View Full Version : To all those who had Haye winning......
TheUzi
11-09-2009, 08:10 AM
AND Froch winning against Dirrel
Bit hypocritical no?:blood
One fighter plodding fwd missing the more skilled fighter with predictable shots.
Some of the comments post Froch/Dirrel
''you dont win fights on the back foot the whole time''
''you cant expect to take the title from the champ in his own backyard fighting like that''
For the record,I had Haye winning(just) and Dirrel winning more convincingly.
Evil Rich
11-09-2009, 08:12 AM
Yep, good point, you can only ever vote for offensive or defensive fighters when you've thrown your hat in the ring on one side. It doesn't matter that they are two different fights, great insight my friend :good
Wickio
11-09-2009, 08:15 AM
I think it's more the clinching that puts people off Dirrell's performance that night. From a technical standpoint, he boxed superbly, but at points he was taking every opportunity to tie his man up and halt the action, where as David, while not the most active we've seen him, didn't really initiate a clinch throughout the fight.
Plus, Dirrell was fighting someone his own size. It's kinda natural that Haye wouldn't wanna trade up with a giant like Valuev for 12 rounds.
Harry Chibber
11-09-2009, 08:16 AM
For me Haye & Dirrell won
icemax
11-09-2009, 08:31 AM
Bit hypocritical no?:blood
Correct, no :deal
Two different fights, two completely different scenarios...the only similarity is that there were two men plus a ref in the ring
GazOC
11-09-2009, 08:47 AM
I had this over on the GF. They are totally diiferent fights, just because you thought the aggressor was effective in one fight it does mean you have to think the aggressor was effective in a different fight.
For the record I had Dirrell and Haye but I think it would be very easy to score the first fight to Froch whereas I can't see how Valuev won on Saturday.
Boro chris
11-09-2009, 09:03 AM
AND Froch winning against Dirrel
Bit hypocritical no?:blood
One fighter plodding fwd missing the more skilled fighter with predictable shots.
Some of the comments post Froch/Dirrel
''you dont win fights on the back foot the whole time''
''you cant expect to take the title from the champ in his own backyard fighting like that''
For the record,I had Haye winning(just) and Dirrel winning more convincingly.
Balls!
I had froch just nicking it and Haye winning clearly.
Typical of the gf that judges fights in such a black and white fashion. Bunch of fucking retards most of 'em!
kieron
11-09-2009, 09:05 AM
No. Just accurate analysis of the course of events. If you want to compare - ok then Haye landed much more than Dirrell did and Valuev landed less than Froch did, simples!!
trotter
11-09-2009, 09:10 AM
I had this over on the GF. They are totally diiferent fights, just because you thought the aggressor was effective in one fight it does mean you have to think the aggressor was effective in a different fight.
For the record I had Dirrell and Haye but I think it would be very easy to score the first fight to Froch whereas I can't see how Valuev won on Saturday.
Same here. Very comfortable with Haye winning 7-5.
I had Dirrell but it was a terrible fight to score, hence a split decision. I could easily score it the other way.
They are not even comparable fights, no clinching in the Haye fight, no holding, and genuinely very few punches landed which made it easy to decipher who won the rounds IMO.
Daft thing is, half the Americans who say this are then saying themselves that Dirrell and Valuev won. The hypocrisy is amazing.
Flea Man
11-09-2009, 09:15 AM
They are similar fights in terms of the styles employed. But Haye landed better shots throughout, Dirrell landed some nice shots in the 11th but seems to clinch and fall over more than anything. Close fight. I felt the Germans would have it closer but there's no doubt in my mind that Haye won now I've rewatched it. Haven't had the bottle to rewatch Dirrell-Froch since I watched it live as I fear it's an absolute stinker :good
threethirteen
11-09-2009, 09:17 AM
The hypocrisy is amazing.
You're mistaking hypocrisy for sheer, blind bias and stupidity.
GazOC
11-09-2009, 09:18 AM
I rewatched Froch-Dirrell (guess I'm a masochist) I didn't score it but came away less confident of my decision to Dirrell than I was on fight night. I think I MAY have given Dirrell too much credit in some of the rounds.
rusticraver
11-09-2009, 09:20 AM
General makes me hate boxing sometimes, bit like a car crash though i have to look
TheUzi
11-09-2009, 09:45 AM
No. Just accurate analysis of the course of events. If you want to compare - ok then Haye landed much more than Dirrell did and Valuev landed less than Froch did, simples!!
Haye didn't land much more than Dirrel. There was some rounds he threw next to nothing.
robpalmer135
11-09-2009, 09:48 AM
its really not. Froch still hit Dirrell, Valuev did not hit Haye.
