BoxRec

Deserter wrote:

dondada wrote:Not only that, he can't conduct a simple back and forth of opinions.

I strongly suspect you are wasting your time in this case.

Agreed.

Simplistic and very naive.

kingfinn wrote:Probably would be an idea not to debate with someone who actually has academic qualifications in business and knows how a product based business works, its like me trying to argue with a mechanic about the best way to fix a car.

Was it the University of Cornflakes of Coco-Pops you got them from?

Dan Dares wrote:

kingfinn wrote:Probably would be an idea not to debate with someone who actually has academic qualifications in business and knows how a product based business works, its like me trying to argue with a mechanic about the best way to fix a car.

Was it the University of Cornflakes of Coco-Pops you got them from?

how witty

Deserter wrote:

kingfinn wrote:i dont really want to go down the route of debating with someone who clearly doesnt know what they are talking about, im not even sure what point you are trying to make. You come across as someone pretending to be intelligent rather than someone who actually is.

It sounds like your argument is - better talent wont result better shows and that a hightened interest in the sport and larger fan base wont filter down to the lower levels. If that is your conclusion i'd advise you to do some research into business and marketing. The oldest marketing model which has been revised is the Marketing Funnel http://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-conte ... webcontent this one is for social media by the looks of it but if you are clever enough (big if) you can amend it to sports business.

Probably would be an idea not to debate with someone who actually has academic qualifications in business and knows how a product based business works, its like me trying to argue with a mechanic about the best way to fix a car.

The first part of selling any product is the product itself (in principle the better the product the easier it is to sell) providing there is a market for that product. Boxing is already established so the problem we have is that the previously established market has shrunk there are two ways to remedy this (not the only two ways, before you add ONLY to whatever i write):
1. Increase the quality of the product to be sold ie better talent - yes you can market a small hall event without the talent but you wont get a repeat customer.
2. Jump start the market with a surge of new customers ie a marketing campaign OR a massive high profile all UK fight and the media circus that comes with it.

Congratulations on being both patronising and stupid enough to completely miss my point. And I'll give you a pat on the back for your academic qualifications but given I actually run a business and liaise with marketers on a daily basis, not to mention the fact that one of my closest friends runs his own sporks marketing business (so it's a space I'm very familiar with) you'll have to excuse me for laughing at your mechanic analogy and the inference that I'm somehow out of my depth on this one.
Now I'll indulge you by breaking it down for you in the vain hope you'll grasp what I'm saying. NOWHERE have I said talent isn't a part of the equation. What I took issue with is the simplistic notion that you yourself stated that talent automatically equals better shows. As I clearly stated (to those who can grasp these things), there are other critical variables that impact on this such as marketing. The irony is that in point 2 you seem to be finally acknowledging the point I was making in the first place!
If you want to talk tangible examples, look at the UFC - you think the success of that promotion has been based purely on talent? Or do you actually acknowledge that effective marketing and promotion has been the key to its success relative to other promotions. As per my original point, talent has played a part, but the UFC has been driven by its marketing - allowing it to overcome the fact that significant talent such as Fedor, didn't operate within its promotion.
Let's bring it back to boxing, to make it as relevant as possible. How do you think a show full of fighters such as Ajose Olusejun would do? All the talent's there as per your claim, but they can't shift tickets and they aren't interesting to either the media or the casual fan (and let's not forget that outside the hardcore, very few fans can actually determine levels of talent - most of those attending Haye-Chisora won't be able to comment with authority on nuances of footwork, distancing, parrying etc).
Let me say one final time in a bid to get my point across - talent/product is undoubtedly an important part, as I've clearly stated earlier. However, to say, as you clearly did earlier, that is all that is needed for better shows, is to ignore other key elements. Hence it is too simplistic an equation. End of.

I think the main problem is that you cant read - congratulations on your friends convenient SPORKS marketing company - if only we could all declare ourselves experts off our friends acheivements, i myself will now declare myself a Farmer worth £8 million because my mothers husband is.

At no point did i state talent is ALL that is needed for betters shows, the part i've highlighted in blue on your post is the part where you are just agreeing with my orginal post. You've read what you wanted to read wrongly and then gone off on a tangent.

This is what i said -
"the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the more kids taking up boxing the bigger the pool of talent, the bigger the pool of talent the better the shows, the better the shows the more people that go to watch them."

It doesnt matter how simplistic what i've written is or about contributing variables because this is the basic principle, the basic principle that after all your writing you have not disproved in fact you have just agreed with.

