How does a fighter who doesn't land win a fight?

I watched some early Valuev footage the other night, forget who it was against, but Valuev was eating/exposed to overhand rights.

 

People who think Valuev won are blinded by their hatred of Haye. Haye is not very likable, but to say that he lost and to defend Valuev, of all people, is patently biased.

 

These same ******s thought Froch won. Its always the same. If your british it is okay that Froch got a win and ok that haye got a win. Yet they demean Dirrell who was substantially better than haye was.

 

I agree with every bit of this.

 

Yes, it's absurd. The same people hate FMJ because he doesn't get hit, so they say he runs. Just like Dirrel "ran" and now Haye "ran." Like chibuku said, the idea of boxing is to hit and not be hit, but apparently avoiding punches is "running."

Froch coined a new name for it, changing it from "running" to "negativity." "He was being very negative in there, punching me in the face and making me miss, very negative of him."

The truth is that seeing FMJ's opponents miss over and over again while he peppers his opponents with clean shots, while they flashback to his loudmouth prefight antics, makes their blood boil over, so he has to be a "running" coward in their minds so they can deal with the agony.

A lot of people seem to hate boxers. Maybe these people should stop watching boxing and switch to ufc exclusively.

 

Did you see Froch's fight against whatever-his-name few weeks back? An example of him landing maybe two solid punches in the fight and winning. So there you go.

 

A) Froch didn't coin ****, that's oldschool boxing talk.

B) Floyd doesn't ever flat out run like Dirrell did against both Froch (most of the time) and Stevens (every single second of every round), or like Haye did against Valuev for 90% of their fight. He's always doing effective work, in every round. If you can't tell the difference between what he does and the survival mode tactics largely employed by Dirrell and Haye in the three aforementioned fights, find another sport.

 

haye won tonight. It was an ugly fight, it was somewhat close (depends on what you like) but a pretty clear win for haye. Hes the better fighter. Both fighters looked like ****, and honestly i just want to see david fight, and i dont want to hear him open his mouth because it smells like ****.

Carl direll, was close, could go either way, it wasnt really a boxing match... I dont know wtf i saw their. The supposed "champ" turned out to be a frustrated bully, and the "elusive boxer" didnt want to fight.... So you all know how that turned out... I dont know, i think it was more of direll pissing everyone off to be honest. I dont know HOW anyone could be a fan of his after that fight :-(

 

Did you give anywhere near this much credit to Chagaev? Who's shorter than Haye, was outweighed by nearly as much, and won more clearly without using the same "evasive tactics"?

 

But was Chagaev hated on as much for his victory as Haye has been?

 

You are falling into the same trap as some of the commentators who said "I don't think you can win a fight by only landing 2 clean punches a round."

If your opponent is only landing one a round, then YES YOU CAN.
(The "two vs one" is obviously an exagerration on both sides, so don't come back with a tearful post about how Valuev landed more than one.)


Bottom line, this is BOXING not a street fight. Footwork, head movement and ring generalship are part of the sport. We all know the old story of Willie Pep winning a round without landing a single punch.

Of course Haye is no Pep, but he is closer to Pep than Valuev is to Sandy Saddler, that for sure! :yep


Haye won. It wasn't a spectacular KO so some people will never be satisfied with it, but he clearly won the boxing match.


... And I don't even like Haye! I still think either Klit would beat him. But he is clearly a superior boxer to Valuev.

 

no because chagaev wasnt a loud mouth pretty boy british guy :-(