Also Dirrell did not land the same percentage of shots as Haye.
I had Froch vs Dirrell a draw (so he would of won without the deduction) and I had Haye winning 118-110 on saturday.
AND Froch winning against Dirrel
Bit hypocritical no?:blood
One fighter plodding fwd missing the more skilled fighter with predictable shots.
Some of the comments post Froch/Dirrel
''you dont win fights on the back foot the whole time''
''you cant expect to take the title from the champ in his own backyard fighting like that''
For the record,I had Haye winning(just) and Dirrel winning more convincingly.
I don't agree. Haye hit Valluev with more clean shots than Direll hit Valuev.
And for starters Froch threw and landed more punches than Dirrell.
I can remember Valluev landing about 3 all fight.
Plus can anyone remember Froch doing a bruce grobellar? Funny that, nor me!
TheUzi
11-09-2009, 09:55 AM
I had this over on the GF. They are totally diiferent fights, just because you thought the aggressor was effective in one fight it does mean you have to think the aggressor was effective in a different fight.
For the record I had Dirrell and Haye but I think it would be very easy to score the first fight to Froch whereas I can't see how Valuev won on Saturday.
Agree with your first point Gaz but my point is that the aggressor was ineffective in both fights.
Surely this can't be disputed.
GazOC
11-09-2009, 09:58 AM
Agree with your first point Gaz but my point is that the aggressor was ineffective in both fights.
Surely this can't be disputed.
Just IMO but it can't be disputed in Saturdays fight but (despite going for Dirrell) I thought you could make a very good case for Froch being more effective than Valuev at the same time as Dirrell landing less clean shots than Haye.
Just IMO but it can't be disputed in Saturdays fight but (despite going for Dirrell) I thought you could make a very good case for Froch being more effective than Valuev at the same time as Dirrell landing less clean shots than Haye.
Exactly how I feel and I did have Froch and Haye winning.
I honestly can't see how you can make a case for Valluev winning that fight.
All that matters in a fight is who landed the most and what damage did they do. For the Haye fight this is an easy question as Valluev landed about three shots the entire fight.
As for the Froch fight I can understand why people had Direll winning but I still scored it to Froch for the above reason.
rockandrollstar
11-09-2009, 10:22 AM
Correct, no :deal
Two different fights, two completely different scenarios...the only similarity is that there were two men plus a ref in the ring
Spot on
English Nutter
11-09-2009, 10:32 AM
Dirrell was running,clinching and holding on...think survival is the word....Haye had a plan and had to fight like that due to who he was fighting and the judges understood that..Dirrell came to be negative fight on the backfoot and he'll probably always fight like that...Haye came to fight a plan...If you have ever seen him before your know that is the first time he has ever fought like that and most probably the last.
That is how it is different..Two totally different fights.
TheUzi
11-09-2009, 10:51 AM
OK,
Two ineffective Aggressors who looked terrible coming forward. Both barely landing a power punch
Two defensive fighters avoiding obvious unskilled punches,fighting on the back foot. Landing most if not all the power punches.
Yes,there was more clinching and holding but thats because Valuev is easy to run from.
How many times did I read this nugget??
''yeah but Froch came to fight,Dirrel didn't want to trade'' ..... Saturday anyone??
The comparisons between the two are startling and some of the comments made by Frochs fans show they are BLATENT hypocrites.
TheUzi
11-09-2009, 10:52 AM
Dirrell was running,clinching and holding on...think survival is the word....Haye had a plan and had to fight like that due to who he was fighting and the judges understood that..Dirrell came to be negative fight on the backfoot and he'll probably always fight like that...Haye came to fight a plan...If you have ever seen him before your know that is the first time he has ever fought like that and most probably the last.
That is how it is different..Two totally different fights.
Dirrell had a plan too. Is that not obvious??
BoroBoxing1
11-09-2009, 11:06 AM
I thought Direll beat Froch but it was close, Haye beat Valuev hands down it was a easy nights work... Would of been even easier if he didnt break his hand.
stittyb
11-09-2009, 11:08 AM
Dirrell was running,clinching and holding on...think survival is the word....Haye had a plan and had to fight like that due to who he was fighting and the judges understood that..Dirrell came to be negative fight on the backfoot and he'll probably always fight like that...Haye came to fight a plan...If you have ever seen him before your know that is the first time he has ever fought like that and most probably the last.
That is how it is different..Two totally different fights.
Agreed. One thing i would add though is that it looked like Haye was winning. His confidence, relaxed approach most of the fight let everyone know that what he was doing was intentional.
