Valuev-Haye was Froch-Dirrell all over again

El Cepillo · Nov 8, 2009

BigBone said: ↑

And if you had Haye AND Froch winning, you are totally incapable of scoring a profiessional fight. Same goes for the other way around, if you hade Dirrell and Valuev winning.

(EDIT, it seems people have hard time understanding the similarities I'm referring to: scoring similarities. Altough it was a different clash of styles and sizes, the way of the fight action went has many similarities: a guy moving forward, throwing more, "applying the pressure" but being the ineffective aggressor vs. a good mover who fought "negative" if you like and threw less, but ultimately landed more and the more meaningful blows, therefore on a round-by-round basis, if you are consistent with your scoring, you should have had Haye and Dirrell winning based on clean effective punching, or Valuev and Froch, based on aggression, but it was ineffective aggression. What I'm suggesting that if you had Haye AND Froch winning on your card (or the other way around, Valuev and Dirrell), something is wrong with your scoring, because in one fight you prefer clean effective punching (and you should), but in the other, you prefer ineffective aggression. How's that make sense? You gotta score the punching action and not who's going forward, backward, killing or trying to do the action, clinching etc. No matter how ugly or beautiful, the deciding factor in every single round should be effective punching and nothing else.

Both fights were pretty close with little action and many close rounds, but it's the close rounds where your scoring has to be spot on, and if you prefer clean effective punching over aggression which wasn't effective for Froch and Valuev, on a round-by-round basis, you should have Dirrell and Haye winning, clean.)
Click to expand...

You usually make good posts. This isn't one of them. The fights were not similar in anyway, scoring or otherwise.

Froch clearly lost, Haye clearly won.

BeaverDan · Nov 8, 2009

BigBone said: ↑

And if you had Haye AND Froch winning, you are totally incapable of scoring a profiessional fight. Same goes for the other way around, if you hade Dirrell and Valuev winning.

(EDIT, it seems people have hard time understanding the similarities I'm referring to: scoring similarities. Altough it was a different clash of styles and sizes, the way of the fight action went has many similarities: a guy moving forward, throwing more, "applying the pressure" but being the ineffective aggressor vs. a good mover who fought "negative" if you like and threw less, but ultimately landed more and the more meaningful blows, therefore on a round-by-round basis, if you are consistent with your scoring, you should have had Haye and Dirrell winning based on clean effective punching, or Valuev and Froch, based on aggression, but it was ineffective aggression. What I'm suggesting that if you had Haye AND Froch winning on your card (or the other way around, Valuev and Dirrell), something is wrong with your scoring, because in one fight you prefer clean effective punching (and you should), but in the other, you prefer ineffective aggression. How's that make sense? You gotta score the punching action and not who's going forward, backward, killing or trying to do the action, clinching etc. No matter how ugly or beautiful, the deciding factor in every single round should be effective punching and nothing else.

Both fights were pretty close with little action and many close rounds, but it's the close rounds where your scoring has to be spot on, and if you prefer clean effective punching over aggression which wasn't effective for Froch and Valuev, on a round-by-round basis, you should have Dirrell and Haye winning, clean.)
Click to expand...

I scored the fights for Dirrell and Haye, so in your eyes I know my ****. Yeah. Get on it arty

BigBone · Nov 8, 2009

GazOC said: ↑

Scoring consistantly does not mean you always have to favour the aggressor or the guy boxing defensively. Frochs aggression was more effective than Valuevs, Haye landed more clean punches than Direll. The Froch-Dirrell fight was a lot harder to score than last nights fight IMHO because of those reasons and its a lot easier to make a case for Froch winning that it is for Valuev winning.

I scored for Dirrell and Haye but its perfectly possible to score those fights for Froch and Haye and to have still scored those fights fairly and consistantly.
Click to expand...

Now that's better. :good

But like I said, in both fights there was a clear difference between effective action, that's why Dirrell, looking more "negative", was just as clean on punch-by-punch action as Haye. He had the clear edge in both punches and meaningful punches, just like Haye. In a close fight, you gotta give credit to punching.

