And if you had Haye AND Froch winning, you are totally incapable of scoring a profiessional fight. Same goes for the other way around, if you hade Dirrell and Valuev winning. (EDIT, it seems people have hard time understanding the similarities I'm referring to: scoring similarities. Altough it was a different clash of styles and sizes, the way of the fight action went has many similarities: a guy moving forward, throwing more, "applying the pressure" but being the ineffective aggressor vs. a good mover who fought "negative" if you like and threw less, but ultimately landed more and the more meaningful blows, therefore on a round-by-round basis, if you are consistent with your scoring, you should have had Haye and Dirrell winning based on clean effective punching, or Valuev and Froch, based on aggression, but it was ineffective aggression. What I'm suggesting that if you had Haye AND Froch winning on your card (or the other way around, Valuev and Dirrell), something is wrong with your scoring, because in one fight you prefer clean effective punching (and you should), but in the other, you prefer ineffective aggression. How's that make sense? You gotta score the punching action and not who's going forward, backward, killing or trying to do the action, clinching etc. No matter how ugly or beautiful, the deciding factor in every single round should be effective punching and nothing else. Both fights were pretty close with little action and many close rounds, but it's the close rounds where your scoring has to be spot on, and if you prefer clean effective punching over aggression which wasn't effective for Froch and Valuev, on a round-by-round basis, you should have Dirrell and Haye winning, clean.)
To be honest thats the complete opposite of the logical connection. Haye and Dirrell are the similarities in the matchup, although obviously Haye did far less. But stylistically, Haye landed the cleaner punches while backpedalling constantly, and staggered his opponent late in the fight when he finally had the confidence to back himself, exactly like Dirrell. Whilst Valuev won rounds by scoring touches with the jab, like Froch. I guess if you just mean the similarity is that the decision was questionable, then yeah, can't argue with that.
This is a bit different. Haye didn't clinch and fall around the floor to avoid punches (that were coming from a 7ft man who was 7 stone heavier).
Froch actually landed more than Valuev and a big difference is that Haye wasn't complaining, flopping to the floor and hugging at every opportunity. He also made sure that when he landed, he did so with some authority which Dirrell only did at the end. Judges will take everything into account and Dirrell really made a novice move by making himself look like a whining, flailing complaint merchant. That was never going to go down well and that was a massive contributing factor in him losing the fight. Haye also didn't throw much but he made Valuev miss almost every shot he threw while landing a couple of big shots of his own per round, all with almost no clinching and certainly no flopping to the canvas like a wet blanket. Perception in all areas is a massive part of boxing for a judge. Haye seemed like a smart boxer, Dirrell seemed like a weak child regardless of the close similarities in their respective gameplans.
I don't think the fights were similar at all. For one, there's a world of difference between using hit-and-run tactics when fighting a guy with a HUGE height, weight, and reach advantage, and doing the same against a shorter guy (Froch) with a shorter reach. Secondly, Haye didn't fall over repeatedly to avoid getting hit. Neither did he hold Valuev so many times that he had a point deducted (in fact, he didn't hold him at all). Finally, he didn't ***** and moan to the referee whenever he did get hit. There's plenty of differences right there.
I thought... well, okay I actually didn't expect people on ESB to understand "if you had Haye AND (capital letters) Froch winning, something is wrong with you.", but I guess it's to complicated. Haye & Dirrell - OK Valuev & Froch - that's funny scoring, at least you are consistent (and wrong) But Haye AND Froch? :think
I see tonights fight bearing more of a resemblance Ibragimov-Briggs, personally- although I see the point of the original poster. I did have Dirrell and Haye winning, though Dirrell was a closer card for reasons I've already beaten to death too much.
Valuev is a freak. You just can't compare a fight between two similarly sized guys with a fight between a man and a giant. The dynamics are totally different.
Dynamics, size, style different, yeah, but scoring might be similar: Niko going forward with ineffective aggression, while Haye moving/backing up all night, but landing the meaningful blows, similar scoring debates of Froch-Dirrell...
Dirrell was robbed, I agree. Valuev on the other hand didn't do enough to win, IMHO. I could see a draw, but had Haye win 7 rounds on my card.