how did you score haye vs valuev????

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

I gave up after 7 rounds, I thought the judges are going to go for this style of Haye's or not, think I scored it around 8-4, 7-5 Haye but think it could have gone to Valuev, he certainly deserved the rounds where Haye didnt outland him

[Autobarn]

well said Terry D. totally different fights. dirrell was holding and falling over, anything to avoid contact. whereas haye was negating a giant without being silly - using clever isde to side and head movement - and throwing enough shots to impress away from home.

thanks for mentioning haye's jabs to the body - scoring shots, minor shots, but scoring ones nonetheless.

[stujones]

well said Terry D. totally different fights. dirrell was holding and falling over, anything to avoid contact. whereas haye was negating a giant without being silly - using clever isde to side and head movement - and throwing enough shots to impress away from home.

thanks for mentioning haye's jabs to the body - scoring shots, minor shots, but scoring ones nonetheless.

Thats subjective, Dirrell threw and landed more shots but did he do enough away from home. You will say, well he got the decision, maybe - but did he really throw more shots than Dirrell... I very much doubt, did he really land a significantly more amount of punches compared to Froch as Haye did compared to Valuev - again, I very much doubt.

It is soon become a myth that Brits get jobbed abroad. Many people think Lewis was a tad fortunate against Mercer and Holyfield (bout 2), Hatton against Collazo (Spud has since admitted his REAL opinion on the fight, I wonder how many others involved in team Hatton thought he lost), Calzaghe vs Hopkins and now this one. Close fights, Brit got the benefit. I'm actually glad, not because I want to see a Brit win regardless of if he deserves it, but it might mean more Brits will be willing to take the risk and go to the states and Europe to fight the big guys.

The only reason I had the fight close was cause Haye wasn't doing enough. And not this "take the title away from the champion, crap" he wasn't doing enough period.

Compubox means nothing, but I would love to get official figures for both fights. Sure AT TIMES (but not all the time) Dirrell was negative, but I wouldn't be at all surprised he threw and landed more than Froch, and they were cleaner better shots, and let alone the accuracy difference and the fact Froch's aggression wasn't effective (neither was Valuev's).

[gemmell]

115-113 hayemaker

[stujones]

Just for the record.

I didn't score the Mercer vs Lewis fight for Lewis. I said close decision that a few thought the home fighter should have won. Where did I say my opinion on that.

[dondada]

115-114 Haye. Lots of close rounds for me.

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2009/haye-f ... am-germany

[BigCheese1986]

115-114 Haye (6-5-1)

[jamesmcdonnell]

Just for the record.

I didn't score the Mercer vs Lewis fight for Lewis. I said close decision that a few thought the home fighter should have won. Where did I say my opinion on that.

You threw that one in with another pointless mentions of fights gone by.

How about telling us why and how Valuev won, without the straight line or ring stats cry?

I think that there were a lot of very quiet rounds, and in some of those rounds, Valuev landed enough jabs to take it.

I didn't score the fight very meticulously as I was just trying to enjoy watching a fight - but by my scorecard, Valuev was I think three rounds up going into the 10th.

I can see why you could make a case for Haye winning, as for large periods there really was nothing happening in there at all. I also will not give someone much credit for fighting off the back foot if they aren't actually landing anything. You aren't controlling the action if all you are doing is retreating.

I would score it again - but to be honest it's such a boring fight that I can't be arsed.

[stujones]

I've stressed it enough times, Terry.

6-5-1 Valuev. My opinion is pretty much identical to James's stuff.

Valuev was ineffective, Haye did next to nothing. Large periods of the fight I plumped for ineffective agression over nothing.

[CheckHook]

115-113 Haye.

Could've been a draw or 116-112 Haye, but Haye deserved the nod for me. I really don't see the Dirrel Froch comparison though. Dirrell gave the impression of a man out of his depth when he fought Froch. It wasn't until late that he actually had the look of a guy who could win, I don't remember Haye giving that impression against Valuev. In close fights you can't afford to be hanging on to your opponent and crying to the ref. That type of behaviour clearly gives the impression you are looking for a way out or a little help from the ref. In a close round that's all the reason needed to send it the other way. Haye looked much more comfortable and at no point did he stop Valuev from fighting, he allowed Valuev to do anything he wanted, Valuev just couldn't find a way to land. Of course Dirrell landed more often than Haye, but Froch landed much more often than Valuev and when he wasnt' landing cleanly he was hitting gloves and backing Dirrell up, until Dirrell lunged in for the clinch.