Whereas Dirrle was complaining, moaning, and doing all he could to stop Froch, ie clinching. While a case can be made for either fighter in that fight, Dirrel didn't look confident enough to let you know that what he was doing was intentional.
It can be compared in a way to the Bhop-Calzaghe fight. While a case can be made for either fighter, Calzaghe was the one forcing the fight, he had his hands down, he was always first out of the corner etc. Whereas Bhop was clinching, moaning, complaining, and faking injuries. Simply put, Calzaghe looked more like a winning fighter than Bhop did.
English Nutter
11-09-2009, 11:38 AM
Agreed. One thing i would add though is that it looked like Haye was winning. His confidence, relaxed approach most of the fight let everyone know that what he was doing was intentional.
Whereas Dirrle was complaining, moaning, and doing all he could to stop Froch, ie clinching. While a case can be made for either fighter in that fight, Dirrel didn't look confident enough to let you know that what he was doing was intentional.
It can be compared in a way to the Bhop-Calzaghe fight. While a case can be made for either fighter, Calzaghe was the one forcing the fight, he had his hands down, he was always first out of the corner etc. Whereas Bhop was clinching, moaning, complaining, and faking injuries. Simply put, Calzaghe looked more like a winning fighter than Bhop did. yeh good point..tbh i had the fight pretty even(haye fight),but like you said you could tell he was in control,as for dirrell he was almost hanging on and didnt show he was in control,it also helped that froch was a massive favourite...the fact is haye had to fight like that,dirrell didnt..the judges in germany like i said undrstood that.
kosaros
11-09-2009, 11:40 AM
I had this over on the GF. They are totally diiferent fights, just because you thought the aggressor was effective in one fight it does mean you have to think the aggressor was effective in a different fight.
For the record I had Dirrell and Haye but I think it would be very easy to score the first fight to Froch whereas I can't see how Valuev won on Saturday.
This. :deal
English Nutter
11-09-2009, 12:02 PM
Dirrell had a plan too. Is that not obvious?? I can see dirrells case i really can,but it was plain to see haye was in control and had to fight like that,could you say the same about dirrell?
Froch moved alot more and threw alt more than valuev,although i agree direll probably got the crisper shots in,but only 1 person wanted to win that fight,which is why he got he decision.
On another day though it might go his way,but thats what u get for fighting like he did/does,1 night the decision will go your way another it wont.
tonysaprano
11-09-2009, 12:38 PM
The difference mate is that Sasquatch couldnt hit Haye, while Dirrell hugged like a two dollar whore:D
Top Dog
11-09-2009, 12:42 PM
Haye did win, and guess what so did Froch, tough
GazOC
11-09-2009, 12:49 PM
It'll take more than a win over Sexton to get Audley a shot.
I see where this comes from. Froch was somewhat more effective than Valuev but Dirrell was also landing more than Haye.
It really should be scored the same way each time, Valuev and Froch were too ineffective.
widdy
11-09-2009, 12:57 PM
i knew this would come up,i always like boxers to fight not run grab and hold,that in effect was the big differance in both fights,not once did i see haye jab,jump in and clinch,(as it seems,dirrel dus in all his fights)would of been suicide against a ape of a man,whereas dirrel did just that for about 10 of the 12 rounds,spoit it and lost the decision for me.
essexboy
11-09-2009, 12:57 PM
I think Haye and Dirrell won but all this comparing two fights that were entirely different is pretty redundant.
You can't score points against Dirrell for holding or falling to the floor in embarrassing fashion I'm afraid. Not unless the ref took points. While you are doing that you might as well deduct a few points from Froch for constant rabbit punching.
I see where this comes from. Froch was somewhat more effective than Valuev but Dirrell was also landing more than Haye.
It really should be scored the same way each time, Valuev and Froch were too ineffective.
It's not about wether Dirrell landed more than Haye.
It's about wether Dirrell landed more than Froch (In my opinion no).
and
It's about wether Haye landed more shots than Valuev (in my opinion yes).
It doesn't matter if Haye were to only land 3 shots all fight. As long as Valuev landed less Haye deseves to win!
It's not about wether Dirrell landed more than Haye.
It's about wether Dirrell landed more than Froch (In my opinion no).
and
It's about wether Haye landed more shots than Valuev (in my opinion yes).
It doesn't matter if Haye were to only land 3 shots all fight. As long as Valuev landed less Haye deseves to win!
Are you joking? The only way you can score it for Froch is for perceived negativity from Dirrell and Froch's aggression. Whether it was effective I doubt and whether Froch was actually the ring general I also doubt.
