to trap the discussion in a debate over ledgers, focusing on what is, relative to a head-to-head question, superficiality. I find this both ineffective and immensely inefficient.

As an example, in terms of the informational value, from a head-to-head perspective, I gain more from Bruno's fight with the no longer Ring-rated Carl Williams than I do from his first-round KO of Ring-rated Gerrie Coetzee.

The Lewis rematch was well over a year later and, as already mentioned, McCall took Maskaev out inside a round between Bruno and Lewis, in his very next fight. On balance, your statement re Bruno catching McCall at the right time, is not credible.

My assessment that you numbered "5":

Your response:

You are correct, it was not implied; you categorically disagreed with the assessment.

 

To be entirely frank with you, assessing fighter based on how good they look on film, is hot and miss at best.

For example most people would agree that Zab Judah looked better on film than Carlos Baldomir.

That is why I take a firm line on what level a fighter proved in the ring, when assessing head to head match ups.

Bruno beat McCall in September of 1995, and by July of 1996 McCall was in a drugs rehabilitation program.

He didn't go from no drug use to being in a drugs rehabilitation program overnight now did he?

 

Well if that's true about the drugs then that looks even worse for Maskaev who lost to McCall in 1 round in 1996.

 

A fair assessment.

 

I disagree.

But, for you, that's a W, L or D in the column of a ledger, regardless of situational factors or quality of the fights involved (unless it suits you to adjust a result or diminish the fighter you have an agenda against).

That's the very definition of 'hit and miss', because you are assuming consistency between the results on one ledger and another, without a broad qualitative context.

You seem fine with this approach. I am not, and I am happy enough in my ability to analyze a fight and take the circumstances that are/were current at the time into consideration, in order to form a reasonable pick. Sports Gamblers do it all the time.

I'm not saying ledger comparisons are of no value whatsoever, but they are just one layer of an assessment and the most abstract layer, at that.

Here is an example of you creating a situational context for the benefit of your own argument, and for someone who likes to point the finger in relation to others making assumptions, you sure are making a big one here. You simply don't know and never will know what relevance, if any, your question has to the McCall/Bruno bout.

What makes it worse is your harping on about ledger and then somehow reducing the peak of McCall's career - his one and only title run - to being the best time for Bruno to have caught him, based on this assumption. How does that work?

Seriously, you are quite self-contradictory; cherry picking both ledger items and whatever extenuating circumstances you can lay your hands on to stretch around your narrative.

 

Do you make a lot of money betting on boxing matches?

Thought not.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I am not implying that McCall had substance abuse issues, when Bruno beat him.

I am saying that it is a possibility.

That is exactly the risk you incur, when you make big head to head predictions, based on a single good win.

 

What would you call "a lot of money"?

How would you know?

For someone who takes "a firm line" on proof (however you choose to define proof) and is critical of those who draw their evidence from a broader set of sources, it's unbecoming of you to throw a claim about which, on its face, is unlikely and, in any event, immune from verification.

I see no risk from a what is effectively a logically incoherent point and I am not sure who you think might have based a prediction on just a single good win.

 

Could you make a living doing it for example?

Because the bookmakers are in business.

Let me explain it to you.

If hypothetically McCall was already suffering from substance abuse issues, at the point when Bruno beat him, they that would raise a significant question mark over his only major win.

That would then leave his resume looking very thin indeed.

For the time being I must provisionally assume that this is not the case, but it is entirely legitimate to raise the point that it could have been the case.

 

Professional gamblers are unlikely to operate in one sphere.

Professional gamblers are in business, too.

Thanks, but it's obvious why you decided to bring up McCall's history of drug issues. No explanation required.

Given you started out by asserting: "

This content is protected

" and have now backtracked somewhat, I'll take what you originally stated as an invalid assumption which can now be dismissed.

The point plays on an appeal to ignorance and has failed to further your original assertion, because it lacks in logical coherence and, in turn, the strength of its legitimacy.

Nevertheless, I shall recall this little diversion of yours the next time you start pontificating about the 'burden of proof'.

 

I am going to guess that like me you are much better at predicting the outcome of fights than the average person, but that like me you are also a bit hit and miss.

I am also going to guess that you more often than not align with the majority pick.

For my part when I have called an upset correctly, it has usually been based on intelligence coming out of both fighters camps.

The burden of proof only lies with you if you assert something, which I am not doing here.

However I woudl be more than interested to know when McCall's substance abuse issues started wouldn't you?