Terry D wrote:lowersmiths wrote:
you're wrong. clean, effective punching, effective aggression, ring generalship; and defence are the four main criteria for judging in that order.
You weren't saying that though, you were asking how many punches were thrown and landed, and basing that as the key to who won this, or any fight, when that is actually an amateurish way at looking at a fight. You've since added to this 'counting' approach.
By the four criteria listed Haye won this one as Valuev's aggression, punching was not weffective, his ring generalmanship was poor and his defence was poorer than Haye's. So Haye won.
stujones wrote:Terry,
Although it might seem like it, I didn't view the Haye fight thinking "well this is like the Dirrell fight I am going to use this on boxrec" I viewed and scored the fight on its own merits - but was a bit bemused posting when reading the viewpoints of the minority who scored it for Froch.
Interpretations of "effective counter puncher" is what is where we are differing. And you could say I am equally being hypocritical (maybe even anti British, a labell I have been given on this, many other sites, and when talking about it to my mates) - I scored the Froch fight to Dirrrell, and this fight (just) to Valuev.
However, where I differ from you big style is this effective counter punching. You talk like way "working to the body" like he was Ricky Hatton or Rocky Balboa or something. He wasn't. He landed the odd shot to the body. It was a great tactic. He made Valuev wince in the opening round with a body shot - if he would have thrown more to the body, I think he would have got a stoppage. He didn't throw enough.
You say that Dirrell was ineffective. Yeah he was, for maybe 2 rounds (rounds which I scored for Froch). For significant periods of the fight... he actually backed up Froch, but Froch into "fencer" mode and was controlling the pace of the fight. That infact was the fundemental difference, a fighter can be on the back foot and still controll the "pace" of a fight, through intelligent boxing, mixing it up, landing important counters, making the guy pay when he presses, making the agressor think twice about instigating an attack (cause he is getting hurt).
Take Joe Calzaghe, a man who normally throws a zillion punches a fight, against Hopkins though - yes Joe was coming forward but Bernie took away Joe's pace, made Joe think a little more about coming in. Hopkins ended most little exchanges with the telling punch on top, landed the more telling blows and was seemingly "in control" in terms of ring generalship. So for me, while Joe was throwing more and landing more - hopkins controlled the pace.
For me, Dirrell was also against Froch. I actually didn't think it was that terrible a fight - just our exiting puncher got exposed for being very 2 dimensional. He backed up Froch more times than given credit for. He ended nearly all the exchanges in control - the odd time Froch would have a good 30 seconds consistently, but very rare.
Holding is part of the fight game also, Ali was a master at it.
Valuev vs Haye was different in that Valuev was always in control. There were large periods where Valuev might land 0 from 5 punches, pushing Haye back... and Haye throws nothing in return just runs. Who wins that little exchange, Valuev. There was more times like that, than in the Froch vs Dirrell fight.
That is way Ali deservedly got the decision vs Chuvalo and should have lost against Norton. Ali was in control of the fight, physically and psychologically vs Chuvalo. He controlled the pace from the back foot. Against Norton, Norton DICTATED the pace and controlled the action.
Stu, you actually think I was making a case for Chuvalo winning over Ali? I was taking the piss and trying to point out that the two fights were different in scoring but could be summarised in a similar way.
Plus, I have watched Froch-Dirrell since the night itself, I just decided that the news was not worthy of its own strand. I scored it to Froch by the same margin BTW.
You have talked Dirrell non-stop as far as I can see and I've yet to see you put a case forward for Valuev, this post included.
David, and Froch, used the body shots to put their man off balance and give him something to think about. No, they did not do a Hatton, dipping low with it and leaving themselves there to be countered and telegraphing the shot.
Dirrell was ineffective, and he lost that fight, you've never once managed to make a case for him, ditto for Valuev.
As for Ali being a master at holding, he was, he was also a cheat as his form of holding often amounted to clutching at the arm of his opponent, not resting it on a bicep to stop a left hook a la Toney-Holyfield, but out-and-out incessant holding, such as he showed in Frazier II, smart, effective, but wrong when he did it to that extent and wrong for Dirrell also.
Again with the Chuvalo thing, I think you completely misread my post, perhaps the Valuev fight also? Watch it again.
Anyway, this is boring as you are going to repeat the same stuff over and over and I'll answer, to the detriment of everyone. If you think Valuev won by virtue of walking in a straight line that is fine by me, but this was a title fight, not a roadside drink driving test, you don't get points for walking in a straight line at a very slow speed, nor for touching your own nose or pissing into a bag, or whatever they do.
