BoxRec

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Believe it or not 'exitorred', I've chewed through my fair share of boxing bullsh1t.

Funnily enough though, I just didn't think Haye was a 'total hype/bullshit machine'.

I didn't think he'd win actually - I plumped for Wlad late weeks ago and stuck with it.

What I mean is, after some of the scraps he'd been in, I just never thought he'd go out in such a manner and then make it worse afterwards. He shouldn't be condemned for losing, of course. Most of us, as you point out, thought that would happen - though we gave him a better chance than it turned out he deserved.

He is being criticised for the manner of his defeat.

You were impressed by his performance because you had such low expectations; I was very disappointed because I thought he'd at least give it a go. He didn't, really, and was content with survival.

That's fine, it's all about opinions.

Jon Saxon wrote:
What like Ryan Rhodes? get my point Ian?

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:
What like Ryan Rhodes? get my point Ian?

No mate, not at all - it's much more subtle than that.

For a start, they are completely different types of boxers.

Whatever Ryan tried, he was countered, punished and eventually taken out anyway.

Haye had a go in the third, won the round and on the very few occasions he did (with success) afterwards, Wlad grabbed him, sensing danger.

In my opinion, Haye would have had much more success had he had a right old go. I don't feel the same about Ryan - unless he got lucky.

As I've said though, it's all about opinions.

Jon Saxon wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:
What like Ryan Rhodes? get my point Ian?

No mate, not at all - it's much more subtle than that.

For a start, they are completely different types of boxers.

Whatever Ryan tried, he was countered, punished and eventually taken out anyway.

Haye had a go in the third, won the round and on the very few occasions he did (with success) afterwards, Wlad grabbed him, sensing danger.

In my opinion, Haye would have had much more success had he had a right old go. I don't feel the same about Ryan - unless he got lucky.

As I've said though, it's all about opinions.

It is and Haye had the bigger challenge and at least tried to go for the ko (even in the last round) whereas Ryan boxed not to be ko'ed.

For what it's worth Klit was junk also.

Jon Saxon wrote:I watched it in 3d on a massive telly and it was da shizzle.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:I watched it in 3d on a massive telly and it was da shizzle.

I was actually there and it was plain old shizzle

exittored wrote:

Final round wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote: J is referring to an incident that happened years ago at a website with no direct affiliation to boxrec. What's your point?

Well you obviously saw my point and that's why you stepped in to clarify. there's some bitter hatred being aimed at
Haye for his losing performance and it some of it seems to be coming from boxrec mods,writers, editors etc. Which I find strange because the situation, a fighter didn't back up his words and people lost cash is pretty much the story of every big fight.

Great post Final Round.

I find the attitude of some of the boxing writers here startling as though they're a newly born fawn all bright eyed and looking at the boxing world with innocence.

so Ian McNeilly stated on another thread that 'he'll never believe another word Haye say's again'...do you honestly take everything that a boxer says pre-fight as truth and nothing but especially someone like Haye who is a total hype/Bullshit machine.

Do you honestly think his performances at Heavyweight against Monte Barett, Nicolay Valuev, John Ruiz and Audley Harrison would give any knowledgable boxing person the impression he was going to beat Waldmir Klitschko or that it wouldn't be a massive upset if he did? Most of the boxing writers polled before hand were picking Wladimir to win by knockout by around a margin of 80% to 20%, these same boxing writers who know have the nerve to stick the knife into David and condemn him for his performance.

Being 4 inches shorter and outweighed by over 30 lbs I was honestly worried David would be bowled over inside a few rounds Vitali Klitschko-Herbie Hide style and came away impressed by his performance of not only winning 3/4 rounds in my book but also hurting Wladimir a few times especially the 12th and even taking some of Klitschko's best shots and coming straight back at him.

Like 100's of other British boxing writers you just trashed Haye for being dissapointing etc etc...none of these writers had the imagination or balls to give Haye the feintest of praise for his performance or try to defend or educate him against the public's condemnation or ignorance of his boxing achievements.

Do you think winning the Heavyweight championship of the world is such an easy task for a British Boxer. Lets take Lennox Lewis our of the picture seeing as he learn't to fight in Canada and then predominently America so is hardly a product of the British Boxing system. If Haye had won he would have been the first Ring World Heavyweight Champion/unified belt holder this country would have 'produced' since Bob Fitzsimmons in 1897.

