Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
AdamGB, my thing is this. Well, first off, I've thought about it and I don't want to be a proponent of hitting a guy when he's down. From your posts, it sounds like your favorite fighter was David Haye. I hear that, and listen he was a heavyweight champion, that says something. Personally, I don't give Wlad any more credit for beating Haye than I do for beating Thompson, Chambers, Chagaev, or Ibragimov. Some of those guys held belts too and Chagaev even, like Haye, beat Valuev to get the belt. In fact, I give Wlad less credit for beating Haye probably than a couple of those guys. The problem I had in retrospect was that I let Haye sell me that this was going to be a good fight. So, I guess my final thoughts are that I was let down on what was hyped to be the biggest heavyweight in years and ended up being a horrible fight. The blame for it being a boring fight is both fighter's fault, but I blame Haye more for letting me down that it was going to be an exciting scrap.
In regards to Wlad and Haye's resume and careers and historical placement against fighters in their weight classes. I agree that Wlad wouldn't have beat a bunch of the all-time heavyweights you mentioned. However, he fights effectively with his height and reach, and defensively, and I don't think he'd be a walk in the park for any of those guys either. He's a top twenty heavyweight for me, rounding out around number 20, somewhere around there. I respect him for taking on every single person in his division even though the division isn't that great. That the division isn't great is the reason David Haye was able to get a belt. However, give Wlad credit too, Wlad hasn't ducked anyone. He's unified every single belt other than the one his brother owns. No two ways about it that's a remarkable accomplishment. Your point that Haye came from a working class background and achieved a lot - so did Wlad and he achieved more, much, much more. On to Haye.
I was never high on Haye. For example, I recall debating Haye with Erics44 and Erics44 acknowledged that Haye's resume wasn't very good, but that he saw a lot of potential in Haye to do big things. He also thought he was the most exciting heavyweight in modern times. I doubted those claims because at that time two of Haye's four heavyweight fights weren't entertaining. His best win on his resume probably is over Nikolai Valuev, which isn't all that impressive. He was a unified cruiserweight champ and that deserves some mention, but only some mention, because his wins at cruiserweight weren't impressive. His best win was probably over Fragomenni, maybe Mormeck. He unified with Enzo Mac and Mormeck anyway. What stands out about Haye for me is that he doesn't have one stand out win. Whereas Adamek , another unified cruiserweight champion, can lay claim to beating Cunningham and Arreola, Haye doesn't even have those type of wins. At the end of the day, Haye just didn't have too great a career. He definitely isn't Canastota material, not even close, and as far as British boxers of the last five years, he probably isn't even ranked in the top 5 (I'd have Carl Froch, Joe Calzaghe, Ricky Hatton, Amir Khan all easily above him).
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Re: Any final thoughts on Wlad vs Haye?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks