BoxRec

crusader wrote:

Horse wrote:

Finn wrote:all you've done is proved my point - you score on clean punches landed and ability to avoid shots - boxing is the art of hitting without being hit - how does throwing punches at thin air translate into points in any method of scoring?

I showed those stats to show Haye's awful punch output. Who landed more power punches? Simply landing more punches doesn't mean a fighter deserves the win.

Since when did Haye win that fight easily? I can't remember that many people acting like Haye had put on a great performance straight after the fight.

Most people didn't because they had it fairly close (so I assume sharpie thinks they're worthless as judges). Even a guy named 'Hayemaker' gave Valuev 4 rounds.

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... &start=125

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... =#p2128338

I said all the way through that I had Haye scraping through as he was only marginally better than Valuev, not that it was a wide decision, so I'm a worthless judge too then?
I said that what you class as work rate doesn't apply to what Valuev was doing as it was so poor as to be insignificant. It was close cause I scored quite a few rounds even as they were both rubbish. I'd take Haye by three or four points in conclusion.
I'm saying that if you were convinced enough that Valuev was effective in any way whatsoever I am surprised. Ultimately Haye did what the hell he liked in there all fight, cause Valuev was too poor to do anything about it.

I said all the way through that I had Haye scraping through as he was only marginally better than Valuev, not that it was a wide decision, so I'm a worthless judge too then?
I said that what you class as work rate doesn't apply to what Valuev was doing as it was so poor as to be insignificant. It was close cause I scored quite a few rounds even as they were both rubbish. I'd take Haye by three or four points in conclusion.
I'm saying that if you were convinced enough that Valuev was effective in any way whatsoever I am surprised. Ultimately Haye did what the hell he liked in there all fight, cause Valuev was too poor to do anything about it.

You say in a post herein that Valuev won no rounds and you seem to be challenging suggestions that he did, so I assume you have major issues with cards that have him winning multiple rounds, as everyone's did; the scores posted by forum members all have at least 4 rounds to Valuev. Moreover, you seemed to imply that scoring similar rounds for fighters in Valuev's position is an important contributor to egregious decisions, so by extension I thought it'd be fair to suggest that you think every forum member who posted their score judged the fight very poorly, and was worthless as a judge for at least this fight.

You also say that you scored numerous rounds even, but then I wonder why you have such an issue with someone leaning toward Valuev in those rounds given that they were so close in your estimation. I for one don't have an issue with scoring tight rounds to the more active fighter--which Valuev usually was even if his output wasn't that high--so we obviously have different scoring philosophies.

I don't think Haye generally looked in control or confident, and I think he's getting too much credit for you in that regard. To me he looked weary of Valuev's size, and consequently fought an overly-cautious fight that he could've won convincingly had he not taken such an approach.

a guy called crusader scored it by one round to haye. There was easily 3 rounds difference imo the judges scored it wider, apart from one who gave it a draw that says it all. No judge gave it to valuev. Some rounds haye did nothing the majority he was outlanding.

Haye won the fight in my eyes and I have no problems with wider scores for him. I just strongly disagree with the suggestion that no rounds should've been scored for Valuev.

When you consider the great performances to come away short in Germany like Reid v ottke
Sturm v many. Better & so on
Haye to me didn't do alot barely threw & ran! Like he was keeping hold of the title!
I did however after realising he broke his hand early glad he won as that excused his workrate.
The fact gbp were behind him is what I believe got him the win on the score cards

Horse sounds like the latest British forum psychopath, aggressive manner and continuously arguing impossibly against the facts because he 'feels' differently.

Horse... are you a religious zealot too?

Horse wrote:

sharpei_louis wrote:I think if its 68%-16%, and 90+ landed to 60+ landed, and the only significant punch landed was in the last round and wobbled the guy who landed the fewer shots, it could only go one way.
I don't get that you want to score a fight to a guy lumbering forwards and missing the vast majority of his punches, a lot of which weren't even thrown in range.
I get that it was a terrible fight, and that Haye only scraped through as Valuev was poorer, but to insist that Haye lost and we're all deluded is crazy - and you're backing up your argument with stats that completely contradict what you're saying. There must be basis in bias, because it's outright illogical what you're saying. Regardless of the Haye Fury fight you must admit that you're barking up the wrong tree with these punch stats surely???

