Nikolai Valuev vs Siarhei Liakhovich

Enter your Nikolai Valuev vs Siarhei Liakhovich fan card
CONTROVERSY RATING: 0%
The percentage of fan cards that disagree with an official result. Exclusively on EYE ON THE RING.
Nikolai Valuev vs Siarhei Liakhovich
Fan Rating: 
0
Your rating: None
2
Average: 2 (2 votes)

Date: 
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Location: 
Nuernberg Arena, Nuremberg (N├╝rnberg), Bayern, Germany
Rounds Scheduled: 
12
Contracted Weight: 
Unlimited
Titles at Stake: 
Eliminator for the WBA Heavyweight World Title
Referee: 
Stanley Christodoulou

Official Judging
John Coyle 120 - 108
Juan Manuel Reyes 120 - 108
Jean-Louis Legland 120 - 107

More:






Averaged Fan Card:

round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Nikolai Valuev
                                                                    
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Sergei Liakhovich
                                                                    
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9


Fan Cards: Nikolai Valuev vs Siarhei Liakhovich


scorecard by JAROD KILLIAN
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
NIKOLAI VALUEV
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
120
SERGEI LIAKHOVICH
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
108


scorecard by BOXING KNOWLEDGE
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
NIKOLAI VALUEV
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
120
SERGEI LIAKHOVICH
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
108


scorecard by NF82
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
NIKOLAI VALUEV
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
120
SERGEI LIAKHOVICH
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
108


scorecard by DIZZY
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
NIKOLAI VALUEV
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
120
SERGEI LIAKHOVICH
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
108


scorecard by ZAC.RJ
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
NIKOLAI VALUEV
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
120
SERGEI LIAKHOVICH
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
108


scorecard by CHAMPION97
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
NIKOLAI VALUEV
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
120
SERGEI LIAKHOVICH
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
108


Comments

Champion97's picture

I think Valuev was underrated.

dizzy's picture

I disagree. Valuev was massive and hitting his head must've felt like punching a concrete wall, but he was slow and clumsy. He got beat by Bidenko, Chagaev, Haye and 46-year old Holyfield. Liakhovich was overweight, his left hand was injured (or it seemed like it was in the pre-fight footage) and Valuev was still not even close to finish him at any point in the fight. IMO, he was gatekeeper material, not an elite fighter by any means.

Champion97's picture

The difference in caliber between him and his opponents is bigger than the results of the fights, his size had to have been a factor, granted, but the Holyfield fight wasn't the robbery it is supposed to be in my opinion, the Haye fight was a lot closer, and the fact that Haye didn't do much better against Valuev than a 46 year old Holyfield shows how overrated Haye was, but I think Valuev was more dull and unpopular than just bad, like Okolie, he is called terrible fighter, when it's not that he's bad, because he keeps winning, but people hate to watch him fight because his style is horrible to watch, and confuse that with a fighter not being effective in the ring. I think Valuev would be a top 20 heavyweight in this era, possibly top 15, so when people say he's a bum or the worst world champion of all time, that's why I think he's underrated, but he was champion in a weak heavyweight era, it has to be said.

dizzy's picture

My biggest problem with Valuev was, whenever he faced someone of note (on top of my head, he also had two very close fights with John Ruiz and fought on even terms with Larry Donald), he did not look good and was usually outboxed. The results of those fights - whether it's a one-sided loss, or a close one - is one thing (styles make fights), but I just can't think of him winning a fight against truly quality fighter. Ruiz was better-gatekeeper material in my eyes, Larry Donald and Monte Barrett were US-level fighters (mind you, American heavyweight division was shit at the time), Holyfield, as great as his career was, was far removed from his prime (it is true that he was in great shape though), and that's if we give Valuev credit for the win. Valuev was a weak and protected champion in my eyes, whether that era was weak or not, he never had a single successful title defence against top-10 ranked fighter. To me, Valuev perfectly represents how important is the power and influence of your promoter in boxing - if it wasn't for Don King keeping him in the heavyweight title scene for as long as he was there, Valuev would've fallen out much sooner, because I can honestly think of a handful of fighters that were of a higher caliber than Valuev but simply did not have their back held by a prominent promoter.

Champion97's picture

I think the disagreement here is not whether Valuev was that good at world level, just whether he is as bad as most people say he is, I thought he did a good job of using his reach against Holyfield and Haye at times, it might have been more a case of his reach in itself than him utilising it well, but both struggled with the range. Valuev beat Ruiz twice, not a prime Ruiz, certainly not the second time, but not the shot Ruiz Haye beat, he beat Golota, Oquendo, he did enough not be considered one of the worst heavyweights of all time. You make a good point about Don King, but how many heavyweights who were at their best 10 years ago would have beaten Valuev? I can't think of half as many as I could think of in this era. I agree there are plenty of fighters who don't or didn't have the backing of a good promoter.

