Stop the ROBBERY bullsh!t. The Fightwriter has spoken.

what has he ever done to earn a title like that? Bernstein is the most knowledgeable guy in the sport far and away. Houston is full of shit from what I've seen OK, read this carefully. Al Bernstein is a boxing TV commentator, not a boxing writer. Graham Houston is a boxing writer, not a TV commentator. The original post called Houston the best boxing writer.

refrain from fighting in europe! /thread

I saw a close fight. Holyfield the challenger, away from home who didn't want to engage. A close fight and a close decision for the champion. Surely no robbery there. But if someone thought they watch a movie, in which the old champ, fighting to secure hes house and family, going away, fighting a 11 years younger and 44 kg heaver opponent, the beast from the east/Russia - well i am sure this was not the Hollywood ending, where Holifields cry out hes wife names so they could hog in the middle of the ring. (by the way - i shouted for Holyfield all the way)

lol. Yeah. That was jokish for sure. BTW the ratings in Germany went trough the roof. 8.14 million homes watched the fight. A sensational rating. Boxing aint dying in Germany thats for sure. But I guess this fight was like the thrilla in manilla compared to the Ottke fights of yesteryear. Boxing in Europe is thriving if anything. The balance of power is shifting.

The best thing off the whole fight was when buffer said at the end lets have a round off applause for two great fighters haha he must have got forced to say that, and when the German guy asks Holyfield how Vaulev compared to Holmes Foreman Bowe etc and Holyfield couldn’t think off anything good to say lol. lol. Yeah. That was jokish for sure. BTW the ratings in Germany went trough the roof. 8.14 million homes watched the fight. A sensational rating. Boxing aint dying in Germany thats for sure. But I guess this fight was like the thrilla in manilla compared to the Ottke fights of yesteryear.

The best thing off the whole fight was when buffer said at the end lets have a round off applause for two great fighters haha he must have got forced to say that, and when the German guy asks Holyfield how Vaulev compared to Holmes Foreman Bowe etc and Holyfield couldn’t think off anything good to say lol. How Buffer kept a straight face I don't know. Either way, Valuev's punches must have had some effect as I'm surprised Holyfield didn't simply laugh at the question from that idiot.

The best thing off the whole fight was when buffer said at the end lets have a round off applause for two great fighters haha he must have got forced to say that, and when the German guy asks Holyfield how Vaulev compared to Holmes Foreman Bowe etc and Holyfield couldn’t think off anything good to say lol.

In the least, it was a questionable decision. Arguing that the fight was not a robbery is not only pointless (especially if you scored the fight for Holyfield), but irrelevant. It does not matter to what degree the judging was unfair. And in this instance the judging was ludicrous. This just was not a fight that could have gone either way. The "champion" did not fight like he cared to retain his belt.

Personally, I think the most culpable of all is Holyfield himself. I only saw the last 7 rounds but, even if he won the first 5 rounds as comfortably as everyone on here seems to think he did, he really did himself no favours for the rest of the fight. You aren't going to win any rounds anywere - let alone a Sauerland fighter on a Sauerland card - if you are constantly backing away from your opponent (who just happens to be the champion) and throw no more than 5 punches a round. Even if your opponent is missing with everything he's throwing, the fact that he's the one at least attempting (occasionally, granted) to engage will often mean he gets the nod. Especially when he's the champion already. He had to win rounds clearly and in the second half he really didn't do enough. If he won the first 5 then I'd probably have scored it for Holyfield as well, but nowhere near the margins stated by some on here. I guess my point is twofold. Firstly I've seen far bigger robberies - in the US, UK, Germany and every country in between. Nothing will compare to Ottke-Reid and this wasn't even in the same stratosphere as that. Hell this wasn't even a Casamayor-Santa Cruz or a Lewis-Holyfield. Secondly, I'd have given both fighters the L. Neither deserved anything. A genuinely rank bad fight between two fighters with little to no business in the ring these days apart from serving as a freak show to neutral mountaindwellers.

what has he ever done to earn a title like that? Bernstein is the most knowledgeable guy in the sport far and away. Houston is full of shit from what I've seen I have seen more than a few people imply that those who think Holyfield won were in some way swayed by the commentary of the American Broadcasters. The crew in no way gave a biased account. They spoke negatively throughout of Holyfield's style and of his reluctance to engage. They made several comments to the effect of "Holyfield has done nothing to win the fight, Valuev just didn't show up" They said that it would be a shame even if Holyfield won because it would be nothing to be proud of and would probably be mocked.

What a silly comment. Houston is perhaps the greatest of fight reporters. Shame on you. what has he ever done to earn a title like that? Bernstein is the most knowledgeable guy in the sport far and away. Houston is full of shit from what I've seen

I wanted Holyfield to win and I scored the fight a draw with 9 and 10 going either way. It wasn't a blatant robbery! It was a close shitty fight that could have went either way in my opinion...

