Holyfield vs Valuev - The aftermath

1. Who won--Valuev. I watched the fight a second time just to see if my initial impression was crazy as almost everyone else sees Holyfield being robbed and winning easily. I gave Valuev every round from round six on as Holyfield effectively stopped fighting offensively. You don't win rounds throwing five or fewer punches per round. Some may reply but "what did Valuev do?" and I have to say he did enough. He started getting his jab working and he started scoring with his right. He put together little three or four punch combinations. Now, his punches couldn't break a rotten eggshell, he looked slow and mechanical, and for a supposed champion, he sucked, but he did enough to beat a 46 year old man who seemed to be basically just fighting to survive over the second half of the fight.

2. I would have voted with the judges, myself, with Valuev two points up.

3. How woeful is Valuev--pretty woeful, but just as he is overrated by some because of his size, he is also underrated when he just manages to get by as he did against Holyfield. But reasonably, Valuev should have beaten the ancient Holyfield decisively, not like this.

4. The heavyweight division lacks both a charismatic star and depth of talent. Thompson, Peter, and Valuev all look mediocre to me.

5. This fight did not reflect on the Klitschkos, but the total lack of talent and committment by Thompson, Peter, and Rahman did.

6. The only interesting fight would be Vitali against Wlad and that will never come off, or either Klitschko against David Haye.

 

Holyfield showed more heart and effort? He was on the backfoot all night long and barely got hit by big shots. Now i'm not saying those are negatives, but to say he showed more "heart and effort" fighting that way isn't on the mark if you ask me..

 

I think he showed heart from the stand point that he was not even supposed to survive the introduction, yet instead of lying down and collecting a paycheck he fought for 12 rounds, and arguably won it... No, this was not the Holyfield of old, but as I said earlier, he gave us a faint cry of what used to be, and certainly showed more effort than Valuev.

 

Holyfeild used his smarts and showed that Valuev does not know how to handle movement but Holy should have pressed a bit more to insure a win, it was close and we know how that can go and so does E H

 

Holyfield should now be the oldest fighter to win a portion of the heavyweight championship.

 

:good:good

 

1. Who did you have winning?
Holyfield 116-112. Really bad fight though, so little action. And no doubt Valuev did rally, of sorts, over the second half of the fight.

2. Do you think it was a fix?
I prefer not to. I think Holyfield would be too proud, and Valuev seems a pretty stand-up guy too. Possibly between Sauderland and the judges? Not sure.

3. Just how woeful is Valuev?
It was a terrible performance, worst I've seen from him. Some are trying to paint it as Holyfield's movement giving him problems, but he's not the first guy to try stick 'n' move with Valuev and he was still able to perform better and throw more against those guys. He really let himself down...he fought like he was scared of Holyfield's power, which really shouldn't have been the case.

4. This fight makes a disgrace of the depth of talent in the heavyweight ranks present day?
Valuev's stock drops a lot, but I don't think it really affects the division in general.
Anyone thinking this result means Holyfield could take on the Klitschkos with the same needs their head examined even more than Evander.

5. Does this fight now reflect on Wlad and Vitali and the opponents they have beat?
Again, pretty much confirms it...maybe not so much Vitali who's only had the one fight since coming back, but Wladimir has been beating the best comp in recent years.

6. In a nutshell, what do you think of the present division and the fighters in it?
The Klitschkos are of course stand-outs and I have hopes for Haye. If he can do something about the fat and lack of defence Arreola possibly. Povetkin has potential. Maybe Gomez. Still think Chambers can make an impact. Apart from that it's pretty damn thin.


As for the comparison to the 90s heavyweights...well, personally that's my second-favourite decade in heavyweight boxing next to the 70s. But I don't think it's about the skill so much. I think there are skillful fighters in the division today.

The main difference, the main problem, is that there are very few marketable fighters.
People like personalities, and the often wild and crazy 90s scene had them in spades.

