Terence wrote:oliverfennell wrote:DavidPayne wrote:He's no better than Hobson
As going 2-0 against Hobson proves...
You are being deliberately disingenuous. I am sure, and you probably know, that Dave was saying that the first fight was a real struggle for Enzo, and in the second bout he whacked the guy in the back of the head, without any malicious intent, but the shot was borderline legal and ended the fight quickly, without Enzo proving anything.
Enzo's entire hype prior to Haye was built on the back of a win over Braithwaite, who was flattered by later results. The Lewis comparisons were laughable and many of us were still aware that Enz had struggled mightily at British level versus Hobson and Scott.
He was never on the same footing as Haye, and when they fought this was proven, anyone with a few smarts will beat Enzo, that is not a dig at him, the evidence speaks for itself, he was pushed beyond his level by cautious matchmaking and hyperbolic punditry.
No, I'm not being "deliberately disingeneous". I'm not disputing that Enzo's world class worth has been exaggerated in the past (people on this very forum were prostrating themselves with joy at the announcement of Enzo-Braithwaite, while I said from the start it flattered to deceive), but in this game, results are really all that counts, and you can't say say one fighter is "no better" than someone he's beaten twice.
(OK, even if I accept there were unfulfilling circumstances to the finish of Enzo-Hobson II, Enzo DID win the first match fair and square. Sure it was a hard fight, and harder than it should have been for someone with world title pretensions, but
he won it, which therefore makes him "better than" Hobson.)