You think Haye deserved the win more than Evander did? Evander landed more effective shots and fought with Valuev? True champs come to fight.
Yeah, we know what you think about Haye/Valuev, I'm just trying to explore why you think missing with a lot of punches is superior to landing with a small number. The way I see it, it's a fundamental problem when throwing punches that miss is ever seen as better than landing them, no matter what the number.
Just told you what you needed to know. You have to take the title. That means landing hard punchs on a regular basis and mixing it up with good defence and offence. Haye did not beat Valuev like Evander did.
How many punches do they have to land? Or specifically, how many more punches does the challenger have to land than the champion to 'take the belt' in your view of judging?
I don't. I started out by saying they're equally pathetic but later admitted it's a bit less pathetic.
I think Evander won clearly, and Haye won a lot less clearly. On top of that I think Haye made an ass of himself by constantly blabbering about knocking people out and then running for eleven rounds.
Not a specific number per say. Here is an idea check out Bhop vs Pavlik. That should help you. Anyway, good talking with you.
In reality one would imagine that a referee would intervene in a fight where only one punch was thrown. In terms of round by round scoring then a fighter who doesn't land anything in a round would lose the round to a fighter who lands one scoring shot under almost all circumstances. Why would that be at all contraversial?
Not sure what the particular relevance would be to what we were discussing. Especially as it was a non-title fight so there was no 'champion' or 'challenger'...
The win would not be controversial, the entire fight would be. I'm sure you see how a boxing fan would not respect the guy who "won" at all after such a display of ***gotry?