Valuev-Haye was Froch-Dirrell all over again

Same way i was thinking Big Bone both fights should have ended up with the same two fighters winning if you judge a fight favoring effectiveness or pressure.

 

Froch's knows how to use his size; slamming, elbows, pushing, whatever; where as Valuev he just wants to tell you poetry.

 

The biggest difference, besides the size aspect, is that Haye didn't initiate clinches and allow Valuev to do all the work on the inside like Andre did. Nothing's more frustrating than watching a fighter hand the other guy all his offense on a silver platter when he doesn't need to.

 

In your opinion. And thats the beauty of this whole ****ing sport. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and everyone thinks everyone elses stinks.

 

I get what your saying BigBone. I think it boils down to the way that when Dirrell ran from a man his size he looked weak, but when Haye ran from a giant he looked sensible. Heck, it was brave for a 6ft3 guy simply to step in the ring with a 7ft guy.

(I did think Dirrell deserved to win but it was pretty damn close. I wouldn't say Dirrell was robbed.)

 

What if you thought Hayes defensive boxing was more effective than Dirrells? Or that Frochs aggression was more effective than Valuevs?

I don't see a problem in having both Froch and Haye or both Dirrel and Valuev as winners. Scoring isn't a black and white like that,

 

I know exactly the point your trying to get across but I don't agree with the comparison. Froch/Dirrel was bloody close but Haye/Valuev was not.
The only simularity was the fight plans of the boxers. Haye was more effective than Dirrel and Froch more effctive than Valuev(Which goes to show you how bloody awful Valuev was tonight!)

 

Haye didn't deliberately fall over about 8 times to avoid engaging and he didn't endlessly hold.


If Dirrell could have done the same he'd be SM champ right now.

 

Dirrell landed far more effective blows against Froch than Haye did on Valuev.

For the record, I had Dirrell beating Froch and a Draw with Valuev vs. Haye.

 

SO because you think an aggressor was effective in one fight and won, you automatically have to think the aggressor was effective and won the other fight? Totally ridiculous.

I guess I can table my card for Dawson-Johnson right here and now then eh?

 

Love to see a rematch at the o2 arena in London.But theres boring Ruiz whos next.

 

If you look at the way that each fighter's behaviour was affected by the other's offensive tactics, you would have to conclude that Froch, who had Dirrell complaining, hanging on for dear life, and going to ground to avoid getting hit, was the more effective of the two.

The fact that Andre changed his tactics late on in the fight (to the ones he should have been using at the start IMHO) says to me that he knew his act wasn't cutting it with the judges and the ref. Dirrell is technically and ability-wise streets ahead of Froch. However, he had his tactics all wrong for that fight, and was made to look like a crybaby by Froch, who manhandled and bullied him expertly until he HAD to start trading late on (with some success).

In Haye's fight, he simply got on with the job at hand. He didn't land many jabs, pretty much only power shots (unlike Dirrell). Froch was more effective aggressively than Valuev, who had virtually no effect upon Haye's behaviour. Haye didn't need to change his gameplan all night because it worked. Valuev didn't know how to stop Haye, or he did but couldn't do it - either way, Haye won convincingly. Froch won less convincingly, but he did win IMHO.

P.S. Of course, I don't know **** about boxing, and this is all uninformed opinion based upon watching the two fights. However, it's my uninformed opinion and I'm sticking to it. Feel free to quote the first sentence of this P.S. out of context.

 

Dirrell and Haye won the fights yes.