Which of these fights decisions was the most disputable?

Froch-Dirrell. I didn't see either of the others as being particulary disputable.

 

agreed

 

Froch-Dirrell

 

All 3 fights were 'disputable' theres no question about that, all close fights are depending on how an individual scores the fight ..
I didnt see much wrong with Froch v Dirrell, it could have gone either way and it went to Froch, the furore of this decision in this forum is based solely on a dislike for Froch and a feeling of him being a 'fraud' in some poster's eyes .. Dirrell could have got the nod but i didnt particularly think he was brilliant that night either.
Calzaghe v Hopkins and Haye v Valuez were quite similar in a few ways but the decision of the winner was totally opposite .. Hopkins when he fought Calzaghe was the Boxer, he went on the back foot and picked off Joe with far more effective landed punches and Calzaghe landed nothing all night, but he was given the decision for just coming forward .. In Valuev v Haye, Valuev landed just about as much as Calzaghe against Hopkins, he was the one pushing forward all night and pressing the fight wereas Haye boxed on the backfoot with cleaner and more effective punching .. Haye got the decision, Hopkins didnt, in a fight that was strategically fairly similar .....

None of these fights were robberies, just close scrappy fights that were tough to score ..
From these 3 fights i had Froch, and Haye edging with Hopkins a clear winner against Calzaghe, Joe was shocking that night in a boring fight that should only have ever been scored to Bernard ..

 

Joe landed more punches on Bernard than anyone ever has- hardly missed all night like Valuev.

 

So you score fights based on this?

I voted for Nard v JC btw.

 

Snap.

Did you get chance to score it yet?

 

No i was commenting on the fact he said Calzaghe landed nothing all night. I had Calzaghe winning that fight by a point but it was a completely different fight to the Haye- Valuev fight

 

No, been busy. I'll put a reminder on my phone to watch it this weekend. I'll PM you the results or post them in this thread. Hope you don't think I've been dodging the issue.

 

I'd say of the three, probably Froch vs Dirrell.

From a decent seat in the arena I had him one point up, most people near me had him winning handily actually. Will make a note to watch that on TV/YT soon.

Haye vs Valuev wasn't disputable at all for me. David was a bit negative, but was economical and accurate with his work, whilst Valuev was coming forward, not throwing a lot and landing less.

Everyone knows my take on Calzaghe vs Hopkins. Calzaghe was put down, lost each of the first four rounds pretty clearly - IMO it was close, 114-113 to Hopkins. Joe didn't land a meaningful punch all night, had his jab taken away, workrate cut by a third. He did very well in the second half to come back into things and make it close, but didn't really do enough.

The general theme is that too much emphasis is being placed on aggression...... especially in America. I read an issue of Boxing Monthly and Freddie Roach was discussing Toney vs Jirov, that he told Toney he needed a KD in the last round because you can't be sure how things are going to be judged - fighting off the ropes can be deemed negative.

Clean punching and defence need to be the keys to scoring, not aggression - unless effective. If you spend all night making the opponent miss and countering, that should win you the fight. Conversely, if you apply pressure and land your fair share, and the other guy gets on the bike or starts holding, not doing a great deal, you should win the fight.

 

None of the above !

 

Course not :good

 

Froch - Dirrell

I was quite comfortable with scoring for Haye and Joe in the others

I had Dirrell up, just, but it was impossible to score many rounds

Suppose that's why we got a split decision

 

Froch-Dirrel was a flat out robbery.

Hopkins-Calzaghe was a close fight that could have gone either way.

Haye-Valuev was easy to score, and Haye closely but clearly won.