Yes Haye made a dick of himself in the post fight interview but he's not the first sportsman to do that and won't be the last, he's the one who has to pick himself up now and we'll see if he comes back fighting or decides to say 'eff it' and walk away for good but if he does do that i for one will say a big thankyou to him for the great fights he's given me over the years.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Final round wrote:
Good to see Boxrec are maintaining a level of impartiality towards delivering 'boxing news' to the masses.

Listen, you're going way below the belt here.

I go way back following Haye, have known his press lad for years, and was the first writer to do a decent bit on Adam Booth both on the web and in print.

I believe we were the only boxing website accredited for the Ruiz and Harrison fights.

It would be the easiest thing in the world for me to shut my cakehole and maintain cordial relationships.

My impartiality and refusal to be biased prevents me from doing that.

You're f*cking way out of order.

Final round wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Final round wrote:
Good to see Boxrec are maintaining a level of impartiality towards delivering 'boxing news' to the masses.

Listen, you're going way below the belt here.

I go way back following Haye, have known his press lad for years, and was the first writer to do a decent bit on Adam Booth both on the web and in print.

I believe we were the only boxing website accredited for the Ruiz and Harrison fights.

It would be the easiest thing in the world for me to shut my cakehole and maintain cordial relationships.

My impartiality and refusal to be biased prevents me from doing that.

You're f*cking way out of order.

That's fair enough and you are entitled to your opinion just as i am too, I was just surprised the editor had jumped fully aboard the 'Tear up his record and get him out of here bus' on the back of a shit trip to Germany.

Final round wrote:
I think we're supposed to say 'He's Crap!' What a fraud, whole career smoke and mirrors shit boxer, etcetc just to fit in

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Final round wrote:
I think we're supposed to say 'He's Crap!' What a fraud, whole career smoke and mirrors shit boxer, etcetc just to fit in

Not at all. You stick to your guns.

Just try not to throw shite with no justification, like your snide accusation that I'm not impartial (i.e. there's some bias involved), which is deeply insulting to any writer who takes a reporting job seriously.

Just because I think the opposite to you doesn't mean I'm biased. I just see it differently.

Final round wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Final round wrote:
I think we're supposed to say 'He's Crap!' What a fraud, whole career smoke and mirrors shit boxer, etcetc just to fit in

Not at all. You stick to your guns.

Just try not to throw shite with no justification, like your snide accusation that I'm not impartial (i.e. there's some bias involved), which is deeply insulting to any writer who takes a reporting job seriously.

Just because I think the opposite to you doesn't mean I'm biased. I just see it differently.

Cheers and correct me if I'm wrong Ian but being totally impartial would surely involve reporting the incidents and not volunteering your personal opinion which would make for a pretty boring article I'm sure

If you think someone is a bullshitting money grabber then you there is a bit of a bias against them.

J wrote:

Final round wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote: J is referring to an incident that happened years ago at a website with no direct affiliation to boxrec. What's your point?

Well you obviously saw my point and that's why you stepped in to clarify. there's some bitter hatred being aimed at
Haye for his losing performance and it some of it seems to be coming from boxrec mods,writers, editors etc. Which I find strange because the situation, a fighter didn't back up his words and people lost cash is pretty much the story of every big fight.

bbn days read....... muppet vs THOMPSON.

and actually they messed me around for 3 weeks fone calls, emails etc in fact so much so a member of team replied to me on email instead of a colleague commenting on us being messed around so much and not understand the reluctance to given an interview. So go figure.

point being Ive spent a lot of money following david haye personally and going back to the thompson fight several trips to the york hall and in this instance a lot of time trying to cajole an interview where their attitude was such that they were dismissive prior to the fight and contrite and willing after...


sound familar i.e its what he is doing now? that was the point, so get your facts straight before passing judgement and also be careful who you are accusing otherwise you might look very stupid....like you just have.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Final round wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: Not at all. You stick to your guns.

Just try not to throw shite with no justification, like your snide accusation that I'm not impartial (i.e. there's some bias involved), which is deeply insulting to any writer who takes a reporting job seriously.

Just because I think the opposite to you doesn't mean I'm biased. I just see it differently.

Cheers and correct me if I'm wrong Ian but being totally impartial would surely involve reporting the incidents and not volunteering your personal opinion which would make for a pretty boring article I'm sure

If you think someone is a bullshitting money grabber then you there is a bit of a bias against them.

Being biased would be me holding an opinion for some undue reason which has nothing to do with the events.

It is the events which have led me to my conclusions.

I've just heard Adam make a stout defence for his man's effort and I do hold him in high regard. I have great respect for his views and his insights help...but, like me, he thought he won the third and did well in the fourth and I'm still puzzled as to why he didn't build on it - other than being gun shy.