A titanic victory for both Haye and his sport

David Haye became the WBA heavyweight champion of the world on Saturday night, his success representing a success not only for himself and his adoring fans, but also for the sport of boxing.

Billed as David vs Goliath, the contest captured the imagination of boxing enthusiasts the world over. The gulf in size between the two men was always going to provoke intrigue in the spectacle. Standing at 7"2 and weighing 23 stone, it is not difficult to understand why people want to see Nikolai Valuev in the ring; he is a curious, alluring figure. Its just a shame his boxing skills aren't as fascinating as his frame. However this was by no means a one man show. The colourful Haye played his part in the promotion of the event also. His unruly comments over the past year have seen him emerge as a hate figure in many boxing circles with his appearances always invoking interest; for the wrong reasons some might say, but interest none-the-less.

The london born former cruiserweight fought an intelligent, if at times diligent fight. Haye spent the majority of the contest eluding the Russian giant, deflecting the bigger man's prevalent physical advantages. However his retorts where sharp and explosive when they came; every effective punch landed, in every round of the bout, was thrown by the Burlendsy fighter. His speed and technique proved simply too much for the 'Beast from the East'.

Despite his impeccably exececuted gameplan, the would-be-champion came in for criticism from some quarters for the cautious nature of his approach, notably Jim Watt, the expert pundit on Sky Sports who broadcast the contest in the UK. Watt had Valuev in a comfortable lead on his scorecard, arguing that Haye 'hadn't done enough' to win the title, arguing that it was the Russian who had 'made the fight', 'boxing on the front foot'. But how can this alone be justification for winning a professional boxing match?

Watt's summation suggests that all a boxer has to do is walk forward and throw punches, regardless of them landing, in order to win a tie. Valuev was woeful on his adopted home soil. The amount of effective punches he landed could be counted on one hand, most of them being nominal jabs. Okay, so Haye didnt stand and trade with Valuev as some deluded spectators may have hoped for, but he and his team approached the fight in the only way that they could succeed, and fashioned it expertly. Some, like Watt, may argue that a boxer needs to be seen as the aggressor and the initiator in order to win a title, but in this case, as in many others, to do so would have been illogical and unfeasible. Giving seven stone in weight, 11 inches in height and 7 inches in reach, fighting toe-to-toe would have been a suicidal ploy for Haye.

That said, however, you could hardly call his strategy negative. He threw all of the meaningful blows in the fight, landing a trademark 'Hayemaker' in pretty much every round. The only reasonable criticism you could level against him is that he didnt attack more frequently, but he was stylish, clever and defensively outstanding, despite the broken hand. Haye, like every boxer, had to make his advantages over the opponent count. He did so effectively and his opponent failed to do so. So what, this shouldn't have been rewarded? Valuev should have retained the WBA crown for persistent, if unsuccessful attacking? Ofcourse not. Haye done enough to win the bout and the judges correctly recognised his efforts.

However decisions of this elk have been few and far between over the last year or so. With viewing figures dwindling, primarily as a consequence of UFC's flourishing success, it may be that boxing scorers have been told to favour aggressive tactics over cunning, in order to encourage fighters to be more bombastic like there mixed martial arts counterparts. Carl Froch's points victory over Andre Dirrel at the beginning of this month was a glaring example of this credulous orientation, amongst a multitude of others. American judges have long been renown for crediting chin-out boxing, however it would be a misconception to think that they reward it as a precondition. Floyd Mayweather Jnr's unbeaten record, with many of his wins coming on points after markedly defensive displays, is a testament to this point. The Americans only favour such tactics in the event of an exceptionally close tie; which many of the incredibly suspect points decisions of late, have not been.

If there is a genuine campaign in the sport to make it increasingly aggressive, and ultimately more marketable, Boxing's heirarchy risks alienating the real boxing fan. The fan who admires tactical, astute boxing; the fan who celebrates craftmanship and guile; the fan who would have lauded Haye's performance on saturday.

Boxing's governing body seemingly fears the death of boxing in the face of UFC's burgeoning popularity and is encouraging offensiveness in order to replicate the explosiveness of the octagon in the ring. The scoring of the cards is the most effective way to purge boxing of any unwanted traits; all they have to do is not score said tactic. However Haye's victory went against the grain. Here the slick, skillful boxer; and most importantly, the better boxer; won over the imposing, belligerent and ineffective fighter. Lets hope that this was not just a brief departure from a predetermined trend, because the day that blind aggression defeats dexterity in the ring as matter of fact, the sport of boxing will be well and truly dead.