- Jun 23, 2008
- 14,004
- 3
- 0
:mj07:
Don't hang a pic of that ugly MOFO in your house !
he has won me a lot of money too bro.
He has ZERO power for a big guy
:mj07:
Valuev Vs Holyfield
- Thread starter THE KOD
- Start date
:mj07:
Don't hang a pic of that ugly MOFO in your house !
he has won me a lot of money too bro.
He has ZERO power for a big guy
:mj07:
Read it again sherlock...I didn't say I won on Valuev by dec over Mccline. Don't even respond to my posts anymore. You're getting annoying.
FYI, he stopped Etienne early as well. I wasn't implying those were dec wins. But for the most part the guy wins 12 rd decs...nuff said.
so where is all the love from the boxing forum
there was this guy named of Charlesmanson . when he won he would say where is my love for this handout I gave out
I think the boxing forum may be perpetuating a fraud.
whats the real story on BOXLOCKS
somebody knows.
I hope I dont have to post any of my own love. it would be slanted in the direction of KOD . why do i have to go there
at least one attaboy ?
this is tough crowd to please.
there was this guy named of Charlesmanson . when he won he would say where is my love for this handout I gave out
I think the boxing forum may be perpetuating a fraud.
whats the real story on BOXLOCKS
somebody knows.
I hope I dont have to post any of my own love. it would be slanted in the direction of KOD . why do i have to go there
at least one attaboy ?
this is tough crowd to please.
if you want to know how to get a free bag of doritos for 5 years , I have proof of how I did it.
This seagull was caught in a trap of fishing line. It was flapping on the beach and it looked like it might die.
I went over and grabbed the seagull by its head to keep it from biting me.
I cut the fishing line off with my knife and I set the seagull on a driveway.
the seagul stood frozen staring at me.
He could have flown away free as a bird. But he didnt.
The seagull looked up at me. He said you have saved me KOD . I owe you. What would you have me to do ?
So I told him I wanted a free bag of doritos everyday. The seagull agreed and we went into training so there would be no hitchs.
This seagull was caught in a trap of fishing line. It was flapping on the beach and it looked like it might die.
I went over and grabbed the seagull by its head to keep it from biting me.
I cut the fishing line off with my knife and I set the seagull on a driveway.
the seagul stood frozen staring at me.
He could have flown away free as a bird. But he didnt.
The seagull looked up at me. He said you have saved me KOD . I owe you. What would you have me to do ?
So I told him I wanted a free bag of doritos everyday. The seagull agreed and we went into training so there would be no hitchs.
Last edited:
http://www.fightwriter.com/?q=node/2020
thanks,graham.....i was thinking exactly the same thing...
i probably thought it was a bit more pathetic from a fan`s/"good for boxing" p.o.v(of course,i understand the need for you to be a bit more diplomatic in your description of the "action")...
but i totally agree with your take on the decision and the charles/bernstein spontaneous holifield orgasm(bernstein being of particular annoyance to me for many years).....
well said...thank you...
thanks,graham.....i was thinking exactly the same thing...
i probably thought it was a bit more pathetic from a fan`s/"good for boxing" p.o.v(of course,i understand the need for you to be a bit more diplomatic in your description of the "action")...
but i totally agree with your take on the decision and the charles/bernstein spontaneous holifield orgasm(bernstein being of particular annoyance to me for many years).....
well said...thank you...
Last edited:
I watched the fight in a bar and didnt score the fight throughly..but from what I saw I didnt have a problem with the decisin...I was actually very surprised when I read some forums and the people were crying robbery...
I thought that maybe I was completely off and would have to watch the fight again...but I didnt want to punish myself. ;-)
...good to hear that some (knowledgeable) people here are on the same page...
Valuev looked awfull...I'm sure that he sufferd from some kind of illness (in his preperation)...but I have seen far far worse decisions....
I'm glad that I cashed on my MD / SD prop, my draw bet didnt look to bad either after the first score was announced...
I wish everybody here a merry x-mas and a profitable new year!!!:toast:
I just took a look at the schedule and it seems as though there are about 2 weeks until we get some interesting boxing action...
Barashian vs. Erdei I believe...I'm very sure this fight will go over!!!
BTW, thanks, graham, for clearing up the recurring controversy on scoring in Germany...I know iit can be pretty bad...but I'm not so sure that it is much better elsewhere....
I thought that maybe I was completely off and would have to watch the fight again...but I didnt want to punish myself. ;-)
...good to hear that some (knowledgeable) people here are on the same page...