Thuggish Tyson, holyman Holyfield, dreadlocked Lewis, big-eating Uncle George Foreman, funny guy Bowe, moody Moorer, erratic McCall, 'loveable loser' Bruno, heavy-handed Ruddock, redneck brawler Morrison, big-talking Hide, big-punching New Zealander Tua...and so on. Lots of interesting characters. Then you throw in the press conference brawls, arrests, drug busts, upsets and network battles...

 

Lon Chaney showed more speed and power in the 1945 flick: "The Mummy's Curse." Nick Valuev was horrid in his attack...... Holy can still move and punch a bit; Holy won..... The decision stunk.....

MR.BILL

 

Wasn't Lon Chaney the wolfman, or did he do multiple creep roles?

 

He did multiple creep roles. He was the Wolfman several times, the Mummy 3 times, and Dracula and the Frankenstein monster once each, plus assorted lesser monsters such as the Electric Man and the Indestructible Man. The Mummy had a great left, though, and finished most of his opponents quickly. He was good at cutting off the ring. He would be banned today for using illegal performance enhancing drugs. Without the Tana Fluid, he was just another stiff.

 

Sounds like Chaney always had a card lined up. I bet Frankenstein was like the Valuev of his day.

 

Now that you mention it.

 

I wasn't refering to Chuck Wepner as a good journeyman. That's your call.
The guy was a mediocre journeyman, but he was white and from the East Coast of the USA so somehow he got in the rankings. Even his manager jokes about how Wepner got a winning run at one point and got a ranking.
Wepner was stopped in 3 rounds by a 3-0 George Foreman, and we know how protected Foreman was early on.
He was also matched with a fledgling Buster Mathis and an up-and-coming Duane Bobick, who were fed tomato cans early too.
Wepner got ranked, I assume, with a horrendous 12-round robbery decision over an over-the-hill ex-contender Ernie Terrell.
Or a trilogy with another white-skinned New Jersey ham-and-egger Randy Neumann

 

In truth, Chagaev didn't look THAT superior in his fight against Valuev, nor did he look special against Matt Skelton.
There's no reason for me to believe he's not just another mediocre fighter of moderate ability "with connections".

That's the problem with today's era and people apologizing for it. Valuev is obviously beyond the pale now, but people will then answer that with "Oh, he was never legit anyway, I'm taking about the TOP GUYS like X, Y, and Z" ........ But then 6 months from now X's name with be mud, and Y will be the laughingstock disappointment of the division, and people say "Ah, but A, B and C are coming through".

I dont care whether there's "talent" or not. Maybe there are fighters with lots of it. But no one's performing, apart from perhaps the Klitschko brothers (some or most of the time). And it boils down to committment, conditioning and professionalism more than talent. Those brothers are focussed, stay in shape, and (at least wlad) have planned career-schedule.

klitschko v Klitschko is the only fight out there that we know is between two proven performers who are unlikely to turn up fat or ****. But that fight wont happen. David Haye MIGHT be for real, but he talks a lot to get headlines instead of fighting and showing us his ability.
Other guys are sick or injured or whatever. and when they get round to fighting dont expect much.
Wladimir versus Ibragimov was two top 5 guys, IMO. And it was REALLY AWFUL, as bad a non-fight as Valuev v. Holyfield.

I think the division has been getting worse and worse for about 10 years now. Really. People tell me Chris Byrd was a top 30 all-time heavyweight ! WTF ? He typifies much of what you say, a sideshow with connections, benefitting from questionable decisions against fringe contenders and holding a meaningless title.

sure enough, other eras get "over-rated", but there's NOTHING to get interested in this one that can even be used to "over-rate" it in years to come. Wlad and Vitali might get remembered, but LOSING to an old Lennox Lewis might be the most remrakable thing to be said between them !

 

He also did a few Mummy sequels in the 1940's.....:yep

MR.BILL