Clean punches it ain't even a contest, Froch landed shit of quality. How many good power punches did Froch land? Tell me which rounds to look out for Froch's good punching and I'll have a look.
noonan
11-09-2009, 01:07 PM
It's not about wether Dirrell landed more than Haye.
It's about wether Dirrell landed more than Froch (In my opinion no).
and
It's about wether Haye landed more shots than Valuev (in my opinion yes).
It doesn't matter if Haye were to only land 3 shots all fight. As long as Valuev landed less Haye deseves to win!
Agreed, I saw a stat that Haye landed 3 times as many punches as Valuev, now no matter what fasion those punches were landed, he could be looking away with his eyes closed, if they were connecting scoring punches, he deserves the win!!
TheUzi
11-09-2009, 01:07 PM
Dirrell clearly out hit Froch,Froch barely laid a glove on him.
noonan
11-09-2009, 01:10 PM
I agree dirrell froch was very close, but Val Haye wasnt
TheUzi
11-09-2009, 01:13 PM
...
Are you joking? The only way you can score it for Froch is for perceived negativity from Dirrell and Froch's aggression. Whether it was effective I doubt and whether Froch was actually the ring general I also doubt.
Clean punches it ain't even a contest, Froch landed shit of quality. How many good power punches did Froch land? Tell me which rounds to look out for Froch's good punching and I'll have a look.
Not that I'm a big fan of stats but they do back up what I'm saying.
Froch's jab to the body I believe have largely been ignored. Don't get me wrong I didn't think it was a good performance. But at the fight I thought he landed more, when I watched the replay I felt he landed more and the stats back this up.
When Dirrell traded he looked good but this didn't happen untill the 10th and it was too late.
Dirrell clearly out hit Froch,Froch barely laid a glove on him.
Total Bollocks.
It was a close fight and I can respect people who had it close either way.
But your statement is idiocy!
If the jab to the chest was the punch that 'won' the fight for Froch that pretty much sums it up. He did land a few but it was hardly stuff of quality. Dirrell was catching him with short hooks and rolling away.
If the jab to the chest was the punch that 'won' the fight for Froch that pretty much sums it up. He did land a few but it was hardly stuff of quality. Dirrell was catching him with short hooks and rolling away.
I didn't say that was the punch that won him the fight. I was saying this affected the number of punches landed.
I thought in general Froch's bodywork was ok and the jab was ok.
Dirrell in my opinion just didn't do enough.
It will be interesting to see him against AA. I think he may open up more than in the froch fight which will be interesting to see what he's got.
I'll reserve judgement on Dirrell till then though as for me you couldn't learn much about him in the froch fight.
TheUzi
11-09-2009, 01:43 PM
Total Bollocks.
It was a close fight and I can respect people who had it close either way.
But your statement is idiocy!
Ok,
How many times did Froch hit Dirrell cleanly in that fight?
Everytime he loaded up with a shot he missed wildly,looking rather silly in the process.
kidgloves
11-09-2009, 01:45 PM
Dirrell and Haye for me as well.
Quite a lot of Brits had Dirrell if i remember correctly
noonan
11-09-2009, 01:49 PM
Ok,
How many times did Froch hit Dirrell cleanly in that fight?
Everytime he loaded up with a shot he missed wildly,looking rather silly in the process.
Alot lot more often than Valuev
Ok,
How many times did Froch hit Dirrell cleanly in that fight?
Everytime he loaded up with a shot he missed wildly,looking rather silly in the process.
Not often.
How many times did Dirrell hit Froch cleanly?........Not often
It was a close fight but I felt Froch did more work and landed more. Thats my opinion.
TheUzi
11-09-2009, 02:01 PM
Alot lot more often than Valuev
I think your getting away from my initial point.
This is a report from the Guardian,posted on another thread.
It highlights my point tremendously.
Any impartial boxing fan could read the report below and literally replace Haye's name with Dirrell's, Valuev's with Froch's and it would still make perfect sense.
Which is why I accused some of scoring fights in a certain manner which suits the fighter they support.
''One of the talking points that circulated at ringside in Nuremberg on Saturday night was how on earth Jim Watt gave the fight to Nikolai Valuev. I have to share the wonder.
Watt, who was a fine world champion and is an articulate and intelligent commentator, got this one wrong ... in my humble opinion. His argument that you could not award rounds to David Haye because he was throwing "single shots" ignored the fact that, while Valuev was throwing more, he was landing hardly any at all.
But it's more complicated than that. Haye's single shots were landing most of the time; the Russian was missing, often by as much as a foot. He was clueless, clumsy and bamboozled. If you stood back from the action and asked yourself who was doing the boxing, there was only one answer.