Let me ask you this - has the popularity and marketing of the UFC been a benefit to grass roots MMA and lead to the increase in talent in the lower level MMA shows?

MachoMan09 wrote:Has a non-title fight between two guys coming off losses ever got so much publicity and caused such a stir?

Just shows how desperate people are for a seemingly competative HW match up between two high profile fighters. I dont think it is going to be that competative to be honest, but i think it will go a few rounds; it will be a bit like the barret and ruiz fights for haye i reckon lots of KD's. Haye will probably get dropped at some point too like he says it makes it more exciting.

It's the top 2 heavyweights in Britain settling an ugly score that thousands like me would like to see settled. Nobody is trying to call this a world title fight. I see nothing desperate about it.

Haye and Chisora have both come off points losses to the Klitschko brothers, hardly the worst cases of exposure we've seen. I think both performances were respectable given the circumstances.

I actually tire of the flack that Haye gets over the way he fought Vladimir, who had just about every advantage in his favour. Imagine Vlad up against a 7ft 22st beast (and I don't mean Valuev) who can actually fight and who removes all those advantages that the Klitschko's enjoy. You think Vlad is going to throw caution to the wind and go for ultimate glory? Nope we'd be looking at a negative grab-fest at best. And yet Haye is still branded the coward by some.

Kilburn wrote:It's the top 2 heavyweights in Britain settling an ugly score that thousands like me would like to see settled. Nobody is trying to call this a world title fight. I see nothing desperate about it.

Haye and Chisora have both come off points losses to the Klitschko brothers, hardly the worst cases of exposure we've seen. I think both performances were respectable given the circumstances.

I actually tire of the flack that Haye gets over the way he fought Vladimir, who had just about every advantage in his favour. Imagine Vlad up against a 7ft 22st beast (and I don't mean Valuev) who can actually fight and who removes all those advantages that the Klitschko's enjoy. You think Vlad is going to throw caution to the wind and go for ultimate glory? Nope we'd be looking at a negative grab-fest at best. And yet Haye is still branded the coward by some.

exactly what did wlad do in that fight that was so amazing? he didnt even hurt haye.

Kilburn wrote:I actually tire of the flack that Haye gets over the way he fought Vladimir, who had just about every advantage in his favour. Imagine Vlad up against a 7ft 22st beast (and I don't mean Valuev) who can actually fight and who removes all those advantages that the Klitschko's enjoy. You think Vlad is going to throw caution to the wind and go for ultimate glory? Nope we'd be looking at a negative grab-fest at best. And yet Haye is still branded the coward by some.

All good points. Although when you think about the stick he's getting you have to factor in all of Haye's big talk before the fight. He really implied that he was going to put it all on the line in (I know Wlad also promised us a pizzaface that never arrived). There was also the manner in which he took the defeat (toegate).

Essentially he talked his way into the biggest possible money fight and then concentrated on making it to the final bell with minimal damage. A smart move for his finances and long term health but he must have realised it would piss off a lot people.

Sorry for going off topic.

I never concern myself with what words are exchanged beforehand. I think everyone knew it was going to be a stylistic nightmare for Haye, as is the case for anyone who takes on Vlad.

I was obviously disappointed that Haye didn't have more success but was satisfied that he tried everything he reasonably could to win the fight. Getting himself beaten up with counter punches would not have helped his reputation much, it would only have served to make Vlad look better, who IMO has the more questionable character out of the 2.

kingfinn wrote: I think the main problem is that you cant read - congratulations on your friends convenient SPORKS marketing company - if only we could all declare ourselves experts off our friends acheivements, i myself will now declare myself a Farmer worth £8 million because my mothers husband is.

Always a sign you're not faring too well in a debate when you have to resort to that type of response. I must have missed the point about declaring myself an expert. You made the mistake of assuming you had far more experience than me and used the dreadful mechanic analogy. I merely established that not only do I run a company that involves working with marketers every day, my close friendship has provided me with insights into how that particular sector operates as we inevitably discuss our respective businesses on a regular basis. A point that is clearly relevant given you chose to elevate yourself above me in terms of expertise without even bothering to establish my background. I'm sure you know more than me about how farming operates based on your relationship. The difference is that I'm not trying to tell you that I know far more than you about farming .

kingfinn wrote: At no point did i state talent is ALL that is needed for betters shows, the part i've highlighted in blue on your post is the part where you are just agreeing with my orginal post. You've read what you wanted to read wrongly and then gone off on a tangent..

