I'm sick of the robbery myths concerning British boxers. I can think of two close ones that are ridiculously considered robberies: Froch-Dirrell, Hatton-Collazo. If there was a rematch of the former, I have no doubt that Dirrell would win, but it was close. I had it Froch by a point, though the pont deduction was unfair. Hatton clearly won the first five rounds vs Collazo and had the kd, so it can't have been a robbery. Then there is the silly: people who say Holyfield won the secind fight against Lewis are absolute lunatics. but now the worst of all: Valuev robbed??????????? Stop these threads, abd stop the myths. watch the fight. Haye was virtually a big Mayweather in this fight. He was magnificent, a defensive genius (too strong given how poor Valuev was, but his mastery of getting off the ropes when trapped was extraordinary goiven the standards of this division). This isn't a fight that deserves even a mention of a rematch, it wasn't close, and Haye should be praised by the lot of you. We Brits do annoy by overly talking up our fighters. I'm guilty of that. I was wrong about Hatton. I was probably wrong about Froch. But Haye is brilliant.
Haye wasn't "brilliant." He was in against a mediocre beltholder who doesn't hit particularly hard and all he did was run around all night. Valuev came forward and threw more punches, and made the fight, such as it was. I was quite surprised by this decision. Haye didn't take the title from the champion!