As Claude Abrams, the editor of Boxing News ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), pointed out on the way home from the Nuremberg Arena, there are a lot of meaningless cliches in boxing: such as, the challenger has to take the fight to the champion, and you have catch the judges' attention by going forward.
The question both those idiocies pose is: why? There is no logic to them. A boxing match is just that. The other cliche – hit and don't be hit – should mean something. It's what Haye tried to do, with a lot of success, from the first bell to the last. There were periods, granted, when he went too long without landing a scoring shot, but nowhere near as long as Valuev.
There was a time, long ago, when judges took note of boxing ability as well as sheer aggression. Valuev showed a lot of the latter and very little of the former.
It might have been a frustrating fight for Watt to watch, but you can guarantee it was even more frustrating for Valuev. Sorry Jim, Haye boxed his ears off ... in my humble opinion.''
I think your getting away from my initial point.
This is a report from the Guardian,posted on another thread.
It highlights my point tremendously.
Any impartial boxing fan could read the report below and literally replace Haye's name with Dirrell's, Valuev's with Froch's and it would still make perfect sense.
Which is why I accused some of scoring fights in a certain manner which suits the fighter they support.
''One of the talking points that circulated at ringside in Nuremberg on Saturday night was how on earth Jim Watt gave the fight to Nikolai Valuev. I have to share the wonder.
Watt, who was a fine world champion and is an articulate and intelligent commentator, got this one wrong ... in my humble opinion. His argument that you could not award rounds to David Haye because he was throwing "single shots" ignored the fact that, while Valuev was throwing more, he was landing hardly any at all.
But it's more complicated than that. Haye's single shots were landing most of the time; the Russian was missing, often by as much as a foot. He was clueless, clumsy and bamboozled. If you stood back from the action and asked yourself who was doing the boxing, there was only one answer.
As Claude Abrams, the editor of Boxing News ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), pointed out on the way home from the Nuremberg Arena, there are a lot of meaningless cliches in boxing: such as, the challenger has to take the fight to the champion, and you have catch the judges' attention by going forward.
The question both those idiocies pose is: why? There is no logic to them. A boxing match is just that. The other cliche – hit and don't be hit – should mean something. It's what Haye tried to do, with a lot of success, from the first bell to the last. There were periods, granted, when he went too long without landing a scoring shot, but nowhere near as long as Valuev.
There was a time, long ago, when judges took note of boxing ability as well as sheer aggression. Valuev showed a lot of the latter and very little of the former.
It might have been a frustrating fight for Watt to watch, but you can guarantee it was even more frustrating for Valuev. Sorry Jim, Haye boxed his ears off ... in my humble opinion.''
It's a good article and I agree. However I do not agree that you can stick Dirrells name in there. For the simple fact that I do not feel that Dirrell landed more shots than Froch.
Again I would point out that the stats do back me up.
The stats are counted by people just as fallible as ourselves.
Froch missed wildly all night. Point out some rounds to us where Froch landed good punches. I'm asking for Froch's best rounds here so it shouldn't be a huge problem...
46and0
11-09-2009, 02:14 PM
Dirrell won the Froch fight quite handily. It was a hometown decision.
The stats are counted by people just as fallible as ourselves.
Froch missed wildly all night. Point out some rounds to us where Froch landed good punches. I'm asking for Froch's best rounds here so it shouldn't be a huge problem...
If you like when I've got more time (am at work at the mo) I will sit down and round by round show how I scored the fight.
If you drop me a private message I will reply to it. Am well busy at the moment but If you send me the message I'll do it as soon as I get the chance.
Also on the stats thing I'm not a big fan either but in this case before the stats came out most Dirrell fans were saying that they were going to support their argument and yet when they came out they didn't.
Gotta shoot so have a good evening everyone.
That would be cool
Have a good one :good
Neverchair
11-09-2009, 02:28 PM
I think it was Dirrells very negative tactics (holding, complaining etc..) that ultimately cost him the fight.
Rightly or wrongly that does influence people's scoring and in a very close fight you cant afford to start pissing people off.
icemax
11-09-2009, 02:32 PM
Are you joking? The only way you can score it for Froch is for perceived negativity from Dirrell and Froch's aggression. Whether it was effective I doubt and whether Froch was actually the ring general I also doubt.
Clean punches it ain't even a contest, Froch landed shit of quality. How many good power punches did Froch land? Tell me which rounds to look out for Froch's good punching and I'll have a look.