dizzy's picture

I think Valuev's enormous size and concrete head (there is a bigger chance that his opponent hurts himself more than he hurts Valuev with head shots) gives him a fair chance against any top-level fighter in any era. Whether he would've won those fights or not is a different thing, but I don't really like engaging in these hypothetical matchups, because, like I always say a) styles make fights b) one fight is not like the other, even with the same fighter. So I can't really say how many fighters would've beaten Valuev, but I do think there were fighters with higher potential than him to hang in the title picture for at least as long, and on top of that, Valuev fought only three top-10 ranked fighters during his career (Ruiz, Chagaev and Haye) and defeated only one, that tells something about the fighter that fought for the heavyweight title eight times (!). On the contrast to Valuev, you have Eddie Chambers who fought five top-10 heavyweights and beat three of them, yet only fought once for the heavyweight title, you also have Ruslan Chagaev who had to beat three top-10s (including Valuev, I do admit that) to finally win the heavyweight title and was eventually left fighting club fighters in small gyms after Klitschko beat him. You also have Taras Bidenko, who I think has actually beat Valuev, but the closest he ever got to a contendership spot was when he fought Vladimir Virchis, other than that he was fighting mostly against journeyman, never having a chance to improve as a professional boxer. You have Virchis himself who gave Chagaev a more competitive fight than Valuev, he may not have been a world beater but he was technically more polished than Valuev, was very tough could hit like a truck, in the sense you could describe him as Ukrainian George Foreman, yes he looked clumsy and his footwork and defensive maneuvers were questionable, but many people said the same about Foreman before he blasted away Joe Frazier. But just like Bidenko, Virchis had to fight mediocre opposition throughout most of his career, not being given a chance to showcase himself at the highest level, because no one was really interested in him and he was unable to just be pushed to the top like Valuev was. Heck, cruiserweights like James Toney, Vassiliy Jirov, Jean-Marc Mormeck and O'Neil Bell would've been a nicer addition to the HW title picture (when in their primes, except for Toney - he was a nice addition even while past his best) than Valuev, plus they actually proved their class against formidable opponents.

Of course, there's much more to that than what I've just wrote, and I'm definitely not saying that the hierarchy in boxing means nothing, nor do I say that the fighters mentioned above were so good that they were ready to beat each of the Klitschkos and dominate the heavyweight division for a decade - if they were, they would've done it, no matter the circumstances. The point I'm trying to make is that it's not like the division was THAT weak and there were so few quality fighters to do better than Valuev, it's just that they weren't given as much influence in the business, because, as I said before, they didn't have influential promoter to hold their back.

Champion97's picture

Being abnormally short or tall is definitely an advantage, because it makes you hard to prepare for, but at world level, after weeks of sparring tall heavyweights, I think a short heavyweight can get to Valuev's chin. If Valuev was as bad as people say, he wouldn't have won 4-5 rounds against Haye and Holyfield, I thought he did a good job of keeping both of them off at times, not a great job, not enough to beat either of them, didn't use his reach anywhere near as well as Fury or even Klitschko, but better than people gave him credit for. Do you agree that Haye not doing much better if any better against an older Valuev, than a 46 year old Holyfield, backs up what I say about him being overrated?

I agree on hypothetical match ups, it's not like athletics where a time is a time and everyone knows what the record is, because fighters are only in against their opponents, and their will never be a definitive answer to who was better out of the best in each era. I only say where I rank Valuev and talk about eras to be clear on how highly I rate Valuev. Good points, Whyte probably has a better resume than Wilder, has beaten more top 10 heavyweights, Joshua hadn't beaten anyone before he beat Klitschko but was still a champion for a year, Parker had at least beaten Takam, so the champions certainly aren't necessarily the best in boxing. Outside of the UK, European fighters have never been as hyped up as Americans, doesn't explain why Chambers didn't get more opportunities, it isn't just about nationality, but the UK and USA are the 2 biggest boxing countries in terms of hyping fighters. What makes you think Bidenko was that unfortunate apart from against Valuev? You might think he was unfortunate against Valuev, and he didn't get many opportunities after Valuev, but he lost to Boystov at 29.

Given how unpopular he is, it surprises me Valuev got as many opportunities as he did in his career, 7 foot, over 300 lbs or not. I agree on Toney, but I don't think the others, Mormeck was Klitschko's easiest opponent in the last 10 years of his career, Bell was 1-1 against Mormeck, had more Continental level fights than world level,

dizzy's picture

Like I said, there is obviously much more to all of it than what I was writing about, so you can take it with a grain of salt. Bidenko was supposed to be an example of a fighter that may have been held back in his career due to lack of popularity compared to someone like Valuev, but I'm not saying he would've become a world beater if he was given that opportunity. As to Mormeck, he was a shade of his former self when he fought Klitschko, he had been awfully inactive in the last five years prior to fighting Klitschko, but in the mid-to-late 2000s he was really good, he was athletic and skilled, you can't really rate Mormeck's ability based on that one performance.

P.S. I disagree on Mormeck being the easiest win for Klitschko in 10 years. People like to mock this fight because of how few punches Mormeck had thrown, but that's mostly because everytime he tried to come closer, Klitschko tied him up and put his weight on him. Its not like he was a practicing target for Wlad either. Not a hard fought win for Wlad, but there certainly were much easier title defences.