The reality is there are loads of close fights that people see and score in different ways, but its not as simple as saying if you score one fight this way you must've scored another similar fight the same way. There are lots of fights that play out in a similar way, but its those subtle differences that can swing a fight. For me, the only reason to compare Dirrell Froch to Haye Valuev is to highlight the subtle differences between fights and scoring. It shouldn't be used as some sort of evidence that Britsh boxing is corrupt or Froch shouldn't be a world champ or person x can't score a fight or any other thinly vailed attack on something or someone you find objectionable.

[stujones]

115-113 Haye.

Could've been a draw or 116-112 Haye, but Haye deserved the nod for me. I really don't see the Dirrel Froch comparison though. Dirrell gave the impression of a man out of his depth when he fought Froch. It wasn't until late that he actually had the look of a guy who could win, I don't remember Haye giving that impression against Valuev. In close fights you can't afford to be hanging on to your opponent and crying to the ref. That type of behaviour clearly gives the impression you are looking for a way out or a little help from the ref. In a close round that's all the reason needed to send it the other way. Haye looked much more comfortable and at no point did he stop Valuev from fighting, he allowed Valuev to do anything he wanted, Valuev just couldn't find a way to land. Of course Dirrell landed more often than Haye, but Froch landed much more often than Valuev and when he wasnt' landing cleanly he was hitting gloves and backing Dirrell up, until Dirrell lunged in for the clinch.

The reality is there are loads of close fights that people see and score in different ways, but its not as simple as saying if you score one fight this way you must've scored another similar fight the same way. There are lots of fights that play out in a similar way, but its those subtle differences that can swing a fight. For me, the only reason to compare Dirrell Froch to Haye Valuev is to highlight the subtle differences between fights and scoring. It shouldn't be used as some sort of evidence that Britsh boxing is corrupt or Froch shouldn't be a world champ or person x can't score a fight or any other thinly vailed attack on something or someone you find objectionable.

I agree with what your saying completely, although I do disagree with your interpetation of the Dirrell fight. Thats why I brought it up. I thought Dirrell was FAR more effective than Haye was.

[CheckHook]

115-113 Haye.

Could've been a draw or 116-112 Haye, but Haye deserved the nod for me. I really don't see the Dirrel Froch comparison though. Dirrell gave the impression of a man out of his depth when he fought Froch. It wasn't until late that he actually had the look of a guy who could win, I don't remember Haye giving that impression against Valuev. In close fights you can't afford to be hanging on to your opponent and crying to the ref. That type of behaviour clearly gives the impression you are looking for a way out or a little help from the ref. In a close round that's all the reason needed to send it the other way. Haye looked much more comfortable and at no point did he stop Valuev from fighting, he allowed Valuev to do anything he wanted, Valuev just couldn't find a way to land. Of course Dirrell landed more often than Haye, but Froch landed much more often than Valuev and when he wasnt' landing cleanly he was hitting gloves and backing Dirrell up, until Dirrell lunged in for the clinch.

The reality is there are loads of close fights that people see and score in different ways, but its not as simple as saying if you score one fight this way you must've scored another similar fight the same way. There are lots of fights that play out in a similar way, but its those subtle differences that can swing a fight. For me, the only reason to compare Dirrell Froch to Haye Valuev is to highlight the subtle differences between fights and scoring. It shouldn't be used as some sort of evidence that Britsh boxing is corrupt or Froch shouldn't be a world champ or person x can't score a fight or any other thinly vailed attack on something or someone you find objectionable.

I agree with what your saying completely, although I do disagree with your interpetation of the Dirrell fight. Thats why I brought it up. I thought Dirrell was FAR more effective than Haye was.

Not having a dig at what you're saying about the Dirrell fight and my comments weren't aimed at you, just ment as general observations. I just think there's been alot of rubbish posted by a section of the community over the past few weeks and some people seem to be stretching the truth to fit there preconceptions.

[davidas]

115-113 Haye.