According to Boxrec (I know, don't have a go) Froch clearly outlanded Dirrell [Only registered and activated users can see links] Dirrell was throwing leather, but Froch was slipping an awful lot of the shots
icemax
11-09-2009, 02:34 PM
Dirrell clearly out hit Froch,Froch barely laid a glove on him.
^^^^^^^^^:-(
widdy
11-09-2009, 02:45 PM
pissing against the wind
PatrickP
11-09-2009, 02:46 PM
OK,
Two ineffective Aggressors who looked terrible coming forward. Both barely landing a power punch
Two defensive fighters avoiding obvious unskilled punches,fighting on the back foot. Landing most if not all the power punches.
Yes,there was more clinching and holding but thats because Valuev is easy to run from.
How many times did I read this nugget??
''yeah but Froch came to fight,Dirrel didn't want to trade'' ..... Saturday anyone??
The comparisons between the two are startling and some of the comments made by Frochs fans show they are BLATENT hypocrites.
I agree totally, it is hypocrisy of the highest order to claim that both Froch & Haye won these fights.
Haye did just about enough & Dirrell done more than enough. Dirrell clearly won more rounds against Froch than Haye did against Valuev.
widdy
11-09-2009, 02:49 PM
I agree totally, it is hypocrisy of the highest order to claim that both Froch & Haye won these fights.
Haye did just about enough & Dirrell done more than enough. Dirrell clearly won more rounds against Froch than Haye did against Valuev.
:lol: yup :lol:
widdy
11-09-2009, 03:11 PM
watching dirrel froch again, 1st 2 rounds froch,dirrel hardly landed owt,i be back
threethirteen
11-09-2009, 03:15 PM
Now, some will say that Andre Dirrell fought a similar type of fight against Carl Froch and didn’t get the decision. There were some differences. Froch, for me, always had the look of a dangerous aggressor; Valuev was like a man fumbling to put a key in a lock on a dark night. Dirrell hurt his cause on the scorecards by grabbing, going down without being hit and complaining to the referee; Haye gave the impression that he was boxing exactly the fight he wanted to box.
I think Graham Houston, as ever, explains it best.
widdy
11-09-2009, 03:17 PM
right 3 and 4,froch,wasting my time here,anyone,i mean anyone who compares these 2 fights in any way apart from there being 2 blokes boxing,needs to go and watch another sport.i be back
PatrickP
11-09-2009, 03:18 PM
watching dirrel froch again, 1st 2 rounds froch,dirrel hardly landed owt,i be back
Neither did Froch!! So you just give them to Froch because Dirrell didn't land much? If that's the case you have to give Valuev all the rounds where Haye didn't do much.
hit me HARDER
11-09-2009, 03:22 PM
Haye's on The One Show right now, haha he's a genuinely funny fella, I think he's great.
"I hit him with a knockout shot, damaged my hand, and he didn't even flinch"
Interviewer: "What did he do?"
"He licked his lips"
widdy
11-09-2009, 03:30 PM
Neither did Froch!! So you just give them to Froch because Dirrell didn't land much? If that's the case you have to give Valuev all the rounds where Haye didn't do much.
ok patrick,im gonna giv dirrel round 5,just becouse it missed 2 mins of it on vid,6 and 7 to froch,he landed more shots and dirrel not once in all 7 rounds has had froch backing up,he has ran and grabed,and fallen over,and froc has landed more,pls watch the fight again.
your above statement is a bit silly really,becouse haye did more that valuev in most rounds,even backing the 7 stone bigger man up,completly differant fight
icemax
11-09-2009, 03:50 PM
Haye's on The One Show right now, haha he's a genuinely funny fella, I think he's great.
"I hit him with a knockout shot, damaged my hand, and he didn't even flinch"
Interviewer: "What did he do?"
"He licked his lips"
:lol::lol::lol: Now he has got a decent stage the bloke is going to be a superstar
hit me HARDER
11-09-2009, 03:59 PM
:lol::lol::lol: Now he has got a decent stage the bloke is going to be a superstar
I think so too, I think if he gets a 24/7 & nails it, the Yanks will love him as well.
Haye's on The One Show right now, haha he's a genuinely funny fella, I think he's great.
"I hit him with a knockout shot, damaged my hand, and he didn't even flinch"
Interviewer: "What did he do?"
"He licked his lips"
:lol::lol:
Not the repetitive shit Hatton keeps coming out with then ;)
Wickio
11-09-2009, 04:03 PM
:lol::lol:
Not the repetitive shit Hatton keeps coming out with then ;)
Just you wait til he gets the P4P belt. :lol:
I can see Haye being huge. Wish him all the best!
hit me HARDER
11-09-2009, 04:05 PM
:lol::lol:
Not the repetitive shit Hatton keeps coming out with then ;)
I like Ricky, but can genuinely see how he splits people down the 'miggle'.
