I don't think it's exactly wrong to have scored Saturday's WBA heavyweight title fight for Nikolai Valuev instead of David Haye, but trainer Alexander Zimin is a bit out there with his cries of bias:
"To be honest, I was very disappointed," told Zimin to Sportbox.ru. "It wasn’t boxing, it was some kind of long-distance running. In professional boxing only actions are evaluated. Attacking and counterattacking actions included. Based on that, Nikolay was attacking 80 percent of the fight.
"Maybe it didn’t look very impressive, but at least he wasn’t wiping his bottom against the ropes as Haye did. Professionals should lose scores for that instead of winning. That was not boxing, that was running. Of course, Nikolay wasn’t able to cope with such speed. From my point of view it was at least a draw. But the board decision was very strange – one judge gave a draw, and the others decided it was Haye’s victory by 4 points. That’s impossible! Their judgment was biased! It’s surprising and strange."
"That's impossible!" he moans.
I'm not going to go into a whole big spiel about this, so instead I will pose a series of questions. If Haye's majority decision win (116-112, 116-112, 114-114) was "impossible":
- Was Valuev's majority decision win over Evander Holyfield (116-112, 115-114, 114-114) also impossible?
- Was Valuev's majority decision win over John Ruiz in 2005 (116-114, 116-113, 114-114) also impossible?
- Was Valuev's majority decision win over Larry Donald (117-112, 115-113, 114-114) also impossible?
- Was Valuev's 2008 split decision win over John Ruiz (116-111, 116-113, 113-114) even more impossible? One of those judges even felt Ruiz won. That seems IMPOSSIBLE!!!