If we actually consider what criteria judges actually use to score fights............

Yeah, I know I was just making a sarcastic post lol. I agree that it could've been more action orientated, but Haye fought how he needed to fight to get the judges to score it in his favour, based upon the criteria that they use to judge fights. Given that Haye won't be fighting any 7 foot monsters again for a while, I'd say we're in for some better looking Haye in the future. I think this fight was definately a great learning experience for him too. I think that now Haye has put this in the mind that he fights this way when fighting big guys I would like to see him get really warmed up in the dressing room and go for the throat from the bell against Wlad I think he may suprise him and get some success.

Haye got points for running and landing like 1 punch per round, that is what I heard about this fight that I don't even want to bother watching since Haye fought a boring cowardly fight. Haye can not ever talk bad about the Klitschkos ever again since they land more punches per rounds against their opponents. Do watch the fight. I thought both men did very well considering the size deferents and all.

still waiting for a dumb answer from carnivore and clit09

why weren't most british posters saying this after that fight? seems like they change their mind depending on which style the british fighter is fighting at that time. at least some people have integrity and always score fights the same way every fight. Even I thought he wouldn't win, but not because I thought Haye wasn't making Valuev look awful, but because I didn't the judges would award him for doing it because he was in Valuevs back yard. However, they gave him his props.

Only on boxingscene can missing practically every punch you throw be considered as "doing more". calzaghe threw more punches than hopkins calzaghe pushed the fight more than Hopkins calzaghe looked more active in general that Hopkins did. But if you're not hitting your opponent, you're not going to win. Remember, boxing is scored on: -CLEAN, EFFECTIVE PUNCHING -RING GENERALSHIP -EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION (the word effective is in bold for a very good reason) -DEFENSE In terms of clean, EFFECTIVE PUNCHING, calzaghe definately lost. The clean shots came from Hopkins, the most effective shot that hurt the man who has never been hurt in 50 something fights came from Hopkins. The best effective combos were UNDOUBTABLY Hopkins. In terms of defense............Hopkins slipped and blocked pretty much every calzaghe shot, whereas Hopkins landed with better accuracy. In terms of ring generalship........well again calzaghe failed for 12 rounds to catch hopkins in a corner where he could batter him. When he did find himself in a corner with Hopkins, he throw a shot, blinked and found Hopkins walking away wondering wtf just happened. In terms of EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION. How effective was calzaghe when he went on the offensive? How effective was Hopkins when he went on the offensive? Ask calzaghe chin in the 1st and 7th round. So.....when you actually score the fight based on the criteria used by judges......where is the robbery? why weren't most british posters saying this after that fight? seems like they change their mind depending on which style the british fighter is fighting at that time. at least some people have integrity and always score fights the same way every fight. I had Calzaghe winning by 1 round. I stand by that because Hopkins lost a few rounds by being very unactive. Calzaghe did land more, if weaker but he did land. Hopkins clearly had the harder shots but he was holding a lot without being hurt which is basically cheating to me.

I scored it by 2 rounds to Haye. Haye made Valuev's aggression deem non effective by making him miss maybe 80% of his punches. He was mroe aggressive but then I expected it from someone 7 foot and 100 pounds heavier. He rarely hit on the head clean and mainly hit the body. Haye hit the body with nice jabs and hooks aswell. Haye moving away made it look like Valuev did good work, but it was his gameplan to get in and out. Haye hit him with much harder shots and in almost everyone ound landed atleast the same amount. Haye wasn't great, but Valuev wasn't either.

Only on boxingscene can missing practically every punch you throw be considered as "doing more". calzaghe threw more punches than hopkins calzaghe pushed the fight more than Hopkins calzaghe looked more active in general that Hopkins did. But if you're not hitting your opponent, you're not going to win. Remember, boxing is scored on: -CLEAN, EFFECTIVE PUNCHING -RING GENERALSHIP -EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION (the word effective is in bold for a very good reason) -DEFENSE In terms of clean, EFFECTIVE PUNCHING, calzaghe definately lost. The clean shots came from Hopkins, the most effective shot that hurt the man who has never been hurt in 50 something fights came from Hopkins. The best effective combos were UNDOUBTABLY Hopkins. In terms of defense............Hopkins slipped and blocked pretty much every calzaghe shot, whereas Hopkins landed with better accuracy. In terms of ring generalship........well again calzaghe failed for 12 rounds to catch hopkins in a corner where he could batter him. When he did find himself in a corner with Hopkins, he throw a shot, blinked and found Hopkins walking away wondering wtf just happened. In terms of EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION. How effective was calzaghe when he went on the offensive? How effective was Hopkins when he went on the offensive? Ask calzaghe chin in the 1st and 7th round. So.....when you actually score the fight based on the criteria used by judges......where is the robbery? why weren't most british posters saying this after that fight? seems like they change their mind depending on which style the british fighter is fighting at that time. at least some people have integrity and always score fights the same way every fight.

