Printable View
When you are Valuevs size, you dont need a strategy.
Evan against the Kilitschkos hed dwarf them, being 4 to 6 inches taller than the tallest one, depending on what height you believe himt o be, 7 foot or 7,2".
All Valuev has to do is keep punching and walk his man down, its little boxers like Holyfield who have to adapt how they fight for such a huge man.
There you go, he didn't do that. Next question, what would you have changed in Holyfields plan, or what do you feel Holyfield failed to do in his strategy?Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
Downloaded the fight yesterday, watched only the first round, then I got bored. But I thought Valuev could easily have won the first round, which seems to go against popular wisdom. Do other people see the first round as being typical? Or did Holyfield assert himself more as the fight went on?
It was an absolutely dreadful fight to watch, I gave most rounds to Holy because he had answers for almost everything that Valuev threw, and he was executing his gameplan. Garbage fight, Holyfield deserved the nod big time though. Valuev did nothing of value, most of what little he threw missed or got countered and at no point was the fight on Valuev's terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
I really don't want this argument to escalate because I hope I never have to see it again.
He failed to work, he didnt get anyones attention with any eye catching work, or just......work, the best anyone could say about Holyfield is that he managed to move well on his legs for a 46 year old for the full 12 rounds but then he wasnt under any real pressure.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Valuev did more than Holyfield which gives him the win.
That's fine by me. Have a good one. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepIt was an absolutely dreadful fight to watch, I gave most rounds to Holy because he had answers for almost everything that Valuev threw, and he was executing his gameplan. Garbage fight, Holyfield deserved the nod big time though. Valuev did nothing of value, most of what little he threw missed or got countered and at no point was the fight on Valuev's terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
I really don't want this argument to escalate because I hope I never have to see it again.
This is where we disagree, Valuev didn't do anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossHe failed to work, he didnt get anyones attention with any eye catching work, or just......work, the best anyone could say about Holyfield is that he managed to move well on his legs for a 46 year old for the full 12 rounds but then he wasnt under any real pressure.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Valuev did more than Holyfield which gives him the win.
Should have gone to specsavers;)
If you watch the fight objectively and not nostalgicly for a 46 year old legend and actually noted just the punches im sure youd see it different, whether anyone would want to admit that is another matter:p
Are you saying I didn't watch it objectively? I have clearly stated my case. You still have not made a convincing argument that Valuev won.Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
I noted only ONE exchange in that fight that Valuev got a shot in without getting countered.
Explain your views on the four criteria of judging a round as I did, that way we can have an apples to apples argument
Why do you even bother ? its well known Ross is the most biased Evander Holyfield hater on here, in every Evander Holyfield thread he mentions the steroids, even though there is no 100 percent proof, and its well known he is the biggest Mike Tyson nut hugger on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepAre you saying I didn't watch it objectively? I have clearly stated my case. You still have not made a convincing argument that Valuev won.Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
I noted only ONE exchange in that fight that Valuev got a shot in without getting countered.
Explain your views on the four criteria of judging a round as I did, that way we can have an apples to apples argument
Now i don't think you have to a rocket scientist to work out, why he hates Evander Holyfield. I mean i maybe looking to far into this but it couldn't possibly, be because Evander Holyfield whooped his boys ass ?
:rolleyes:
I haave watched the bout and Holyfield didnt land as much as Valuev did plane and simple.
I appreciate Holytfield was a very good fighter but he is a walking contradiction and drug cheat and at 46 has nothing to offer boxing as a competitor as this fight proved, he didnt try to fight, he tried his best to avoid one.
I guarantee Holyfield landed more often than Valuev. The very thing you accuse Holyfield of doing Valuev is equally guilty of, he did very little to initiate the action at any point.Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
Do I understand correctly that the entire basis of your argument is that Valuev outlanded Holyfield?
Well, that is how you win a boxing match, not be skipping sideways or throwing a couple of shots to arms for an entire match.
Standing in the middle of the ring looking like a lost 6 year old in the mall wins you fights? It all makes sense now, I guess Im not the only won who thinks Oscar beat Pac then...Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
I know this was a very boring fight and not much happened, but to those who think Valuev won, you either no nothing about boxing or you're judging criteria is SERIOUSLY misaligned. I hate to sound like a jerk and I'm usually very open and tolerant of other opinions but man, TERRIBLE decision.
NO.
So if I could prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Holyfield landed more, would you say that he won?Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
Ive seen other peoples versions of the punch count on here and they are laughable?
Again, I'll ask the question if I could prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Holyfield outlanded Valuev would you say that Holyfield won?Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
Well if I were you I wouldnt have wasted my time asking the same question again, I would have put up the unquestinable proof that Holyfield landed more punches in each round.
Either there was an official punch count or there wasnt, if there was, thatll be why Valuev wan;)
So for a lack of a punch count we're in the realm of hearsay, and I can tell you right now, the number of punches landed is not how you judge a fight or else there would be a requirement of punch stats on every fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
Again your entire argument is based on hearsay just like the claim the Holyfield did steroids.
Anyone who thought Valuev won, can still nominate the same, Valuev vs. Holyfield, for "Fight of the Year" honors!
Ok, it's old news I know, but...
I finally got around to watching the whole fight, it was on tv at the bar tonight. Hard to call, Valuev was more consistent and active throught the round, Holyfield usually managed a very brief little flurry at the end of the round. Put it under a magnifying glass and maybe, just maybe you can make a case for Holyfield, but honestly I don't think it was the outrage that most made it out to be. I've seen plenty worse, Incuding Lewis Holyfield I, DLH Trinidad, and others.
Toss a coin, who cares. 108-108 like Plop said. I'm just glad we don't have to call Holyfield champ.
CGM i going to have to disagree with you Value did nothing to win it Evander Holyfeild even with his flurys landed more punchs during that fight not only that but Value just plodded around not throwing anything that does not win you rounds i would say Holyfeild won the fight plain as day.
Well, I saw lots or rounds where Valuev threw out jabs, and Holyfield did nothing at all except for maybe 5-10 seconds of activity. So go figure. But yeah 140, I know I'm in the minority. But I didn't exactly count punches or anything. Anyways, it looks like there will be a rematch, hopefully it'll be Valuev in control.
Tell you the truth and i know i am hoping for the best i hope Holyfeild wins and then calls it a day and never fights again but i dont think that while happen but i just hope he know its done and that he can go off on a win and say he done somthing no one elese has and just be happy.