"It was a robbery because Holyfield was going to be the oldest hw champ in history"

I keep reading this, but I don't get it.

Sure, I had Commander Vander winning, but any fight that only has six punches per round can't be considered a huge robbery.

But this statement perplexes me for two reasons:


1. It's not really the heavyweight championship, it's just a title belt.

2. I've never come across the concept of someone deserving to win a belt by intention before. So he deserved to win because he wanted to be the oldest champ in heavyweight history? Hell, I wanted Britney Spears to suck my dick but she didn't... life's a ****ing *****.

[Steak]

it was a robbery because 95%+ percent of everyone thought Holyfield won, not anything else.

its just sad that they would do this to an old man like this.

[The_One77]

Evander wasnt going to be "heavyweight champion" even if he won, he would of just been a title holder.

[SickmyDuck]

it was a robbery because 95%+ percent of everyone thought Holyfield won, not anything else.

its just sad that they would do this to an old man like this.

most people on this site are ****ing idiots who know nothing about boxing

so i woudlnt go on what they think

it was a robbery because 95%+ percent of everyone thought Holyfield won, not anything else.

its just sad that they would do this to an old man like this.

Well, it was a low output fight.

Like I say, I had Holy winning, but when you're winning rounds on six punches it's a bit much to describe it as the robbery of the century.

[warp1432]

What was your card? It's wide on a lot of people cards because Holyfield clearly landed the cleaner and better punches. Valuev followed him around, but he didn't land or nearly throw ****.

Valuev kept missing, Holyfield kept landing cleanly. Some rounds were "close" because nothing happened for like the first 2 minutes, but then Holyfield won it at the end.

[Sutekh uvdabrix]

Well, it was a low output fight.

Like I say, I had Holy winning, but when you're winning rounds on six punches it's a bit much to describe it as the robbery of the century.

well when the opponant lands twice or less...it is

[S A M U R A I]

Well, it was a low output fight.

Like I say, I had Holy winning, but when you're winning rounds on six punches it's a bit much to describe it as the robbery of the century.

Punch count shouldn't even enter into it. About one in a million people would disagree that the decision was unfair.

Boxing history has been cheated.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

What was your card? It's wide on a lot of people cards because Holyfield clearly landed the cleaner and better punches. Valuev followed him around, but he didn't land or nearly throw ****.

Valuev kept missing, Holyfield kept landing cleanly. Some rounds were "close" because nothing happened for like the first 2 minutes, but then Holyfield won it at the end.

I wasn't keeping an accurate score and my stream kept freezing, but I had it Commander Vander by at least two rounds.

But some of those rounds he was just on the move and throwing less than 10 punches. I don't think Valuev won but a draw wouldn't have been out of the question IMO.

To clarify my above statement... "on the move"... boxing is scored for aggression nowadays, it seems. Not saying that's right, but when the guy is constantly moving out of the way, they get penalised, it seems...