With David, it's unrehearsed natural charisma.
PatrickP
11-09-2009, 04:08 PM
ok patrick,im gonna giv dirrel round 5,just becouse it missed 2 mins of it on vid,6 and 7 to froch,he landed more shots and dirrel not once in all 7 rounds has had froch backing up,he has ran and grabed,and fallen over,and froc has landed more,pls watch the fight again.
your above statement is a bit silly really,becouse haye did more that valuev in most rounds,even backing the 7 stone bigger man up,completly differant fight
Ok Widdy, you don't know how to score a fight! You don't lose a round for running, falling or clinching!! If you have done the better work in that round, you win that round! When was Haye backing Valuev up apart from the 12th?
And since when has size of opponent been one of the factors you consider when scoring a fight?
Are you trying to say that Dirrell did not do enough to win but Haye did?
If Widdy is playing ref and judge I hope he deducts a few points for Froch's rabbit punching ;)
widdy
11-09-2009, 04:33 PM
Ok Widdy, you don't know how to score a fight! You don't lose a round for running, falling or clinching!! If you have done the better work in that round, you win that round! When was Haye backing Valuev up apart from the 12th?
And since when has size of opponent been one of the factors you consider when scoring a fight?
Are you trying to say that Dirrell did not do enough to win but Haye did?
can't be arsed going back and 4th,we will agree to differ:hey,unless you wanna argue,then we can arm wrestle:bart
widdy
11-09-2009, 04:34 PM
If Widdy is playing ref and judge I hope he deducts a few points for Froch's rabbit punching ;)
when the fucker is bent over trying to blow ya,id fucking rabbit punch him as well:lol:
PatrickP
11-09-2009, 04:47 PM
can't be arsed going back and 4th,we will agree to differ:hey,unless you wanna argue,then we can arm wrestle:bart
Haye won but so did Dirrell that's all I'm saying. But let's not fight about it. :D
Boro chris
11-09-2009, 05:03 PM
I agree totally, it is hypocrisy of the highest order to claim that both Froch & Haye won these fights.
Haye did just about enough & Dirrell done more than enough. Dirrell clearly won more rounds against Froch than Haye did against Valuev.
Its not hypocrisy it's called having an opinion.:patsch
PatrickP
11-09-2009, 07:54 PM
Its not hypocrisy it's called having an opinion.:patsch
It is hypocrisy to say that Dirrell lost but Haye won. The people who criticised Dirrell saying, "he didn't do enough to take the title from the champion", "you can't win a title fighting off the back foot and running all night", "you can't win rounds by doing nothing for 2 mins of the rounds and then landing a few punches in the last few seconds", cannot deny that Haye did the same thing! The same people justified Froch winning by saying, "Froch was the one trying to make the fight" and "Froch was the aggressor and so deserved the decision" even though it was ineffective aggression, but this is exactly what Valuev did!! You cannot have it both ways. You can't keep changing how you score a fight to suit your agenda and this is why the thread starter pointed out the contradiction from a lot of Haye & Froch fans.
icemax
11-09-2009, 07:57 PM
If Widdy is playing ref and judge I hope he deducts a few points for Froch's rabbit punching ;)
Which would be negated by the point deductions for Dirrell dipping below his opponents waistband :deal
icemax
11-09-2009, 07:59 PM
It is hypocrisy to say that Dirrell lost but Haye won. The people who criticised Dirrell saying, "he didn't do enough to take the title from the champion", "you can't win a title fighting off the back foot and running all night", "you can't wins rounds by doing nothing for 2 mins of the rounds and then landing a few punches in the last few seconds", cannot deny that Haye did the same thing! The same people justified Froch winning by saying, "Froch was the one trying to make the fight" and "Froch was the aggressor and so deserved the decision" even though it was ineffective agression, but this is exactly what Valuev did!! You cannot have it both ways. You can't keep changing how you score a fight to suit your agenda and this is why the thread starter pointed out the contradiction from a lot of Haye & Froch fans.
This is getting pretty old ....Dirrell did not outpunch Froch, end of story. You may think he did, you might believe that you saw it with your own eyes, but the fight stats are contrary to that opinion.
PatrickP
11-09-2009, 08:12 PM
This is getting pretty old ....Dirrell did not outpunch Froch, end of story. You may think he did, you might believe that you saw it with your own eyes, but the fight stats are contrary to that opinion.
