Haye vs Wlad being billed as a fight between two of the best heavyweights ever...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snakey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Guess whoever billed it as that never watched Ali vs Foreman or Holyfield vs Bowe or Tyson vs Holyfield 1 or Marciano vs Walcott 1, etc.

---

---

you cant rank haye as a top cruiserweight?

what does that mean? you cant rank him top 5? or top 10?

lets say top 5, you givel me 5 cruiserweights in history that have acheived more than haye did at the weight

---

That's simply ridiculous Erics44. Come on man. I can name many cruiserweights and even some that are currently active that have achieved more than Haye. Consider Steve Cunningham. He has achieved far more than Haye. His wins over Huck, Wlodarcyzk, and Guillermo Jones each are better than any single Haye win. Haye's reign at cruiserweight is overrated. His signature wins really are Fragomenni or Mormeck. Light heavyweight Erdei beat Fragomenni. Mormeck is just Mormeck, I don't need to say anything else.

---

how do we rate achievement in boxing?

pauli malinagi has been a light welter for years (alright he went down to lightweight for a bit and then up to welter now i think) and he won a world title a couple of times, khan has been there for 6 fights (or whatever), if he beats judah who has achieved more in teh division khan or malinagi?

steve cunnigham, been a cruiser for years, won the ibf title, very good fighter and very good in the division, david haye cruiserweight for 20 fights (or whatever) won the wba, wbc and wbo titles, considered the undisputed best in the division, who has achieved more?

doesnt it really matter who you think has the better names on their record?

---

more credit is due to the person who beat the better opponents in my book. the straps the come along with it are just straps. i give some credence to being the lineal champion of course or the man in the division and some credence to the length of time being the best in the division and whether he cleaned out the division etc.

take wlad, in another thread started by you, "is the general opinion of wlad deserved," you argue that although wlad is an unified belt holder, he is overrated because he hasn't faced any good competition. haye would beat all of wlad's opposition and so on.

here, you argue that Haye is great because he held a lot of belts even though he didn't face any tough competition. it's a little hypocritical, isn't it? there's a difference though. when haye was at cruiserweight the division was crap, but haye wasn't in the division for very long. he didn't clean it out. wlad has literally cleaned out the entire division and faced the top in his division. haye left the division before he did that.

to be fair, with haye i feel like it's all about potential because his resume is thin. he has looked good dispatching weak opposition, but he doesn't really have a career defining victory. so if he beats wlad, that'll be i and he'll retire on top. he'll be p4p in my book. so far he hasn't beat anyone even remotely close to wlad. not even close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

more credit is due to the person who beat the better opponents in my book. the straps the come along with it are just straps. i give some credence to being the lineal champion of course or the man in the division and some credence to the length of time being the best in the division and whether he cleaned out the division etc.

take wlad, in another thread started by you, "is the general opinion of wlad deserved," you argue that although wlad is an unified belt holder, he is overrated because he hasn't faced any good competition. haye would beat all of wlad's opposition and so on.

here, you argue that Haye is great because he held a lot of belts even though he didn't face any tough competition. it's a little hypocritical, isn't it? there's a difference though. when haye was at cruiserweight the division was crap, but haye wasn't in the division for very long. he didn't clean it out. wlad has literally cleaned out the entire division and faced the top in his division. haye left the division before he did that.

to be fair, with haye i feel like it's all about potential because his resume is thin. he has looked good dispatching weak opposition, but he doesn't really have a career defining victory. so if he beats wlad, that'll be i and he'll retire on top. he'll be p4p in my book. so far he hasn't beat anyone even remotely close to wlad. not even close.

---

paragraph 1 - more credit maybe maybe not, we are talking achievements tho, i said who has acheived what haye has you said that was simply ridiculous

paragraph 2 - I havent argued that wlad is over rated, i have asked the question do you think he is? i dont think he is, on his day he could be good enough to beat any HW in history. i do also think that on his day haye would have dealt with all of wlads opposition since peter 1, whether or not he could do it as consitently as wlad has is another question

paragraph 3 - do you know what hypocritical means? someone said that they dont think haye was a top cruiser, i said that was ridiculous look what he acheived (a top cruiser, not the best ever)

paragraph 4 - you are right haye hasnt had the defining fights that other fighters have had, he hasnt got an amazing HW run or anything like that, he was however a top cruiser and he is however a very real threat to wlad because of the potential that you talk about

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

more credit is due to the person who beat the better opponents in my book. the straps the come along with it are just straps. i give some credence to being the lineal champion of course or the man in the division and some credence to the length of time being the best in the division and whether he cleaned out the division etc.

take wlad, in another thread started by you, "is the general opinion of wlad deserved," you argue that although wlad is an unified belt holder, he is overrated because he hasn't faced any good competition. haye would beat all of wlad's opposition and so on.

here, you argue that Haye is great because he held a lot of belts even though he didn't face any tough competition. it's a little hypocritical, isn't it? there's a difference though. when haye was at cruiserweight the division was crap, but haye wasn't in the division for very long. he didn't clean it out. wlad has literally cleaned out the entire division and faced the top in his division. haye left the division before he did that.

to be fair, with haye i feel like it's all about potential because his resume is thin. he has looked good dispatching weak opposition, but he doesn't really have a career defining victory. so if he beats wlad, that'll be i and he'll retire on top. he'll be p4p in my book. so far he hasn't beat anyone even remotely close to wlad. not even close.