Valuev looked awfull...I'm sure that he sufferd from some kind of illness (in his preperation)...but I have seen far far worse decisions....
I'm glad that I cashed on my MD / SD prop, my draw bet didnt look to bad either after the first score was announced...
I wish everybody here a merry x-mas and a profitable new year!!!:toast:
I just took a look at the schedule and it seems as though there are about 2 weeks until we get some interesting boxing action...
Barashian vs. Erdei I believe...I'm very sure this fight will go over!!!
BTW, thanks, graham, for clearing up the recurring controversy on scoring in Germany...I know iit can be pretty bad...but I'm not so sure that it is much better elsewhere....
[/QUOTE
hey, it looks like the seagull is a real pro the way that it pretends to casually look around before taking the Doritos.
if this fight was between to guys without a title i would have painfully given it to Holyfield. Klitzko should destroy this stiff but the way Klitzko fights it will be another boring fight to watch.
Hi GW and Zerwas
I think these "robbery" outcries are largely a result of people going along with the commentary, which in this case was stridently pro-Holyfield. I will have to punish myself and re-watch the last seven rounds with the commentary audible so I can hear what was being said from round 5 on, which was when I put the sound onto a very low level: I had the impression that the commentary was hugely one-sided, almost cheerleading, at the Round 5 juncture.
The online wagering at Bet365 was very interesting.
After 3 rounds, Valuev was still favorite, but all the way down to -138, with Holyfield at +100.
At this stage, players obviously had been jumping all over Holyfield.
By the 8th round, though, Valuev was -250; Holyfield +175.
This indicated that the players felt that Valuev was taking over the fight.
At the end of round 11 the odds were -120 on each man. In other words, the players -- the people who are risking money on their opinions -- saw this as a wide-open fight with one round remaining.
In my opinion, the sharp guys had a much better grasp of the situation than the commentators.
There have been far worse decisions than this. I saw it as a debatable decision but not really controversial.
In my experience, the overriding concern of a judge is to get it right and not to be the odd judge out if the fight ends in a split decision. I know of world-class judges (obviously I cannot name them) who were mortified when their decisions were pilloried. They felt terrible.
The site always has to be a factor when previewing (or playing) a fight, as we all know, because in a nip-and-tuck fight the close rounds -- rounds that either man could have won -- will likely be crucial to the final result, and if a big crowd is roaring for the local man, and a judge just isn't sure who won the round, the temptation is to score the round for the home guy.
Just one or two really tight rounds can decide a fight and, of course, the losing side is invariably going to cry "robbery" (although Evander showed a lot of class when the verdict went against him).
I think that the Holyfield-Valuev "robbery" was a TV-created controversy.
I think these "robbery" outcries are largely a result of people going along with the commentary, which in this case was stridently pro-Holyfield. I will have to punish myself and re-watch the last seven rounds with the commentary audible so I can hear what was being said from round 5 on, which was when I put the sound onto a very low level: I had the impression that the commentary was hugely one-sided, almost cheerleading, at the Round 5 juncture.
The online wagering at Bet365 was very interesting.
After 3 rounds, Valuev was still favorite, but all the way down to -138, with Holyfield at +100.
At this stage, players obviously had been jumping all over Holyfield.
By the 8th round, though, Valuev was -250; Holyfield +175.
This indicated that the players felt that Valuev was taking over the fight.
At the end of round 11 the odds were -120 on each man. In other words, the players -- the people who are risking money on their opinions -- saw this as a wide-open fight with one round remaining.
In my opinion, the sharp guys had a much better grasp of the situation than the commentators.
There have been far worse decisions than this. I saw it as a debatable decision but not really controversial.
In my experience, the overriding concern of a judge is to get it right and not to be the odd judge out if the fight ends in a split decision. I know of world-class judges (obviously I cannot name them) who were mortified when their decisions were pilloried. They felt terrible.
The site always has to be a factor when previewing (or playing) a fight, as we all know, because in a nip-and-tuck fight the close rounds -- rounds that either man could have won -- will likely be crucial to the final result, and if a big crowd is roaring for the local man, and a judge just isn't sure who won the round, the temptation is to score the round for the home guy.
Just one or two really tight rounds can decide a fight and, of course, the losing side is invariably going to cry "robbery" (although Evander showed a lot of class when the verdict went against him).
I think that the Holyfield-Valuev "robbery" was a TV-created controversy.
Hi Graham, thanks for posting.