I don't get that you'd want to score a fight to a guy who runs away and hardly throws a punch.

There was a round in the fight (don't remember which) where Haye landed only 2 punches but Valuev didn't land a single shot. Jim Watt then said something along the lines of "Valuev has landed absolutely nothing but can you score a round to a guy that's only landed 2 punches?". To me that question seems to be the crux of the debate. My answer would be yes. For all of Haye's horrible, negative tactics (understandable given the size difference and the broken hand) Valuevs pressing and workrate were wholly ineffective throughout the fight. I don't see how anyone could even have it close tbh. In terms of how the fight played out and how people scored it it reminds me of Rigondeaux v Donaire (not that i'm putting Haye and Valuev in the same league ability-wise!), another fight I had extremely wide to the 'negative' fighter. I prefer to put more emphasis on what their fists are doing rather than what direction a boxers feet are moving in, don't understand why a fighter wins a round just by walking forward.

loaded_gloves wrote:Horse sounds like the latest British forum psychopath, aggressive manner and continuously arguing impossibly against the facts because he 'feels' differently.

Horse... are you a religious zealot too?

When Fury wins I'll be vindicated.

I'm bored of arguing about Fury and Haye, I've been doing it for months. I thought it could all be over soon, but Haye had to pull out.

loaded_gloves wrote:Horse sounds like the latest British forum psychopath, aggressive manner and continuously arguing impossibly against the facts because he 'feels' differently.

Horse... are you a religious zealot too?

There are too many psychopaths on CS to pick one out - it's like a Manson Family with sports subscription.

Horse wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Horse sounds like the latest British forum psychopath, aggressive manner and continuously arguing impossibly against the facts because he 'feels' differently.

Horse... are you a religious zealot too?

When Fury wins I'll be vindicated.

I'm bored of arguing about Fury and Haye, I've been doing it for months. I thought it could all be over soon, but Haye had to pull out.

Well I agree with you on that score. I am beyond annoyed about the cancellation.

palooka wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Horse sounds like the latest British forum psychopath, aggressive manner and continuously arguing impossibly against the facts because he 'feels' differently.

Horse... are you a religious zealot too?

There are too many psychopaths on CS to pick one out - it's like a Manson Family with sports subscription.

Would you believe 10 years ago the Current Scene was a wonderful place to be? A coterie of intelligent, learned boxing fans engaged in fun, friendly discussion with numerous comedy threads and recurring gags.

When I click on Current Scene now . . . It's like the Neanderthals have risen up from the ooze, clubbed the homosapiens brains out and inherited the land. My eyes mist just thinking about it.

loaded_gloves wrote:

palooka wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Horse sounds like the latest British forum psychopath, aggressive manner and continuously arguing impossibly against the facts because he 'feels' differently.

Horse... are you a religious zealot too?

There are too many psychopaths on CS to pick one out - it's like a Manson Family with sports subscription.

Would you believe 10 years ago the Current Scene was a wonderful place to be? A coterie of intelligent, learned boxing fans engaged in fun, friendly discussion with numerous comedy threads and recurring gags.

When I click on Current Scene now . . . It's like the Neanderthals have risen up from the ooze, clubbed the homosapiens brains out and inherited the land. My eyes mist just thinking about it.

Frankly - no, I don't recall the current scene ever being this idyll of which you speak.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote: When I click on Current Scene now . . . It's like the Neanderthals have risen up from the ooze, clubbed the homosapiens brains out and inherited the land. My eyes mist just thinking about it.

Frankly - no, I don't recall the current scene ever being this idyll of which you speak.

Well, quite simply, it was.

So ... it's irrelevant what a sour sounding bloke like you remembers. You sound like the earliest wave of the 'other' type of poster.