Neither Haye nor Hopkins fell over on purpose multiple times as a tactic to avoid being hit.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The difference between Haye and Dirrell.
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by SekondzOut View PostI wouldn't score a fight based off the size difference between fighters......thats being BIAS towards the smaller man......IMO Haye, Dirrell, and Hopkins fought similiar fights against Valuev, Froch, and Calzaghe......I had Haye, Dirrell and Hopkins winning ALL those fights!!....no differnce.....they all landed the more cleaner affective shots!!......avoiding the incoming while scoring on the move!!
Comment
-
-
-
Originally posted by John-Locke-9-22 View PostI know they fought similar fights, but Haye had good reason to hit and run this reason is 7 feet tall and 7 stone heavier than him, it was the tactics needed for a fight like this, and more impressive in the heavyweight division.
Dirrell had no reason to fight like this, himself and Froch were the same size, weight and height, give or take a little bit. He had no reason to run like he did.
Haye was dwarfed by a giant, Dirrell wasn't.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by SekondzOut View PostIMO Haye, Dirrell, and Hopkins fought similiar fights against Valuev, Froch, and Calzaghe......I had Haye, Dirrell and Hopkins winning ALL those fights!!....no differnce.....they all landed the more cleaner affective shots!!
The 'cleaner, effective' thing is also BS, as it usually is. In what way were Dirrell's punches 'effective'? They didn't change Froch's gameplan, or aggression, in the slightest throughout the course of the fight. Froch was never seriously hurt and finished the fight looking like he had just got back from a jog in the park.. so how, exactly, are Dirrell's punches supposed to have been 'effective'? In contrast, B-Hop's punching was effective, as was Calzaghe's.. both dictated the fight at different times and forced their opponent to try and adapt. It's no coincidence both Zag and B-Hop are a class above any of the other four fighters we are talking about.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The_Visitation View PostBS. There were similarities between Froch/Dirrell and Valuev/Haye, maybe, but it's idiotic to group Calzaghe/Hopkins with them. For a start, Dirrell and Haye both outlanded their opponents while Calzaghe outlanded Hopkins 2-1!
The 'cleaner, effective' thing is also BS, as it usually is. In what way were Dirrell's punches 'effective'? They didn't change Froch's gameplan, or aggression, in the slightest throughout the course of the fight. Froch was never seriously hurt and finished the fight looking like he had just got back from a jog in the park.. so how, exactly, are Dirrell's punches supposed to have been 'effective'? In contrast, B-Hop's punching was effective, as was Calzaghe's.. both dictated the fight at different times and forced their opponent to try and adapt. It's no coincidence both Zag and B-Hop are a class above any of the other four fighters we are talking about.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bojangles1987 View PostAnd Froch should have gotten a point deducted for all the hitting to the back of the head and for piledriving Dirrell.
Froch won by 3 rounds that hook froch landed in the 8th got dirrell mad holding..
Comment
-
Originally posted by SekondzOut View Postno really.....I had Hopkins beating Calzaghe......like many many many many others!!.....there's ALOT of people who share this thought!!
And for Froch-Dirrell, they will fight again in the future, and he will finish Froch next time. This'll wake all these delusional Froch fans up.
Comment
Comment