Given you're clearly so fond of highlighting typos I'll have to wait for you to elaborate on what 'betters shows' and orginal are

kingfinn wrote: This is what i said -
"the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the more kids taking up boxing the bigger the pool of talent, the bigger the pool of talent the better the shows, the better the shows the more people that go to watch them."

It doesnt matter how simplistic what i've written is or about contributing variables because this is the basic principle, the basic principle that after all your writing you have not disproved in fact you have just agreed with.

Let me ask you this - has the popularity and marketing of the UFC been a benefit to grass roots MMA and lead to the increase in talent in the lower level MMA shows?

What I'm genuinely at a loss to understand is why you have to be so confrontational. I and others simply said your equation is too simplistic. If you'd have said, "Fair play guys, I acknowledge there are other variables at play that can affect this, such as marketing, and depending on those variables it doesn't automatically mean that better talent equals better shows, for example, but as a general principle you'd expect it to be the case," we'd have a 'non-issue' on our hands.
Instead, you embark on a combination of exaggerated defensiveness combined with hurling insults.
What is quite so bad about saying that the operating reality is frequently more complicated than your initial post implied, to the point on occasion where your basic principle actually doesn't work, particularly when I've given you tangible examples of where that's been the case?
In answer to your final question, absolutely it has, but I can't see how acknowledging that point in any way, shape or form changes my points as outlined above, as I raised the issue of the UFC specifically in the context of the fact that talent isn't always enough to create 'cut-through' and that the scenario is more complicated than that, with factors like marketing playing a big role. Or are you denying that's the case?

Kilburn wrote:It's the top 2 heavyweights in Britain settling an ugly score that thousands like me would like to see settled. Nobody is trying to call this a world title fight. I see nothing desperate about it.

Haye and Chisora have both come off points losses to the Klitschko brothers, hardly the worst cases of exposure we've seen. I think both performances were respectable given the circumstances.

I actually tire of the flack that Haye gets over the way he fought Vladimir, who had just about every advantage in his favour. Imagine Vlad up against a 7ft 22st beast (and I don't mean Valuev) who can actually fight and who removes all those advantages that the Klitschko's enjoy. You think Vlad is going to throw caution to the wind and go for ultimate glory? Nope we'd be looking at a negative grab-fest at best. And yet Haye is still branded the coward by some.

Fury is better than Chisora, he's rated higher and also the small fact that he's beaten Chisora.

Deserter wrote:

kingfinn wrote: I think the main problem is that you cant read - congratulations on your friends convenient SPORKS marketing company - if only we could all declare ourselves experts off our friends acheivements, i myself will now declare myself a Farmer worth £8 million because my mothers husband is.

Always a sign you're not faring too well in a debate when you have to resort to that type of response. I must have missed the point about declaring myself an expert. You made the mistake of assuming you had far more experience than me and used the dreadful mechanic analogy. I merely established that not only do I run a company that involves working with marketers every day, my close friendship has provided me with insights into how that particular sector operates as we inevitably discuss our respective businesses on a regular basis. A point that is clearly relevant given you chose to elevate yourself above me in terms of expertise without even bothering to establish my background. I'm sure you know more than me about how farming operates based on your relationship. The difference is that I'm not trying to tell you that I know far more than you about farming .

kingfinn wrote: At no point did i state talent is ALL that is needed for betters shows, the part i've highlighted in blue on your post is the part where you are just agreeing with my orginal post. You've read what you wanted to read wrongly and then gone off on a tangent..

Given you're clearly so fond of highlighting typos I'll have to wait for you to elaborate on what 'betters shows' and orginal are

kingfinn wrote: This is what i said -
"the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the more kids taking up boxing the bigger the pool of talent, the bigger the pool of talent the better the shows, the better the shows the more people that go to watch them."

It doesnt matter how simplistic what i've written is or about contributing variables because this is the basic principle, the basic principle that after all your writing you have not disproved in fact you have just agreed with.

Let me ask you this - has the popularity and marketing of the UFC been a benefit to grass roots MMA and lead to the increase in talent in the lower level MMA shows?

What I'm genuinely at a loss to understand is why you have to be so confrontational. I and others simply said your equation is too simplistic. If you'd have said, "Fair play guys, I acknowledge there are other variables at play that can affect this, such as marketing, and depending on those variables it doesn't automatically mean that better talent equals better shows, for example, but as a general principle you'd expect it to be the case," we'd have a 'non-issue' on our hands.
Instead, you embark on a combination of exaggerated defensiveness combined with hurling insults.
What is quite so bad about saying that the operating reality is frequently more complicated than your initial post implied, to the point on occasion where your basic principle actually doesn't work, particularly when I've given you tangible examples of where that's been the case?
In answer to your final question, absolutely it has, but I can't see how acknowledging that point in any way, shape or form changes my points as outlined above, as I raised the issue of the UFC specifically in the context of the fact that talent isn't always enough to create 'cut-through' and that the scenario is more complicated than that, with factors like marketing playing a big role. Or are you denying that's the case?

