Haye versus Harrison in 3D: an anticlimax

by Scott Bicheno on 14 November 2010, 13:31

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qa23b

Add to My Vault: x

The 'action'

The fight itself was slow to get going... then it ended. In the first round neither fighter really threw a meaningful punch, although the judges probably gave it to Haye for at least looking like he intended to. The second round started with more of the same, although Harrison committed the fundamental error of landing with his only punch of the night - a solid jab - which just made Haye mad. Haye started backing-up Harrison and landed with a few meaty crosses. Definitely Haye's round.

In the third, Haye quickly got through with a couple of crosses, at least one of which clearly hurt Harrison. That was all the prompting Haye needed - having apparently predicted a third round KO - and he promptly set about Harrison with playground abandon. Possibly the saddest indictment of Harrison as a boxer is that he wasn't even getting hit on the counter - he was in full defensive mode with his guard up - but he still couldn't do anything to prevent the Haye assault.

Before long Harrison hit the canvas, but got up with plenty of time and took the rest of the count standing. Haye then literally sprinted across the ring to finish Harrison off and, with the latter not even making the pretence of fighting back, the ref had seen enough and stopped the fight - TKO 3. It seemed a little bit early at the time, but then again, there was no prospect of a Harrison counter-attack so why delay the inevitable?

In retrospect, the fight turned out exactly as everyone expected from such mismatched opponents. The fact that it lasted three rounds was little consolation as the first two were so uneventful, but boxing will breathe a sigh of relief that the right man won, convincingly, and without controversy.

And what of 3D? It's fun and cool, there's definitely massive novelty value and, as more technology is applied to it and more content produced in 3D, it will become a more compelling proposition. But the question for most people will be: does it justify the additional expense and inconvenience. The answer, at least from me and my guests, is: right now, no.

But the mere fact that this event was being hosted at all - and it can't have been cheap - shows how much the consumer electronics and content industries have invested in 3D. For most of us it will probably become a reality when the technology becomes a default on new TVs, and until then I suspect it will stay in early-adopter territory. However, if Sky wants to continue to try to convince me otherwise by inviting me to live sports events, I think it would be rude not to accommodate them.

 

 



HEXUS Forums :: 7 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Did you get any eye/headaches, Scott?
Some other questions:

What was it like for people who wear glasses anyway?

Did any one feel queasy using the glasses?

What is the picture like if you don't wear the glasses?

What was it like for someone who has a marked weakness or blindness in one eye?

In retrospect was it actually worth it? Is 3D more of a gimmick in the end? After all it is not ‘true’ 3D, more layers of 2d with depth added.
aidanjt
Did you get any eye/headaches, Scott?

i second that question, I tried to watch 3d a while back and had a punding headache after 5 mins of watching a film and a sharp pain behind my left eye was unpleasant. I Don't think 3d is for me
No headaches or queasiness - but total uninterrupted viewing time was probably 40 mins max.

I wear glasses - it wasn't an issue - they're apparently designed to fit well around them.

The picture is rubbish if you don't wear glasses. Ironically not unlike the TV looks when I don't wear my normal glasses. There's a kind of double-vision blurring.

No idea what it's like for the partially blind.

You saw my comments - novel but not enough to justify extra investment in my case. But I'm a tight-arse. :mrgreen:
Scott B;2005160
No headaches or queasiness - but total uninterrupted viewing time was probably 40 mins max.

I wear glasses - it wasn't an issue - they're apparently designed to fit well around them.

The picture is rubbish if you don't wear glasses. Ironically not unlike the TV looks when I don't wear my normal glasses. There's a kind of double-vision blurring.

No idea what it's like for the partially blind.

You saw my comments - novel but not enough to justify extra investment in my case. But I'm a tight-arse. :mrgreen:

I dont wear glasses maybe i need to get my eyes tested maybe thats why i get the headaches. Would never invest in it either just upgraded my 32" tv to a nice full hd 40 for £360 if i wanted 3d at that size it would be extortionate.

Plus most importantly i would NEVER EVER EVER go back to sky they are useless.