Haye vs Wlad Klitschko

[El Kabong]

My point is that it proved NOTHING about David Haye's ability to take a punch.

That's basically what I was saying EXCEPT top level fighters don't let themselves get off balance like that so they get knocked down by guys like Monte Barrett. THAT is why it means something and that is why people should worry....if a guy with journeyman skill can take advantage of Haye's poor footwork then a guy like Wlad who has a lot more skill will be able to really mess Haye up.

[Hunter]

Haye was knocked down by Barrett, Haye came in, Monte threw a left hand and it dropped Haye to the seat of his pants. He was dazed, he didnt even jump right up, he stayed on one knee for 20 seconds.

[AdamGB]

Haye was knocked down by Barrett, Haye came in, Monte threw a left hand and it dropped Haye to the seat of his pants. He was dazed, he didnt even jump right up, he stayed on one knee for 20 seconds.

Why would he jump straight back up?... Barrett sucker punched Haye whilst he was on the canvas, it was an illegal shot and he's allowed time to recover from it so that Barrett loses any advantage he might have gained from fowling Haye.

Do you know anything?

[The Fightfan]

Even in a Ring magazine issue they mentioned it."The knockdown was ruled a slip". After kissing Haye's ass something fearce,comparing his hand and foot speed to a prime Ali. I just about threw the magazine out the window until I read a little bit more and found out they had mentioned that he was legitimatally knocked down and ref ruled a slip. I too did see the knockdown. A simple balance shot. Something he must control against Wlad but probably won't and be knocked out.

R.I.P. David Haye nice knowing ya.

[Nameless]

My point is that it proved NOTHING about David Haye's ability to take a punch.

That's basically what I was saying EXCEPT top level fighters don't let themselves get off balance like that so they get knocked down by guys like Monte Barrett. THAT is why it means something and that is why people should worry....if a guy with journeyman skill can take advantage of Haye's poor footwork then a guy like Wlad who has a lot more skill will be able to really mess Haye up.

I don't see neither how Haye could win beside the known fact that at heavyweight anything can happen because of a single punch.

[AdamGB]

My point is that it proved NOTHING about David Haye's ability to take a punch.

That's basically what I was saying EXCEPT top level fighters don't let themselves get off balance like that so they get knocked down by guys like Monte Barrett. THAT is why it means something and that is why people should worry....if a guy with journeyman skill can take advantage of Haye's poor footwork then a guy like Wlad who has a lot more skill will be able to really mess Haye up.

lol, I think you're over rating barrett slightly here Lyle... I doubt it was the result of a cunningly hatched plan that was the outcome of studying tapes of David Haye and observing his footwork. I could be wrong of course...

[El Kabong]

lol, I think you're over rating barrett slightly here Lyle... I doubt it was the result of a cunningly hatched plan that was the outcome of studying tapes of David Haye and observing his footwork. I could be wrong of course...

Adam, I think we can both agree that Wladimir Klitschko is no Monte Barrett and no Tomas Bonin and he is BY FAR the best fighter David Haye will have EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER........EVER set foot in the ring with. All I'm saying is that Monte Barrett isn't THAT skilled and yet he was still able to knock down the "Mighty" David Haye

[AdamGB]

lol, I think you're over rating barrett slightly here Lyle... I doubt it was the result of a cunningly hatched plan that was the outcome of studying tapes of David Haye and observing his footwork. I could be wrong of course...

Adam, I think we can both agree that Wladimir Klitschko is no Monte Barrett and no Tomas Bonin and he is BY FAR the best fighter David Haye will have EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER........EVER set foot in the ring with. All I'm saying is that Monte Barrett isn't THAT skilled and yet he was still able to knock down the "Mighty" David Haye

Wlad is definitely the best fighter Haye will have ever fought, why would I deny that? My point is that it proves nothing more about David Haye than the short armed, slow plodder Sam Peter repeatedly knocking Wlad down does about Wlad.

[El Kabong]

I may add a qualifier to that remark saying that "Wlad got hit behind the head" but it doesn't make the 3 knockdowns go away...Wlad got knocked down 3 times, I am able to admit that because #1 It actually happened #2 Wlad's skill is such that he made those knockdowns not count for much and so I am comfortable in the knowledge that if in future bouts Wladimir is knocked down (even multiple times) he can still win a fight.

Why won't you just accept that Haye got knocked down, being defensive about it just shows that you are insecure as a fan. If I wanted to question David Haye's chin there are several other examples I could use....Odlainer Solis in the Olympics perhaps? Jean Marc Mormeck hurt David....and of course Carl Thompson rocked Haye several times. My point in bringing up the Barrett knock down is that it shows a recklessness and a carelessness that a very strong technical fighter like Wladimir will take advantage of such glaring flaws. It's not what Barrett did, it's what Haye allowed to happen and don't doubt that it's going to have an effect on the fight....let's face facts, Monte doesn't punch big and he put Haye down, and if you're just able to knock Haye down with a little punch while he's off balance then it doesn't matter what his chin is like

[AdamGB]

I may add a qualifier to that remark saying that "Wlad got hit behind the head" but it doesn't make the 3 knockdowns go away...Wlad got knocked down 3 times, I am able to admit that because #1 It actually happened #2 Wlad's skill is such that he made those knockdowns not count for much and so I am comfortable in the knowledge that if in future bouts Wladimir is knocked down (even multiple times) he can still win a fight.

