11/21/24
December 20, 2008
Holyfield, in a shocker.... loses?: SI.com's Graham scored the fight at 118-110 to Holyfield, but the judges speak otherwise, giving the win to Valuev by majority decision.
I didn't watch fight, and I know almost nothing about boxing. However, I think that the drastic difference between the judges' observations and the SI.com blogger's merits at least a bit of discussion. Also, for Holyfield to have made it this close is indeed a shocker.
posted by boredom_08 to boxing at 05:57 PM - 5 comments
And we wonder why some people think boxing's not a sport? Given the disparity in scoring, and with a thought to the good old days, perhaps we had communist judges giving high scores.
posted by jjzucal at 07:29 PM on December 20, 2008
P.S.: Judging from some outlets I've read, it appears I was wrong. It was Valuev who was broken.
posted by jjzucal at 07:31 PM on December 20, 2008
I'm part of a community of avid boxing fans, and the universal opinion is Holyfield was robbed.
Me? Well he's not dead, so color me surprised.
I love boxing, but shit like this bad judging (and the alphabet organizations) are why people don't give it any credibility anymore.
I love MMA, but I think boxing is, or at least has the potential to be, far more noble.
What we need is a group like UFC to run boxing. Of course these days people would just dismiss it because the competitors don't kick each other in the head. (Please note, as I said, I love MMA. It just pains me to see boxing so... Let's be blunt, shitty.)
posted by Drood at 05:32 AM on December 21, 2008
Agree with Drood. Though, given the disparity between the two boxers, it's amazing that it was as close. Also, it reveals how utterly broke boxing is, that a washed up former champ can take a much bigger belt holder (even if the belt and the organization are not worth it's weight in bank certificates right now).
posted by Bonkers at 06:42 AM on December 22, 2008
Or should I have made this "I will break you! Part 3"?