I hope it isn't as boring as the second. Minus the KO, Louis vs Walcott II is one of the worst fights I've ever seen. It pretty much is. Neither of those fights were very good. Joe was a bit past his best by then.

poor holyfield........... i thought he won........ lol i got ownd.......... i screamed ' AND NEW!!!!!!!!' then BAMmm and STILLLLLLL ****in bullshit

oh yea, the 'biased yank commentary' made that big a difference. without that commentary, the 95%+ people that voted for Holyfield would have completely changed their mind, and we all would be saying that the fight was close and could have gone either way. give me a break. and I watched the fight in another language anyway. Tell me people, was the commentary really that biased? No, they spent the whole fight trashing Holyfield. They went on and on about how it is clear that he doesnt have it any more, and what a poor showing it was.

Following last nights controversial decision in the Valuev-Holyfield bout NSB has been over the top with cries of robbery, foul play and worse. I had Holyfield winning 115-113 so I found it a close fight. Not a robbery as I could understand somebody giving the nod to Valuev. I just checked the fight report from the great reporter Graham Houston (the fightwriter) and he scored it for Valuev! Mr. Houston is arguably the best boxing reporter in the world. Here's the relevant passages from his report: "What on earth is all the fuss about? Nikolai Valuev was unimpressive, no argument, and Evander Holyfield showed that at 46 he is still a fighter to be taken seriously, but the decision in Saturday’s heavyweight title fight in Zurich was hardly one of the worst of all time. This could have been scored for either fighter. It so happened that Valuev got the majority decision. One point on one judge’s card was all that kept this from being a draw. It was that close. The 116-112 score in favour of Valuev by the Italian judge seemed too wide, but I had no quarrel with 115-114 in favour of Valuev by Swedish judge Mikael Hook or the 114-114 score by Guillermo Perez, from Panama. I actually had Valuev winning, 115-113. The fuss about the scoring, I believe, comes in large part from the TV commentary that had Holyfield winning practically every round. Then we had the Swiss fans getting right behind Holyfield and cheering every time the great old warrior landed a punch or made an aggressive thrust. .... The thing is, disputed decisions and refereeing controversies happen everywhere although it helps to be the fighter on home ground. I hope I don’t sound as if I’m knocking Nick Charles and Al Bernstein, gentlemen who have been watching boxing for many years. Maybe they were completely right about Valuev-Holyfield and I was completely wrong. We see it the way we see it, and it is one of the intriguing things about boxing that two people can watch the same fight and see it differently. .... And yet, sorry, I can’t go with the tide of condemnation over the Valuev-Holyfield scoring. The decision was debatable, that’s for sure, but in this minority view it was no robbery." The whole article is here: http://www.fightwriter.com/?q=node/2020 I dont care what "'evidence" you try and bring up. There is one fact that matters. Holyfeild won the fight. To score the fight for Valuev requires suspension of disbelief. You have to ignore everything Evander did. You have to ignore the fact that he boxed circles around Valuev. You have to ignore the fact that he slipped all of Valuevs punches, you have to ignore the fact that Evander landed the cleaner punches, you have to ignore the fact that Evander controlled to pace of the fight, and you have to ignore the fact that Evander got the better of every exchange. If you do all of that, yes you can have Valuev winning, but thats the only way. You have already established that you have a bias against "Evan Fields" and that explains your absolutely RETARDED score of 115-113 for Evander. It is not really possible to give Valuev more than 3 rounds in the fight, even that is stretching it. I gave him 2 rounds.

. There's a reason paid professionals score fights, not a consensus of internet fans. Right, when you don't want the 46 year old man, just pay the judges off. There is no difference between a professional judges scorecards or an internet person's card. Except when people are overly biased and in this case they aren't.

I watched the fight with German commentary so could not understand what was said and I thought Holyfield should have won. I'm English so no American bias. I watched it with my girlfriend who has hardly even seen boxing outside of Rocky movies and she could not understand how Holyfield did not win. Perhaps her lack of boxing knowledge shows something and explains why the majority picked Holyfield and the expert judges did not. Or perhaps it was clear to any old idiot that Holyfield won. Boring fight but the way Holyfield moved around the ring at his age and in his weight division for 12 rounds was very impressive. He used his vast experience well and tactically did the right things given the huge gulf in size. The Russian had no game plan except to hope for Holyfield to stand still so he could hit him.

You can't put more merit on your own view more than hundreds of others. It doesn't work like that. I'm not saying all NSB posters will have voted with little bias and being reasonable, but such a landslide in a poll cannot be ignored. Were in a democracy after all. You can't count everyone's opinion the same either. There's a reason paid professionals score fights, not a consensus of internet fans.

I hope it isn't as boring as the second. Minus the KO, Louis vs Walcott II is one of the worst fights I've ever seen.