Im not sure what you are ratling on about now your post are in the main irrelevant and ways to get out of just admiting i was right in the first place, you tried to make out my opinion was stupid and simplistic, you that went on about variables stating the obvious that a product needs marketing. Its like me saying you need good ingredients to bake a cake and then you going on about how you need a good oven to put it in.

Your still going on about variables now - why would i say fair play guys there are other variables, when the main issue is quality of product which i stated in the first place. I didnt say anything about there not being any variables involved, in fact you tried to miss quote me saying that i said the ONLY factor was talent and then created a debate about it. The main factor is talent thats what gets people coming back, anyone can market a one off and get no repeat customers thats why the the wlad and harrison v haye fights sank ppv.

You havent given any tangible examples of anything. Have you disproved my statement? its basic business and marketing you are simply wrong! I dont even know why i am wasting my time debating it with you.

Im still assuming i have more business experience than you by the way. Saying you run a business and deal with people in marketing and have a mate who works in sports marketing doesnt automatically put you ahead of me in expertees. Unless you want to name your company and prove me wrong.

You were also the one who started the sarcastic comments and insults so it baffles me that you are trying to highlight that i have responded.

kingfinn wrote: you tried to make out my opinion was simplistic.

Your original equation was. You've since qualified it.

kingfinn wrote: its basic business and marketing

Glad you're now acknowledging marketing is part of the mix as your original equation made no reference to it.

kingfinn wrote: Im still assuming i have more business experience than you by the way.

You assume away fella, if it makes you feel better. The difference is I don't make any assumptions and I'm not interested in 'one-upmanship'. I merely reject your notion that I'm not qualified to comment. More than happy to PM you my company if you're that interested, but to put it in context I deal with marketers representing brands such as BMW, Nokia, Canon, Hilton, Marriott and Visa, as well as a couple of different brands within Unilever. Hope that's acceptable to you in terms of 'qualifying' me to comment alongside a heavyweight such as yourself.

Anyway, more importantly I'm sure this is getting tedious for others on the thread so let's agree to disagree and move on

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Kilburn wrote:It's the top 2 heavyweights in Britain settling an ugly score that thousands like me would like to see settled. Nobody is trying to call this a world title fight. I see nothing desperate about it.

Haye and Chisora have both come off points losses to the Klitschko brothers, hardly the worst cases of exposure we've seen. I think both performances were respectable given the circumstances.

I actually tire of the flack that Haye gets over the way he fought Vladimir, who had just about every advantage in his favour. Imagine Vlad up against a 7ft 22st beast (and I don't mean Valuev) who can actually fight and who removes all those advantages that the Klitschko's enjoy. You think Vlad is going to throw caution to the wind and go for ultimate glory? Nope we'd be looking at a negative grab-fest at best. And yet Haye is still branded the coward by some.

Fury is better than Chisora, he's rated higher and also the small fact that he's beaten Chisora.

I would regard Haye v Fury as a mismatch. Haye v Chisora I do not. That makes it the top 2 heavyweights in Britain in my book who are fighting on July 14th.

Fury benefitted hugely from Chisora's none existent conditioning level for their fight.

Kilburn wrote:I was obviously disappointed that Haye didn't have more success but was satisfied that he tried everything he reasonably could to win the fight. Getting himself beaten up with counter punches would not have helped his reputation much, it would only have served to make Vlad look better, who IMO has the more questionable character out of the 2.

He didn't try everything he could. Nowhere near. Early in the fight, from memory (I've never watched the load of shite back on tape) he had brief moments of success when he was aggressive and Wlad was very wary. He just didn't want to get stopped, plain and simple.

Kilburn wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Kilburn wrote:It's the top 2 heavyweights in Britain settling an ugly score that thousands like me would like to see settled. Nobody is trying to call this a world title fight. I see nothing desperate about it.

Haye and Chisora have both come off points losses to the Klitschko brothers, hardly the worst cases of exposure we've seen. I think both performances were respectable given the circumstances.

