Classic forrums take on the Haye vs Valuev fight

I think Jim Watt was scoring it how he thinks the judges were myself, I've always stuck up for him but he's started to anooy me in the past couple of years. Also, did you notice 'again' how mid-round Ian Darke has a different score (which is good) then two rounds later is aligned with his co-commentator "I have Valuev ahead now". :yep

Darke redeemed himself near the end by stating how often Valuev is missing, he should have just told Watt to **** off and pack it in.

Anyway...the opening post in this thread's a classic:

"I'm going for Haye, but that Val will fight his best ever and get a win".

 

Much like the Holyfield fight, several rounds were getting decided with one guy landing about three shots and the other guy one. I do think Watt's unfortunate overzealousness, and the amount of rbrs I've seen with people going 'quiet round so they'll score that for Valuev' will mean anyone that hasn't seen the fight could very well think Valuev was robbed blind.

That's a sad and misleading situation. It's a bit ironic that Haye fought the fight most were screaming him to do, including pundits and ex-pros, and having done just that some are sticking the boot in for him not bombing away. Such is life! The insults will fly from the usual suspects yet the history books will always record the victory.

But, this is my card:

1 -even-
2 Haye
3 Haye
4 Valuev
5 Valuev
6 Haye
7 Haye
8 Haye
9 Haye
10 Valuev
11 Valuev
12 Haye

116-113 Haye.

 

I had this very clearly in favour of Haye. If every close round was scored in Valuev's favour - which isn't unreasonable considering the proverb "the challenger have to take the title" - I'd still have it 116-112 Haye.

Valuev hardly landed a clean shot throughout the fight and you can't retain your title like that.

 

I had it 115-113 Haye, but scored it so different to you. I had Haye winning rounds 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12; Valuev the other five, so I guess it shows how close the fight was; and to a point that Haye was a little lucky, as IMO any benefit of the doubt should go to the champ, who was also fighting at home.

 

But you had it 115-113, so the benefit should go to the winner. :yep

 

But three judges scored the bout. My British bias aside, perhaps Valuev should of got the split nod? I know now a days few care for the traditions of the sport, but I always liked that a challenger had to win very well to gain the title.

 

...and none of the three had the champion ahead, two had the challenger winning by a fair gap, you had the challenger ahead also, so I can't see much reason for Valuev deserving it for the reasons you stated.

 

Valuev-Haye

1. 10:9
2. 10:9
3. 9:10
4. 10:9
5. 10:9
6. 10:9
7. 10:9
8. 10:9
9. 10:9
10. 10:9
11. 10:9
12. 9:10

118:110 Valuev

Kill me but this is how I saw it.

 

This is more or less how I see it. Some of the rounds where Haye scored with the odd left hook or right, and Valuev scored with the odd jab could be given to Valuev on the account that he was the champ and forced the action, but there's no way he takes a majority of the rounds. I just can't see it.

Also ring generalship goes to Haye. He made Valuev miss a lot without really exerting himself. He also made more of his punches count. So ring generalship and clean hits goes to Haye in practically all rounds, give one or two, and agression (alebit not really effective) goes to Valuev. How can this not be Haye's fight by a clear margin?

 

No use killing you, your brain's already dead.

 

Props for sticking with that score. But you're probably (and hopefully) quite alone with it.

 

I'm glad to see everyone thinking Jim Watt's scorecard was an absolute travesty. I was telling my family how **** he was. I threatened to mute his ass after a few rounds, ignoring Haye's good work..all..of..the..time.

 

Post your scorecard Brit. You also had Froch beating Dirrell?

 

The Swedish commentator had picked Valuev to win, but had Haye winning with even a bigger margin than I had. And it's hard not to be influenced by the commentator, since it's difficult to see on TV exactly which shot lands flush and which only grazes or gets partially blocked. So it's only logical to tend to lean towards what the guy commentating from ringside says about it.