Jack · Nov 8, 2009

If Dirrell hadn't spoiled the fight so much, they would be similar. I don't think you can run and hold so often and win a title. Haye didn't do much but the rounds he won, were clear. He fought like Dirrell did, when Dirrell actually got stuck in and threw punches.

El Cepillo · Nov 8, 2009

BigBone....I think I misunderstood your original post. Apologies.

GazOC · Nov 8, 2009

BigBone said: ↑

Now that's better. :good
Click to expand...

**** off!! Its not my fault I had to explain things to you multiple times.:good

But like I said, in both fights there was a clear difference between effective action, that's why Dirrell, looking more "negative", was just as clean on punch-by-punch action as Haye. He had the clear edge in both punches and meaningful punches, just like Haye. In a close fight, you gotta give credit to punching.
Click to expand...

Because of the way he fought Dirrell left the possibility of a fair judge giving the decision to the come forward fighter, I don't believe Haye did that.

BigBone · Nov 8, 2009

GazOC said: ↑

Because of the way he fought Dirrell left the possibility of a fair judge giving the decision to the come forward fighter.
Click to expand...

I understand, but I cannot accept that... judges should judge based on the punching action, that's the only objective way. The "negative fighting" cost Dirrell the fight as expected due to today's subjective judging, but that's wrong. Professional, qualified, experienced judges should see the effectiveness through negativity, crowd support etc. and give the fighter the round who was more effective with his punches. Will it ever going to happen? I don't think so.

GDG · Nov 8, 2009

BigBone said: ↑

And if you had Haye AND Froch winning, you are totally incapable of scoring a profiessional fight. Same goes for the other way around, if you hade Dirrell and Valuev winning.

(EDIT, it seems people have hard time understanding the similarities I'm referring to: scoring similarities. Altough it was a different clash of styles and sizes, the way of the fight action went has many similarities: a guy moving forward, throwing more, "applying the pressure" but being the ineffective aggressor vs. a good mover who fought "negative" if you like and threw less, but ultimately landed more and the more meaningful blows, therefore on a round-by-round basis, if you are consistent with your scoring, you should have had Haye and Dirrell winning based on clean effective punching, or Valuev and Froch, based on aggression, but it was ineffective aggression. What I'm suggesting that if you had Haye AND Froch winning on your card (or the other way around, Valuev and Dirrell), something is wrong with your scoring, because in one fight you prefer clean effective punching (and you should), but in the other, you prefer ineffective aggression. How's that make sense? You gotta score the punching action and not who's going forward, backward, killing or trying to do the action, clinching etc. No matter how ugly or beautiful, the deciding factor in every single round should be effective punching and nothing else.

Both fights were pretty close with little action and many close rounds, but it's the close rounds where your scoring has to be spot on, and if you prefer clean effective punching over aggression which wasn't effective for Froch and Valuev, on a round-by-round basis, you should have Dirrell and Haye winning, clean.)
Click to expand...

I can see where you're coming from but I have to disagree. In both fights I scored for clean punches, but in the rounds that there were no clean punches I scored for Froch and Valuev.

I think the difference between the 2 fights is that there were more rounds were Dirrell did nothing than there were Haye.

I'm an American and I had Froch-Dirrell by one point for Dirrell (but I have no problem with Froch winning, and almost agree after re-watching it), and Have-Valuev 8-4.

Also, I would say that if you take the fight as a whole, you'd need to have both Haye and Dirrell or Froch and Valuev winning, but with scoring rounds it doesn't work like that!!!

Log in or Sign up

Valuev-Haye was Froch-Dirrell all over again

El Cepillo Baddest Man on the Planet Full Member

BeaverDan Well-Known Member Full Member

BigBone Boxing Addict Full Member

Jack Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

El Cepillo Baddest Man on the Planet Full Member

GazOC Guest Star for Team Taff Full Member

BigBone Boxing Addict Full Member

GDG Well-Known Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Valuev-Haye was Froch-Dirrell all over again

El Cepillo Baddest Man on the Planet Full Member

BeaverDan Well-Known Member Full Member

BigBone Boxing Addict Full Member

Jack Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

El Cepillo Baddest Man on the Planet Full Member

GazOC Guest Star for Team Taff Full Member

BigBone Boxing Addict Full Member

GDG Well-Known Member Full Member