I actually tire of the flack that Haye gets over the way he fought Vladimir, who had just about every advantage in his favour. Imagine Vlad up against a 7ft 22st beast (and I don't mean Valuev) who can actually fight and who removes all those advantages that the Klitschko's enjoy. You think Vlad is going to throw caution to the wind and go for ultimate glory? Nope we'd be looking at a negative grab-fest at best. And yet Haye is still branded the coward by some.

Fury is better than Chisora, he's rated higher and also the small fact that he's beaten Chisora.

I would regard Haye v Fury as a mismatch. Haye v Chisora I do not. That makes it the top 2 heavyweights in Britain in my book who are fighting on July 14th.

Fury benefitted hugely from Chisora's none existent conditioning level for their fight.

Fury beat Chisora because he is a better boxer. Fury could have been in better shape himself. He would beat Chisora 9 times out of 10.

And don't be sucked in..... Haye - Chisora is a mismatch of epic proportions. Chisora will not be competitive in the fight, not at all

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Kilburn wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: Fury is better than Chisora, he's rated higher and also the small fact that he's beaten Chisora.

I would regard Haye v Fury as a mismatch. Haye v Chisora I do not. That makes it the top 2 heavyweights in Britain in my book who are fighting on July 14th.

Fury benefitted hugely from Chisora's none existent conditioning level for their fight.

Fury beat Chisora because he is a better boxer. Fury could have been in better shape himself. He would beat Chisora 9 times out of 10.

And don't be sucked in..... Haye - Chisora is a mismatch of epic proportions. Chisora will not be competitive in the fight, not at all

At least it's not the con that Audley/Haye was Chisora will not be afraid to throw plenty of punches.

FIGHTFANs wrote:David hay e just tweeted only 10000 tickets left look like going to sell out in the next few days.

Will be changing it to wembley soon

dondada wrote:

Kilburn wrote:I was obviously disappointed that Haye didn't have more success but was satisfied that he tried everything he reasonably could to win the fight. Getting himself beaten up with counter punches would not have helped his reputation much, it would only have served to make Vlad look better, who IMO has the more questionable character out of the 2.

He didn't try everything he could. Nowhere near. Early in the fight, from memory (I've never watched the load of shite back on tape) he had brief moments of success when he was aggressive and Wlad was very wary. He just didn't want to get stopped, plain and simple.

Apart from lobbing a steady stream of futile hayemakers at Vlad I don't see what else Haye could have done to try and win. There were naff all realistic options available.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Kilburn wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: Fury is better than Chisora, he's rated higher and also the small fact that he's beaten Chisora.

I would regard Haye v Fury as a mismatch. Haye v Chisora I do not. That makes it the top 2 heavyweights in Britain in my book who are fighting on July 14th.

Fury benefitted hugely from Chisora's none existent conditioning level for their fight.

Fury beat Chisora because he is a better boxer. Fury could have been in better shape himself. He would beat Chisora 9 times out of 10.

And don't be sucked in..... Haye - Chisora is a mismatch of epic proportions. Chisora will not be competitive in the fight, not at all

I don't understand why it would be such a great mismatch. Enzo aside, Haye has never had it all his way against top 10/12 opponents; even short and limited cruiserweights such as Fragomeni and Mormeck caused him problems.

Kilburn wrote:

dondada wrote:

Kilburn wrote:I was obviously disappointed that Haye didn't have more success but was satisfied that he tried everything he reasonably could to win the fight. Getting himself beaten up with counter punches would not have helped his reputation much, it would only have served to make Vlad look better, who IMO has the more questionable character out of the 2.

He didn't try everything he could. Nowhere near. Early in the fight, from memory (I've never watched the load of shite back on tape) he had brief moments of success when he was aggressive and Wlad was very wary. He just didn't want to get stopped, plain and simple.

Apart from lobbing a steady stream of futile hayemakers at Vlad I don't see what else Haye could have done to try and win. There were naff all realistic options available.

He was obviously of the same opinion 8)

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Kilburn wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: Fury is better than Chisora, he's rated higher and also the small fact that he's beaten Chisora.

I would regard Haye v Fury as a mismatch. Haye v Chisora I do not. That makes it the top 2 heavyweights in Britain in my book who are fighting on July 14th.

Fury benefitted hugely from Chisora's none existent conditioning level for their fight.

Fury beat Chisora because he is a better boxer. Fury could have been in better shape himself. He would beat Chisora 9 times out of 10.

And don't be sucked in..... Haye - Chisora is a mismatch of epic proportions. Chisora will not be competitive in the fight, not at all

You're clearly mightily impressed by Fury. I wish him well but suspect his first loss isn't too far away.