Regarding Bet365's live betting, recall the Ishe Smith/Pawel Wolak fight from a few months ago. I had bet big on Smith but missed the first 8 rounds, when I found a stream and checked Bet365's live lines. After the 8th round or so, Wolak was over -1000, and Smith over +500. I assumed that Wolak was handily winning, so I made no play, and considered my wager lost. The stream I found was Eurosport, and the commentators said that Wolak had won at least 6 of the 8 rounds. They also gave Wolak the final 2 rounds. I thought Smith clearly won the final 2 rounds, but didn't think much of the discrepancy.
Of course, the decision was a UD for Smith. At first I thought I was just extremely lucky, but when reading posts in other forums, it sounded like Smith had dominated the action from the opening bell. I had essentially passed up better than +500 odds on a fighter who was well ahead.
There are multiple possible explanations for it, but betting sites aren't necessarily correct. I haven't seen the full Wolak/Smith fight, but I can tell you that the Eurosport commentators were crying bloody murder at the decision, while American posters thought Smith had won a wider decision.
Recall that Bernard Hopkins was available for roughly +150 after 6 rounds against Pavlik, all of which he had won. I played Hopkins and Pavlik both for + money simultaneously at BetFair and Bet365.
I have bet live basketball games a few times, during the Celtics/Lakers final, you would not believe the wild swings that take place. Within a few minutes of gameplay, the lines for a team could go from +200 to +8000. Every basket changed the lines dramatically, and whichever team went on a run prior to the commercial break would become several dollars more expensive to bet. I made a small profit by just betting whichever team was on the bad end of a run.
None of those live betting figures were accurate.
First name to pop in my head was Glen Hamada, who scored Katsidis over Juan Diaz. I don't recall any particularly bizarre decisions from him in the past, he took a lot of heat for it and commented publicly post-fight.
Does anybody know when/if this fight will be televised? I haven't seen it but made the mistake of taking most peoples word that it was a "robbery". I guess I'll put myself through the misery of watching all 12 rds when it is shown. Graham isn't the only one that thinks Valuev legitmately won the fight. Maybe people got a little caught up in wanting the 46 yr old Holy to win it.
Hi NJ
Smith closely but clearly beat Wolak. If guys who were watching the Eurosport commentary were betting the fight live it might explain why money poured in on Wolak. (I was going to say that this would seem to bear out my contention that viewers historically go with the commentary, but the bettors were seeing Valuev vs Holy correctly: a toss-up coming out for round 12 -- maybe these players weren't listening to the Al Bernstein/Nick Charles commentary?)
Glenn Hamada was known to be disappointed with his scoring in the first Tarver-Jones fight, when he had Jones winning 9 of 12 rounds in what was of course a very close fight and a debatable decision to be sure. (Jerry Roth, probably the best judge in the world, had the fight a draw.) A good judge can have a bad night, but when bad nights happen too often a red flag should be raised.
The worst scorecard of all time was surely Doug Tucker's 120-108 score in favour of Jose Navarro over Cristian Mijares in a fight that Mijares clearly won. To the best of my knowledge Mr. Tucker has not had a judging assignment since that night 10 months ago.
Smith closely but clearly beat Wolak. If guys who were watching the Eurosport commentary were betting the fight live it might explain why money poured in on Wolak. (I was going to say that this would seem to bear out my contention that viewers historically go with the commentary, but the bettors were seeing Valuev vs Holy correctly: a toss-up coming out for round 12 -- maybe these players weren't listening to the Al Bernstein/Nick Charles commentary?)
Glenn Hamada was known to be disappointed with his scoring in the first Tarver-Jones fight, when he had Jones winning 9 of 12 rounds in what was of course a very close fight and a debatable decision to be sure. (Jerry Roth, probably the best judge in the world, had the fight a draw.) A good judge can have a bad night, but when bad nights happen too often a red flag should be raised.
The worst scorecard of all time was surely Doug Tucker's 120-108 score in favour of Jose Navarro over Cristian Mijares in a fight that Mijares clearly won. To the best of my knowledge Mr. Tucker has not had a judging assignment since that night 10 months ago.
Last edited:
- Jun 3, 2008
- 773
- 0
- 0
It reckon it's fair to say players favoured Holy after 3 rds because Valuev wasn't pressing in any way and was following him desinterested around the ring as if it was a sparring session.
Holy himself was doing NOTHING but circle Valuev; he hardly threw any punches ( maybe 10 at most / per round ?).
Holy himself was doing NOTHING but circle Valuev; he hardly threw any punches ( maybe 10 at most / per round ?).
I thought Holyfield landed the more solid punches and combinations, I had it 7-5 Holyfield, not scoring rbr. More than anything I was upset about my bet losing, I thought I had hit a big payday.
The Navarro scorecard was terrible, definitely, I remember in a previous article you also mentioned the JCC Jr-Vanda card that had Jr winning 10-0 as one of the worse scorecards. I remember Roth for going against the grain and picking the sharp boxer over the crowd and flash, if I recall correctly he had Hopkins over Taylor 1, and Hagler over Leonard. 118-110 Leonard was dreadful. A quick check of boxrec shows it was Roth who scored Marquez over Pac in the rematch, he was the most competent official that night.
Anyway not to get too off topic, I agree it wasn't the robbery that the commentators pegged it as. Most forum posters elsewhere had it 9-3 Holyfield, I had it 7-5, and can see a draw. I definitely didn't see Valuev winning 116-112, he gave the early rounds away. In the later rounds he began to throw and land combinations and punish Evander for coming in, though Holyfield did lander the cleaner and more noteworthy punches. But again, I was more focused on the live lines than the horrendous fight, understandably.
The Navarro scorecard was terrible, definitely, I remember in a previous article you also mentioned the JCC Jr-Vanda card that had Jr winning 10-0 as one of the worse scorecards. I remember Roth for going against the grain and picking the sharp boxer over the crowd and flash, if I recall correctly he had Hopkins over Taylor 1, and Hagler over Leonard. 118-110 Leonard was dreadful. A quick check of boxrec shows it was Roth who scored Marquez over Pac in the rematch, he was the most competent official that night.
Anyway not to get too off topic, I agree it wasn't the robbery that the commentators pegged it as. Most forum posters elsewhere had it 9-3 Holyfield, I had it 7-5, and can see a draw. I definitely didn't see Valuev winning 116-112, he gave the early rounds away. In the later rounds he began to throw and land combinations and punish Evander for coming in, though Holyfield did lander the cleaner and more noteworthy punches. But again, I was more focused on the live lines than the horrendous fight, understandably.
Last edited:
- Nov 14, 2008
- 559
- 0
- 0
Well, we had legend in the ring trying to do what nobody in history could, for a while he was doing good and it's natural that everybody (including boxing people) got excited.
I'm from Croatia and this fight was aired on TV here which is a rare thing. Commentators were guy who usually covers basketball and knows nothing about boxing and Zeljko Mavrovic former HW title challenger. I killed the tone on my TV after first round because it was unbelievable how biased Mavrovic was. I was nervous as hell because I had a ton of money on Giant. I saw 7-5 fight for Valuev. Obviously I wasn't neutral but this wasn't robbery.
Relived I couldn't help myself and decided to rewatch this thing with sound on (yes I did). Basically when Holly landed 1 punch Zeljko saw 2, when Valuev landed 1 he saw nothing. Mavrovic is really nice guy but he usually gets to excited commentating fights. He gave 2 rounds to Valuev, 6 to RealDeal and 4 rounds even. Next day all newspapers in Croatia sad that Holly was robbed, naturally.
You don't win a fight by dancing and throwing 10 punches per round. Valuev was dreadful to watch but he was coming forward and did land as much head shots as Evander (although not as hard and effective) and a lot more body punches which were credited by the judges.
BTW My biggest win this weekend was Valuev, Branco parlay Somebody was watching after me.
I'm from Croatia and this fight was aired on TV here which is a rare thing. Commentators were guy who usually covers basketball and knows nothing about boxing and Zeljko Mavrovic former HW title challenger. I killed the tone on my TV after first round because it was unbelievable how biased Mavrovic was. I was nervous as hell because I had a ton of money on Giant. I saw 7-5 fight for Valuev. Obviously I wasn't neutral but this wasn't robbery.
Relived I couldn't help myself and decided to rewatch this thing with sound on (yes I did). Basically when Holly landed 1 punch Zeljko saw 2, when Valuev landed 1 he saw nothing. Mavrovic is really nice guy but he usually gets to excited commentating fights. He gave 2 rounds to Valuev, 6 to RealDeal and 4 rounds even. Next day all newspapers in Croatia sad that Holly was robbed, naturally.
You don't win a fight by dancing and throwing 10 punches per round. Valuev was dreadful to watch but he was coming forward and did land as much head shots as Evander (although not as hard and effective) and a lot more body punches which were credited by the judges.
BTW My biggest win this weekend was Valuev, Branco parlay
Somebody was watching after me. 