---

paragraph 1 - more credit maybe maybe not, we are talking achievements tho, i said who has acheived what haye has you said that was simply ridiculous

paragraph 2 - I havent argued that wlad is over rated, i have asked the question do you think he is? i dont think he is, on his day he could be good enough to beat any HW in history. i do also think that on his day haye would have dealt with all of wlads opposition since peter 1, whether or not he could do it as consitently as wlad has is another question

paragraph 3 - do you know what hypocritical means? someone said that they dont think haye was a top cruiser, i said that was ridiculous look what he acheived (a top cruiser, not the best ever)

paragraph 4 - you are right haye hasnt had the defining fights that other fighters have had, he hasnt got an amazing HW run or anything like that, he was however a top cruiser and he is however a very real threat to wlad because of the potential that you talk about

---

that's probably the fairest post I've seen from you on the Wlad v. Haye beef. good play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

more credit is due to the person who beat the better opponents in my book. the straps the come along with it are just straps. i give some credence to being the lineal champion of course or the man in the division and some credence to the length of time being the best in the division and whether he cleaned out the division etc.

take wlad, in another thread started by you, "is the general opinion of wlad deserved," you argue that although wlad is an unified belt holder, he is overrated because he hasn't faced any good competition. haye would beat all of wlad's opposition and so on.

here, you argue that Haye is great because he held a lot of belts even though he didn't face any tough competition. it's a little hypocritical, isn't it? there's a difference though. when haye was at cruiserweight the division was crap, but haye wasn't in the division for very long. he didn't clean it out. wlad has literally cleaned out the entire division and faced the top in his division. haye left the division before he did that.

to be fair, with haye i feel like it's all about potential because his resume is thin. he has looked good dispatching weak opposition, but he doesn't really have a career defining victory. so if he beats wlad, that'll be i and he'll retire on top. he'll be p4p in my book. so far he hasn't beat anyone even remotely close to wlad. not even close.

---

paragraph 1 - more credit maybe maybe not, we are talking achievements tho, i said who has acheived what haye has you said that was simply ridiculous

paragraph 2 - I havent argued that wlad is over rated, i have asked the question do you think he is? i dont think he is, on his day he could be good enough to beat any HW in history. i do also think that on his day haye would have dealt with all of wlads opposition since peter 1, whether or not he could do it as consitently as wlad has is another question

paragraph 3 - do you know what hypocritical means? someone said that they dont think haye was a top cruiser, i said that was ridiculous look what he acheived (a top cruiser, not the best ever)

paragraph 4 - you are right haye hasnt had the defining fights that other fighters have had, he hasnt got an amazing HW run or anything like that, he was however a top cruiser and he is however a very real threat to wlad because of the potential that you talk about

---

that's probably the fairest post I've seen from you on the Wlad v. Haye beef. good play.

---

Thanks for the complement man but all my posts from the wlad haye debate are just as fair

all my posts on this thread have had the same message so all must be just as fair

the thing is i want haye to win coz he is english and im bored of wlad but i dont passionately support him or anything, in fact i think he's a bit of a dick

i generally get into these debates with people who hate haye and passionately support wlad and give very one sided ridiculous responses

for instance my involvement in this thread is due to someone saying he cant rank haye as a top cruiserweight - that is clearly a pretty ridiculous suggestion from someone who passionately dislikes him. You might hate him more than anyone you have hated before in your whole puff but he was a top cruiserweight, that is a fact

You Australians are so gullible, is it PPV over there?

Fights get hyped. Waddya gonna do?

The one thing I just don't get is how 13 can be considered anything but cannon fodder here.

They probably said it that way because "a fight between a Klitchsko and the only opponent that could get one of his fights back on HBO" used up too much air time and took up too much room on the poster.

Mate dont sweat it, everyones at it.

I remember watching the Green Jones fight and listening to the commentators, to become a legend etc etc......;D

Was quite odd listening to an Aussie talk (bollocks) like that. I've only ever really listened to Aussie cricket commentary and its all very matter of fact and honest. The hear one of them laying it on thick like that was funny.

I like listening to or reading boxing reports by non boxing writers/broadcasters. Shockingly bad the lack of a) knowledge and b) effort.

I don't recall hearing aussie announcers hyping fights, but aside from a few here in the U.S., UK announcers are by far the most histrionic. (no offense to my Brit/Mick buds)
Sky Sports will likely have their own PPV/stream for Wlad-Haye, you can bet your ass that every time Haye even lands a love tap or jab on Wlad, they'll be going berserk and/or getting hysterical along with Haye's fans in the stadium.

As for these 2 being the best HWs ever, the dude that said that must not know shit about boxing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

Mate dont sweat it, everyones at it.

I remember watching the Green Jones fight and listening to the commentators, to become a legend etc etc......;D

Was quite odd listening to an Aussie talk (bollocks) like that. I've only ever really listened to Aussie cricket commentary and its all very matter of fact and honest. The hear one of them laying it on thick like that was funny.

I like listening to or reading boxing reports by non boxing writers/broadcasters. Shockingly bad the lack of a) knowledge and b) effort.

---

Ah mate i know what you mean, that was shocking. Green happened to believe it too. He thinks hes a legend for beating an old Roy Jones.