Could've been a draw or 116-112 Haye, but Haye deserved the nod for me. I really don't see the Dirrel Froch comparison though. Dirrell gave the impression of a man out of his depth when he fought Froch. It wasn't until late that he actually had the look of a guy who could win, I don't remember Haye giving that impression against Valuev. In close fights you can't afford to be hanging on to your opponent and crying to the ref. That type of behaviour clearly gives the impression you are looking for a way out or a little help from the ref. In a close round that's all the reason needed to send it the other way. Haye looked much more comfortable and at no point did he stop Valuev from fighting, he allowed Valuev to do anything he wanted, Valuev just couldn't find a way to land. Of course Dirrell landed more often than Haye, but Froch landed much more often than Valuev and when he wasnt' landing cleanly he was hitting gloves and backing Dirrell up, until Dirrell lunged in for the clinch.

The reality is there are loads of close fights that people see and score in different ways, but its not as simple as saying if you score one fight this way you must've scored another similar fight the same way. There are lots of fights that play out in a similar way, but its those subtle differences that can swing a fight. For me, the only reason to compare Dirrell Froch to Haye Valuev is to highlight the subtle differences between fights and scoring. It shouldn't be used as some sort of evidence that Britsh boxing is corrupt or Froch shouldn't be a world champ or person x can't score a fight or any other thinly vailed attack on something or someone you find objectionable.

I agree with what your saying completely, although I do disagree with your interpetation of the Dirrell fight. Thats why I brought it up. I thought Dirrell was FAR more effective than Haye was.

Your having a laugh right? Please tell me your joking about Dirrell being more effective than Haye. Please. Pretty Please.

[doctorboxing]

116-112 Haye.

I really believe a lot of people going for Valuev were swayed by Jim Watt scoring the fight the way he thought biased judges would score it rather than the way he saw it.

If he hadn't hurt his hand in round two I think he would have stopped Valuev, who looked very very poor. All credit to David for overcoming a broken hand and making an experienced world champ (albeit a piss poor one) with many physical advantages look like a complete novice.

People on here need to liven up - Britain has a heavyweight champion of the world who is full of personality and willing to not only face mandatories but go after the biggest fights! The heavyweight division is exciting again, we have someone to challenge the Klits and he is British!

[DG.]

120-108 Haye

You laugh, but that's actually just about how Kevin Mitchell scored it.

He obviously needs to go to Specsavers!

I saw it 115-112 for Haye - no one an argue if he lost or had a draw.

[Autobarn]

graham houston had it 115-113

http://www.fightwriter.com/?q=node/2444

Memo to self: for the umpteenth time, take boxers’ pre-fight comments with a grain of salt.

David Haye talked so much about going for the knockout he had me believing it. Instead, Haye did what logic dictated he should do, which was to move this way and that, hit and get out, and not give Nikolai Valuev a chance to unload on him in Saturday’s heavyweight title fight in Germany.

This was the blueprint that been laid down by Evander Holyfield and Ruslan Chagaev, and Haye followed it perfectly.

It wasn't spectacular, but it was undeniably an intelligent, clever tactical fight by the British heavyweight against an opponent who towered over him by nine inches and outweighed him by about 100 pounds.

Watching the fight, I wondered if Haye might not be boxing a bit too cautiously, a concern voiced by Jim Watt in the Sky commentary. As it turned out, Haye and his trainer and longtime friend Adam Booth gauged things perfectly.

Judging by the way that Haye wobbled Valuev with a left hook in the last round, maybe he could indeed have toppled the Russian giant had he gone after him the way he led us to believe he would. There would have been a risk, though, that Haye could have got caught and hurt by one of Valuev’s ponderous, downward-travelling right hands, or maybe an uppercut. I believe that Adam Booth’s advice to Haye was on the lines of: “Don’t give this guy a chance to win.” Even when Haye was cruising through the early rounds, Booth cautioned him: “Don’t get drunk on the success you're having.”

It was a finely judged performance by Haye, if not the glorious triumph that some of the British press were proclaiming it to be. Haye opened as the solid betting favourite at almost 3-1 on, for goodness’ sake (although a surprising late rush of money on Valuev narrowed the odds). It wasn’t like Randolph Turpin outpointing the magnificent Sugar Ray Robinson or Lloyd Honeyghan beating up Donald Curry in Atlantic City, or Ken Buchanan outscoring Ismael Laguna in the heat of Puerto Rico, or John H. Stracey climbing off the canvas to overwhelm Jose Napoles in Mexico City. Those were great British upset victories. As my colleague Steve Bunce would say: “Let’s get it right.”