I make Haye a favourite over Chisora but you're the first person I've seen calling it a mismatch.

Kilburn wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Kilburn wrote: I would regard Haye v Fury as a mismatch. Haye v Chisora I do not. That makes it the top 2 heavyweights in Britain in my book who are fighting on July 14th.

Fury benefitted hugely from Chisora's none existent conditioning level for their fight.

Fury beat Chisora because he is a better boxer. Fury could have been in better shape himself. He would beat Chisora 9 times out of 10.

And don't be sucked in..... Haye - Chisora is a mismatch of epic proportions. Chisora will not be competitive in the fight, not at all

You're clearly mightily impressed by Fury. I wish him well but suspect his first loss isn't too far away.

I make Haye a favourite over Chisora but you're the first person I've seen calling it a mismatch.

I hope it is a good fight, as I've got mates who are going. It won't be, Haye is far too skilled.

Kilburn wrote:I never concern myself with what words are exchanged beforehand. I think everyone knew it was going to be a stylistic nightmare for Haye, as is the case for anyone who takes on Vlad.

I was obviously disappointed that Haye didn't have more success but was satisfied that he tried everything he reasonably could to win the fight. Getting himself beaten up with counter punches would not have helped his reputation much, it would only have served to make Vlad look better, who IMO has the more questionable character out of the 2.

So you don't think that Haye had a duty to put his arse on the line for all the fans who travelled to watch him fight, and paid to watch the PPV? especially after claiming he was going to smash Wlad to pieces.

I'm sorry, but Haye punked out - he was prepared to accept defeat without going for broke - unforgivable in my opinion after his pre fight boasts. I suspect he knew deep down he had little chance and fought like he knew it. I personally didn't listen to his blowhard cobblers before the fight, and that's why i didn't waste my money on such a load of tripe.

I'm sorry, but the phrase 'hoist by your own petard' springs to mind. Haye gave it the charlie big potatoes before the fight and had to accept the brickbats deserved of his hubris.

I think Chisora is fairly pedestrian. Haye is a world class fighter, he's not really enough of a specimen at heavyweight, and he knows it; he cannot afford to get tagged at heavyweight as he isn't sturdy enough, it's his major weakness as a fighter and he knows it. Haye should blow Chisora out - Chisora is slow, predictable, and comes in straight lines, and he doesn't have much of a dig. He probably does hit hard enough to put Haye on his arse, but I doubt he will get near him. Chisora appears to be pretty durable, but I can see this being a mercy stoppage - unless Haye tires in the latter stages.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Kilburn wrote:I never concern myself with what words are exchanged beforehand. I think everyone knew it was going to be a stylistic nightmare for Haye, as is the case for anyone who takes on Vlad.

I was obviously disappointed that Haye didn't have more success but was satisfied that he tried everything he reasonably could to win the fight. Getting himself beaten up with counter punches would not have helped his reputation much, it would only have served to make Vlad look better, who IMO has the more questionable character out of the 2.

So you don't think that Haye had a duty to put his arse on the line for all the fans who travelled to watch him fight, and paid to watch the PPV? especially after claiming he was going to smash Wlad to pieces.

I'm sorry, but Haye punked out - he was prepared to accept defeat without going for broke - unforgivable in my opinion after his pre fight boasts. I suspect he knew deep down he had little chance and fought like he knew it. I personally didn't listen to his blowhard cobblers before the fight, and that's why i didn't waste my money on such a load of tripe.

I'm sorry, but the phrase 'hoist by your own petard' springs to mind. Haye gave it the charlie big potatoes before the fight and had to accept the brickbats deserved of his hubris.

I think Chisora is fairly pedestrian. Haye is a world class fighter, he's not really enough of a specimen at heavyweight, and he knows it; he cannot afford to get tagged at heavyweight as he isn't sturdy enough, it's his major weakness as a fighter and he knows it. Haye should blow Chisora out - Chisora is slow, predictable, and comes in straight lines, and he doesn't have much of a dig. He probably does hit hard enough to put Haye on his arse, but I doubt he will get near him. Chisora appears to be pretty durable, but I can see this being a mercy stoppage - unless Haye tires in the latter stages.

I agree in some way, I think Haye will probably go out all guns blazing in this fight. IMO he fought wrong against Wlad he was trying to play the counter puncher against someone technically superior he should have pounced from the beginning against Wlad and lost giving it a real go. The sad thing for Haye is he will never know he might have surprised a few people had he connected with a few good shots.