Lyle, I am not denying that it should have been ruled as a knock down... I must have said that 3 times now. it could have been ruled as anything... I am disputing what it means... not what the technicality of what to call it.

What I am pointing out is that you have one rule for Wlad and another for Haye:

I may add a qualifier to that remark saying that "Haye got hit whilst off balance" but it doesn't make the knockdown go away (what the ref ruled it as is irrelevant)...Haye got knocked down, I am able to admit that because #1 It actually happened #2 Haye's skill is such that he made those knockdowns not count for much and so I am comfortable in the knowledge that if in future bouts Haye is knocked down (even multiple times) he can still win a fight.

Wlad getting clubbed down 3 times by a fighter with the class of Sam Peter because he let him get too close means exactly as much as David Haye essentially slipping off balance because he stood to side on against a fighter like Monte Barrett.

ie: Not much. You know this but decide to make it irrelevant for only one fighter, why?

I don't take issue with the fact that you think Wlad will win - that is a very likely outcome... what I do take issue with is the massive bias that you have, rather than give a balanced opinion based purely on boxing knowledge you instead apply a completely different rule to two similar situations just because they suit your agenda.

You're usually a good poster Lyle, stop being such a fanboy.

[ono]

I may add a qualifier to that remark saying that "Wlad got hit behind the head" but it doesn't make the 3 knockdowns go away...Wlad got knocked down 3 times, I am able to admit that because #1 It actually happened #2 Wlad's skill is such that he made those knockdowns not count for much and so I am comfortable in the knowledge that if in future bouts Wladimir is knocked down (even multiple times) he can still win a fight.

Lyle, I am not denying that it should have been ruled as a knock down... I must have said that 3 times now. it could have been ruled as anything... I am disputing what it means... not what the technicality of what to call it.

What I am pointing out is that you have one rule for Wlad and another for Haye:

I may add a qualifier to that remark saying that "Haye got hit whilst off balance" but it doesn't make the knockdown go away (what the ref ruled it as is irrelevant)...Haye got knocked down, I am able to admit that because #1 It actually happened #2 Haye's skill is such that he made those knockdowns not count for much and so I am comfortable in the knowledge that if in future bouts Haye is knocked down (even multiple times) he can still win a fight.

Wlad getting clubbed down 3 times by a fighter with the class of Sam Peter because he let him get too close means exactly as much as David Haye essentially slipping off balance because he stood to side on against a fighter like Monte Barrett.

ie: Not much. You know this but decide to make it irrelevant for only one fighter, why?

I don't take issue with the fact that you think Wlad will win - that is a very likely outcome... what I do take issue with is the massive bias that you have, rather than give a balanced opinion based purely on boxing knowledge you instead apply a completely different rule to two similar situations just because they suit your agenda.

You're usually a good poster Lyle, stop being such a fanboy.

YEAAAAHH BRUTHAAAAA

[AdamGB]

Why won't you just accept that Haye got knocked down, being defensive about it just shows that you are insecure as a fan

Jesus... I am not defensive over whether haye touched the canvas... we all saw it. I am merely stating that it means nothing. EXACTLY as you are with Wlad and Bum Peter.

I could use....Odlainer Solis in the Olympics perhaps? Jean Marc Mormeck hurt David....and of course Carl Thompson rocked Haye several times.

Who is saying that Haye's chin is made out of granite Lyle... we know he doesn't have a great chin... are you repeating the same reduntant facts for a reason or do you have nothing better to do. Wlad and Haye both have fairly bad 'chins'. Can't really see the discussion here but nevermind.

My point in bringing up the Barrett knock down is that it shows a recklessness and a carelessness that a very strong technical fighter like Wladimir will take advantage of such glaring flaws. It's not what Barrett did, it's what Haye allowed to happen and don't doubt that it's going to have an effect on the fight

But why is Wlad able to learn from the mistakes the he made in allowing Sam Peter to get to close to him but Haye is not allowed to learn not to come to the inside off balance?

....let's face facts, Monte doesn't punch big and he put Haye down, and if you're just able to knock Haye down with a little punch

I thought that you agreed it was the loss of balance that made haye fall and not the concusive effect of the essentially non-punch? Bruce Lee did his one inch punch trick by making people stand off balance... how much power do you think is in a one inch punch? when you're off balance you're off balance. Power isn't a factor.

Wlad isn't going to win the fight by knocking haye off balance... if the ref scores it as a knock down it would make the fight a 10-8 round but I think the one thing we can agree on is that it's not going to points here.

There are flaws in Haye's game for sure and Wlad will be able to exploit things, I don't think balance or footwork is one of them though... shit happens. (as you have basically said about Wlad/Peter... but of course Wlad gets special treatment from you )

I was unhappy with a few things Haye did against Barrett and losing his balance wasn't one of them. Totally irrelevant, watch his footwork any other time. Talk boxing and stop harping on about the same redundant shite.