Haye got the win, though, and he is now the WBA heavyweight champion. He did it away from home, too, as he did when stopping Jean-Marc Mormeck in France to become cruiserweight champion. However, it wasn’t as if he beat the local favourite in Valuev. The huge Russian has been booed by German crowds in the past (as when he got a clear but unimpressive win over Jean-Francois Bergeron). This fight was on a level playing field, with Jim Watt noting before the off that the ring was “massive” — which favoured the sort of evasive style that Haye was about to employ.

It soon became clear that Haye was not going to be engaging the lumbering hulk that moved steadily forward like a slow train heading down a track. Haye’s tactics — to keep out of Valuev’s way, shoot some jabs into the champion’s massive midriff and hit him with hard, quick punches, maybe two or three at a time, once or twice in each round — were keeping him ahead. Although Valuev shook his head to signify “nothing”, the fact is that these were eye-catching punches from Haye. In rounds where neither man had been doing much of anything, Haye’s occasional explosions were enough to sway the judges his way.

As I saw it, Haye won almost all the early rounds, and Valuev could never quite creep into the fight to the extent that he could get his nose in front.

It did seem like a very close fight, though. Valuev was prodding out the long left hand but many them were falling short or being slipped by the athletic Londoner.

Some watchers might have taken the view that if Valuev hadn’t been plodding forward then there wouldn’t have been a fight (yes, OK, such as it was). So, the scoring of the Spanish judge, 114-114, wasn’t a surprise. The wide scores of the U.S. and Italian judges — each marking it 116-112 in Haye’s favour — did surprise me, but when Haye finished strongly I was in no doubt that he would get the verdict, with 115-113 looking about right.

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.

My pal and editor at Boxing Monthly, Glyn Leach, told me on Sunday morning that he watched the fight twice and each time he came up with a draw — he couldn’t split them. Jim Watt had Valuev winning by two points on the Sky PPV commentary and his ringside colleague Ian Darke saw it one point in favour of Haye. I’m told that on the North American PPV commentary, Bob Sheridan (watching on a monitor Stateside) had it a draw. Yet Kevin Mitchell of The Guardian, an experienced boxing observer, who was at ringside, gave Haye 11 of the 12 rounds with one even. (No doubt Adam Booth would say that Kevin was the only one present who knew what he was looking at.)

Haye apparently hurt his right hand early in the fight, which adds merit to his victory. He is a personable, usually exciting fighter whose win is good for boxing. (London promoter Frank Maloney, who once promoted both Haye and Valuev, told me before the fight that while he leaned a little towards Valuev he would be “cheering like mad” for a Haye victory because of the boost it would give the game in Britain.)

Valuev’s body language at the end of the fight told you that he didn’t expect to get the decision while Haye’s manner was of a boxer who knows he did enough.

Many will consider the decision debatable but I don’t think it can be called controversial. Haye was smart, slick, disciplined and determined. He didn’t deliver the devastating type of win he had predicted, but his big left hook in the final round provided a moment of drama that people will remember. Haye did the job that he set out to do, and he got the win — and, when all is said and done, you can’t knock success.

[thaibox uk]

I scored nil nil they were both crap and if it was anybody else but Haye the conversations on here would all be about how this was one of the worst heavyweight fights ever.

[alexpaterson]

114-114

I really couldnt seperate them I felt Haye was much more accurate but didnt throw enough whereas Valuev didnt land enough clean it was a close fight I wouldnt of argued with either winning

[tonymush]

i had haye by a point

[hayemaker]

Haye 116-112, if you scored this fight for Valuev seriously go and watch it again or go and kill yourself.

[Deadendgeneration]

Haye by 2. I think the Dirrell comparison is pretty lazy.

Haye didn't clinch or go to ground without being hit. Dirrell also got hit a lot more than Haye.

That said Dirrell also landed a lot more than Haye did and made Froch look pretty slow.

Haye by 2, Dirrell by 3 for me.