Yes he did!!! I can't believe some of you are still denying that :lol: The vast majority of those who watched the fight agree that Dirrell won but there's always a few of you :patsch
Where are these fight stats you speak of?
icemax
11-09-2009, 09:10 PM
Where are these fight stats you speak of?
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
PatrickP
11-09-2009, 09:43 PM
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
There were no official stats released for this fight and if they are ever released they will not even slightly resemble those completely fabricated stats on Boxrec. Those data boxing stats are a joke, who even comes up with that shit :rofl
Which would be negated by the point deductions for Dirrell dipping below his opponents waistband :deal
Which would in turn be negated by the fact Froch threw Dirrell to the ground in an MMA takedown.
Froch was a dirty fucker all night and only one guy got a point... Yet people are still giving rounds to Froch just because Dirrell did this and that which is completely unrelated to scoring a fight :lol:
JonOli
11-10-2009, 12:53 AM
Quality move!!
Edit: clip now not working.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
:rofl That sums up quite a lot of the fight.
Farmboxer
11-10-2009, 03:19 AM
Haye ran, he is fake.
Vitali wants to knock Haye out ASAP, but Haye is still running form he and Vlad, which is a fact.
icemax
11-10-2009, 05:15 AM
There were no official stats released for this fight and if they are ever released they will not even slightly resemble those completely fabricated stats on Boxrec. Those data boxing stats are a joke, who even comes up with that shit :rofl
I suspect that if they had supported your position you would have held them up in a flash....obviously the wrong type of snow
icemax
11-10-2009, 05:20 AM
Which would in turn be negated by the fact Froch threw Dirrell to the ground in an MMA takedown.
Froch was a dirty fucker all night and only one guy got a point... Yet people are still giving rounds to Froch just because Dirrell did this and that which is completely unrelated to scoring a fight :lol:
He didn't throw Dirrell to the canvas in an "MMA takedown", don't exagerate...Cotto did against Clottey and no fucker bats an eyelid...double standards perhaps.
End of the day there is only one man with the belt, and it isn't Andre "marathon man" Dirrell.....some of the schoolgirls on here squeal as though the fight was daylight robbery, it wasn't, not even close to being so.
PatrickP
11-10-2009, 05:43 AM
I suspect that if they had supported your position you would have held them up in a flash....obviously the wrong type of snow
You are holding up Boxrec data boxing stats to prove your point, not me! They are unreliable and I wouldn't care if they showed Dirrell landing 90% of his punches I still would not use them to prove my point. The real stats would show Dirrell outlanding Froch by a good margin. If Dirrell didn't outland Froch then Haye didn't outland Valuev, simple as.
threethirteen
11-10-2009, 05:59 AM
Cotto did against Clottey and no fucker bats an eyelid...double standards perhaps.
Short memory there - the GF was in uproar over it. Though I think Clottey deserved it for his constant grabbing.
icemax
11-10-2009, 06:06 AM
Short memory there - the GF was in uproar over it. Though I think Clottey deserved it for his constant grabbing.
Not short memory, I have taste and generally don't venture into the kindergarten
TheGiftedOne
11-10-2009, 06:14 AM
Haye ran, he is fake.
Vitali wants to knock Haye out ASAP, but Haye is still running form he and Vlad, which is a fact.
:nutcase:nutcase
Yeah.... and the moon is made of Cheese :deal
threethirteen
11-10-2009, 06:21 AM
Not short memory, I have taste and generally don't venture into the kindergarten
:lol:
I shouldn't, but I can't help myself.
Boro chris
11-10-2009, 09:59 AM
:lol:
I shouldn't, but I can't help myself.
Oh God! Same here! Its like staring at a roadside car crash!:patsch
Claypole
11-10-2009, 02:17 PM
I agree totally, it is hypocrisy of the highest order to claim that both Froch & Haye won these fights.
I don't agree. Just because each fight had an obvious aggressor verses a slippery defensive fighter, it doesn't stand to reason that we have to score them in the same way.
For what it's worth I had Dirrell and Valuev just nicking their respective fights. Does that make me a hypocrite? Probably "yes" according to some on this forum, but I don't think so.
I simply watched and scored two fights, independantly of each other, and with no preconceived ideas of favouring either aggressive or defensive fighting. I didn't allow my scoring of the Froch fight to influence how I scored the Haye fight.
I'm also happy to admit that I may have been wrong in the way I scored both these fights. Luckily, I'm not an actual boxing judge. I'm just a boxing fan who enjoys scoring fights and expressing an opinion.
I don't mind being wrong, but I'm not a hypocrite.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.