Anyone feel like this was very much like the Froch Dirrel fight?

nah, see hasn't seen it I don't think. My old man went to the pub to watch it.

Were you allowed to see the fight in the end or did X-Factor go into extra time?

 

The similarities between Froch V Dirrell & Haye V Valuev were many. The champion being a slow, plodder who came forward ineffectively all night, the challenger being the quicker, more talented fighter who mostly used evasive, defensive tactics. Both Haye & Froch had their man hurt in the latter rounds, the way Dirrell hurt Froch was more impressive though because Froch apparently has a granite chin while Dirrell is not noted as a big puncher, whereas Haye is known as a p4p puncher so it wasn't as surprising or impressive that he stunned Valuev.
Dirrell's performance V Froch was more impressive all round than Haye's V Valuev (although I agree Haye done just enough to win), simply because Froch is limited but not nearly as bad as Valuev & he has a lot more power too, but still Dirrell clearly won the fight. Haye had an easier task as Valuev had been outpointed before & he is not much of a threat power wise. Haye won but I wouldn't have batted an eyelid if Valuev got the decison.
Basically, if you agree that Haye should have got the decision last night then you have to conceed that Dirrell also deserved to get the decision against Froch. You can't have it both ways!

 

Haye was way more impressive. Haye was fighting a guy 100lbs heavier and a foot taller regardless of the skill difference between Froch/Valuev (which ain't a whole lot). Dirrell was facing a guy the exact same size as him and fought the same way he did against Oganov and Hanshaw. Haye actually changed his gameplan to suit the fight.

 

But smaller guys have already beat Valuev,(whether they got the decision or not), it is obvious Valuev's size does nothing to compensate for his lack of skill, speed, power, etc. Haye didn't make Valuev look bad...Valuev is bad. Dirrell made Froch, who is quicker, more talented & way more powerful than Valuev, look like an amateur. To me, Dirrell's performance was the more convincing. If Valuev had won last night I wouldn't have classed it as a robbery but Dirrell V Froch was a clear robbery in my opinion.

 

It wouldn't have been a robbery despite the fact Valuev barely landed a single power punch I can remember all night and his jab was hitting air? You have to hit your opponent to score points, there is no other way around that.

 

Are you saying Haye didn't get hit the whole fight? Dirrell done more than Haye, that's what I'm saying. He definately landed more on Froch than Haye did on Valuev. I could make a case for Valuev if he won based on Haye not doing enough to take the title, I cannot make the same case for Froch.

 

If thats your best case for Valuev maybe winning its not the best. There is no rule that says you have to 'take the title', thats like saying the champ is 1 point up to begin with and the challenger has to do something other than win the fight by a round. A boxing fight is a boxing fight, they start with a blank scorecard and are scored on a round by round basis, thats it...period.

People are getting way too caught up in Haye 'not doing enough' but forget to ask 'What did Valuev do to win the fight?'. Other than be the champ and have a perceived advantage to begin with. Nothing, because he did nothing. I can tell people what Haye did, he didn't do a lot but when he did he landed hard accurate punches and stunned Valuev.

 

I do not agree that you have to take a title from the challenger, which is why I believe that Dirrell won & I also believe that Haye won. What I said, if you read through my posts, is that I could make a case for Valuev winning as it wasn't as convincing a win for Haye as it was for Dirrell V Froch. Both Froch & Haye deseved to win but what I don't get is how Haye wins with that performance but Dirrell does not with a better preformance, because you can say what you want but Dirrell beat Froch (a much better fighter than Valuev), in a more convincing fashion than Haye beat Valuev.
I don't buy into this notion that Haye's win is some great achievement, it was good but Valuev has been beat before & despite his size he just has nothing that was going to pose problems for Haye. A geriatric Holyfield beat Valuev more convincingly than Haye did but now it's being portrayed as some outstanding win which it's not.

 

Fair enough, I too scored it for Dirrell to just for clarification.

But what exactly is the case for Valuev winning? The case for him winning from virtually everybody that had him winning, including Piper and Watt, seems to be that Haye didn't do enough and Valuev was the champion. Yeah, okay, but what did the Russian do? It strikes me as penalizing Haye for not doing enough of his good work but giving Valuev credit just for turning up as champion and throwing a lot but missing the vast majority.

My only regret is Haye didn't throw literally 2 or 3 punches more per round because at the rate he was landing he would have made it absolutely beyond doubt and shut the guy out. I guess it was doubts in his own mind about stamina.

Agree, Valuev is a poor fighter but the sheer size of the task for Haye coming from cruiser in only his second fight made it a memorable win for me. Not earth shattering I agree, but I expect to see better from Haye in the future against other opponents.

 

I was glad Haye got it but the even scorecard coupled with Haye not really going for it could have lead me to believe Valuev done enough. It just wouldn't have suprised me if Valuev had got the decison or maybe a draw. You are right though, if Haye had just done a little more no one could have questioned the decision at all but he hurt his hand so that probably explains that. It's all good for Haye, he did what he had to do but I was expecting more after all the talk!

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you TFFP....

I'm pretty shocked at the amount of people I've heard today think Valuev was "robbed" (although I get the impression from accompanying comments it's more an anti-Haye bias in a few cases).

I thought Haye was superb last night, though perhaps could have done a bit more punch-count wise. He adapted to the necessary tactics required to box against someone with such a size advantage, and remained focused and disciplined enough to see it through to the end.
I agree with you, he could have threw a few more punches, but even though Haye's punch output wasn't much - at least he was hitting his target! Valuev hit 2% of nothing all night.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why some believe if a fighter walks forward, he automatically deserves the nod. I thought you had to actually LAND punches to score??? And let's not forget, the reason Valuev missed most of his shots was because Haye made him miss.

Different styles, different fighters etc require different tactics and I believe it's the mark of a good fighter who can adjust his gameplan to suit. I rated Haye before, but he's gone up in my estimation because I had doubts beforehand whether or not he would have the discipline (and stamina) to not get excited and get reckless.

There's no way Valuev won that fight. The only rounds you could give him were the ones when Haye did nothing, because soon as he did something, it was more than what Valuev was doing (effectively).