The lumbering forward was aimed at Valuev. I don't care much for Valuev he bores me and I was rooting for Haye as he is a Brit. Dreadful fight though but Haye won by a couple of rounds. Some have it 8-4 to Valuev don't know what they were watching think they scored it before the fight. Yeah, I know I was just making a sarcastic post lol. I agree that it could've been more action orientated, but Haye fought how he needed to fight to get the judges to score it in his favour, based upon the criteria that they use to judge fights. Given that Haye won't be fighting any 7 foot monsters again for a while, I'd say we're in for some better looking Haye in the future. I think this fight was definately a great learning experience for him too.

The lumbering forward was aimed at Valuev. I don't care much for Valuev he bores me and I was rooting for Haye as he is a Brit. Dreadful fight though but Haye won by a couple of rounds. Some have it 8-4 to Valuev don't know what they were watching think they scored it before the fight. They couldn't have been objective, that's for sure. I notice a lot of hate for Haye around here(Which Haye also brings on himself) and there's no doubt this has effected their judgement.

Well, I don't know. Are you a Valuev fan/Haye hater? The validity of this dilemma stems firmly upon your answer to that question. The lumbering forward was aimed at Valuev. I don't care much for Valuev he bores me and I was rooting for Haye as he is a Brit. Dreadful fight though but Haye won by a couple of rounds. Some have it 8-4 to Valuev don't know what they were watching think they scored it before the fight.

Honestly, I was shocked to see all these idiotic threads claiming Valuev was robbed. I can't believe you guys saw the same fight I did. Valuev barely won 3 rounds.

Haye got points for running and landing like 1 punch per round, that is what I heard about this fight that I don't even want to bother watching since Haye fought a boring cowardly fight. Haye can not ever talk bad about the Klitschkos ever again since they land more punches per rounds against their opponents. So you're basing your arguement from what you "heard" and you haven't even watched the fight. Why are you even here lol?

i agree totally

Im saying the same case Froch fans made for him winning is the same case their making for Valuev losing. The case was Dirrell ran so he lost, in Haye's case its Valuev didnt land anything, cant have it both ways. In other words, tell me what Froch did to win and tell me what Haye did to win. I didn't even watch the Froch fight so you're trying to have this discussion with the wrong person. When it comes down to it, I listed the criteria that judges use to score fights. You're not even trying to prove that Haye didn't win in terms of all the criteria, you're just saying "yeah but then X guy should have won X fight", which is pretty much unrelated. If you want to cry about the Froch fight, do it somewhere else. Based upon the crieria for scoring boxing fights, Haye won. Where is your counter arguement, other than discussing a totally unrelated fight?

Only on boxingscene can missing practically every punch you throw be considered as "doing more". Valuev threw more punches than Haye. Valuev pushed the fight more than Haye. Valuev looked more active in general that Haye did. But if you're not hitting your opponent, you're not going to win. Remember, boxing is scored on: -CLEAN, EFFECTIVE PUNCHING -RING GENERALSHIP -EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION (the word effective is in bold for a very good reason) -DEFENSE In terms of clean, EFFECTIVE PUNCHING, Valuev definately lost. The clean shots came from Haye, the most effective shot that hurt the man who has never been hurt in 50 something fights came from Haye. The best effective combos were UNDOUBTABLY Haye. In terms of defense............Haye slipped and blocked pretty much every Valuev shot, whereas Haye landed with better accuracy. In terms of ring generalship........well again Valuev failed for 12 rounds to catch Haye in a corner where he could batter him. When he did find himself in a corner with Haye, he throw a shot, blinked and found Haye walking away wondering wtf just happened. In terms of EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION. How effective was Valuev when he went on the offensive? How effective was Haye when he went on the offensive? Ask Valuevs chin in the 12th round. So.....when you actually score the fight based on the criteria used by judges......where is the robbery? Yep, just like the De la Hoya vs Mayweather fight. I can't believe people think DLH won that fight.

Totally bias, when these same arguments were made for Dirrell they fell on deaf ears and Dirrell actually made it clear. The fix was in. Haye didnt win 8 ROUNDS. Right......so your defense against my arguement, is that someone else at some point in time has been robbed in your eyes..... Well shit.....I guess you win....... Or not.

Someone must have a rebuttal? No rebuttal here mate. I think you're bang on the money.

so you all agree hopkins beat calzaghe since the exact same things apply. finally you guys admit it. thank you.

You mean lumbering forward slowly and pawing the air with a jab doesn't win you rounds? Well, I don't know. Are you a Valuev fan/Haye hater? The validity of this dilemma stems firmly upon your answer to that question.

You mean lumbering forward slowly and pawing the air with a jab doesn't win you rounds?