hopkins vs. toney

I explained the circumstances I'd encountered it in General. It wasn't relevant to any points I did or didn't make so whether or not it's BS wouldn't be anything to do with that.

Just to be sure, there is no differnce betwen "raw skill" and "skill"?

 

I know that, I just said that.

Toney's footwork is horrible. He's static. He's a better shot slipper but if he wasn't he would be dead meat. He needs those skills to pick up the huge shortfall in an entirely different area. Hopkins flat out doesn't have this short-coming. Toney is more athletically gifted and is superior in a given area whic is narrowly defined by his style.

In other words, you're ignoring what Toney does badly in order to label what he does well enough to make him the more skilled fighter. Only by entirely ignoring breadth would anyone, ever, be able to label Toney the more skilled of the two. He's the less skilled of the two, by distance.

You can drive a van - or a VW beetle, as lefthook31 suggested - through the gap in Toney's skillset.


EDIT: I really am curious, is there a difference between skill and raw skill?

 

"Very complete"? How was his footwork "very complete"? Please answer this question, ****ing-A you will be struggling. For comparison's sake, Sugar Ray Robinson is a fighter I would describe as having "very complete" footwork.

Writing in bold does not make you right.

My answer: you're entirely missing the point - even if Toney shaded Hopkins in all the deparments you mention his absence of skill in a given department is his reason for being the less skilled fighter.

So skill is the ability to apply skill and raw skill is skill regardless of ability to apply?

 

This is exactly where I think he's become confused. Happens a lot on here, in fairness.

 

No it's not, it's limited. Footwork is not like pressure, it isn't automatically great when a single facet is compeltely mastered. It has breadth, and you are totally ignoring it/unablle to see it.

This is an example of a perfected skill. Most top fighters have them. Joe Frazier has one of the best left hooks in history - this means he has one of the best left hooks in history, not that he is one of the best punchers in history. You're confusing facets of skill with skill.

This in no way explains your claim that Toney had "complete" footwork?

Utter shite. Walcott's footwork allowed to him to out-box taller rangier opponents on the outside as well as draw (as opposed to stand and wait for) opponents into him. This comparison exposes the fallacy of Toney's footwork as complete or great to a greater degree than anything I could have said.

Again, disingenuous. It is not a matter of style but skill.

No i don't, that's something you made up. If you can supply an example outside of this thread I would be greatful. It is, after all, quite a statment.

If you like, I will present you here with the opportunity to explian to me WHY Toney's straight right hand is better than Bernard Hopkins's straight right hand. But the reason i haven't challanged those statements is they are not relevant. I've already told you once but you have a habit of ignoring key points, so i'll tell you again: even if you are correct and Toney shades Hopkins in these areas, you would still be incorrect to call Toney more skilled becuase of his deficit.

"Other than."? Other than footwork? Well as i've pointed out three times now, I don't feel i need to for the purposes of the thread. I'll name retreating into a technically perfect envelope.

Jesus, now you are confusing facets of skill with skill. The "ring general skill"? Hopkins isn't better at every single facet of ring generalship and more than Toney is better at the very very broad skills you've labelled Toney as Bernard's superior in.

No, I'm not, i'm asking you a question. You still haven't answered it.

 

Totally illogical. By applying this logic we see that if Hopkins ceased to be a better out-boxer he would cease to be taller. Which is nonsense. He would, of course, cease to be more skillful.