Haye v Vitali...

[Karl Jade]

I was on about tysons majority career where he beat almost everyone early in one sided fights. You said you dont find one sided beatings entertaining or a fighter beating someone he was expected to beat entertaining. Im asking if you found tysons career entertaining?

I did when he fought Holyfield and Lewis. In general, no.

I was only 5 when hee went to jail so I couldn't really appreciate that version of Tyson.

You do talk some bollocks Karl - you posted this to start with -
"Tyson was a young kid whose fights got gradually more difficult to the point he went out on his sheild against Douglas. No comparison between the two.

Unless you're talking about Tyson's somewhat farcical post-prison stint."

You say tysons career was good until douglas (who was a massive underdog) and his career after prison was farcical but then list his most entertaining fights as being holyfield and lewis.

You just say what ever suits you to try and make a point (badly). Hayes fights against barrett, bonin and ruiz - mismatched? quite possibly! Boring? only if you hate boxing.

Can you seriously not see the difference between a 20 year old Mike Tyson and David Haye at 31?

I don't find Haye to be exciting. I don't find safety-first boxers with limited boxing ability to be exciting. How any of that relates to Mike Tyson is beyond me. I'm not Tyson's biggest fan but Haye really doesn't deserve to be referred to in the same sentence.

I never said the fights were boring either, another one you've dreamt up.

And as for the Lewis and Holyfield fights being his most entertaining to me. What part of I was too young to follow him before prison do you not understand? I couldn't sit down and watch the Douglas fight live because I was 3 years old. Utter dickhead.

[allahsnackbar]

I did when he fought Holyfield and Lewis. In general, no.

I was only 5 when hee went to jail so I couldn't really appreciate that version of Tyson.

You do talk some bollocks Karl - you posted this to start with -
"Tyson was a young kid whose fights got gradually more difficult to the point he went out on his sheild against Douglas. No comparison between the two.

Unless you're talking about Tyson's somewhat farcical post-prison stint."

You say tysons career was good until douglas (who was a massive underdog) and his career after prison was farcical but then list his most entertaining fights as being holyfield and lewis.

You just say what ever suits you to try and make a point (badly). Hayes fights against barrett, bonin and ruiz - mismatched? quite possibly! Boring? only if you hate boxing.

Can you seriously not see the difference between a 20 year old Mike Tyson and David Haye at 31?

I don't find Haye to be exciting. I don't find safety-first boxers with limited boxing ability to be exciting. How any of that relates to Mike Tyson is beyond me. I'm not Tyson's biggest fan but Haye really doesn't deserve to be referred to in the same sentence.

I never said the fights were boring either, another one you've dreamt up.

And as for the Lewis and Holyfield fights being his most entertaining to me. What part of I was too young to follow him before prison do you not understand? I couldn't sit down and watch the Douglas fight live because I was 3 years old. Utter dickhead.

kingfinn is a poor poster karl, best to not rise to it

[loaded_gloves]

It's a romantic notion that there's one champ per division and one that hasn't existed since the 1960/70's. Accept it. Wlad was the man but Haye won a belt. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then Khan, Froch, Burns, Calzaghe, Hatton, Nas, Benn and Eubank lose any right to call themselves world champions. Which they don't.

Hmmm, I disagree. Haye didn't beat a man who was really a champ to win his title and he didn't defend it successfully against anyone deserving so it is valid to say the bloke was never 'truly' a champ. How can Haye be a 'world champ' when the likes of Bonavena, Quarry, Lyle, Shavers et al never were? It doesn't add up.

Most of the other guys you mention were WBO champs, known in the 90s as the WBObscure, continuously criticised for their ridiculous challengers that were unranked by everyone else. A very UK-friendly belt to win when you had a moneymaking fighter and you didn't want someone world class to beat him up in the US.

Are we really supposed to believe Herbie Hide is a 'two time world heabyweight champion'? Really?

[earsjohn]

It's a romantic notion that there's one champ per division and one that hasn't existed since the 1960/70's. Accept it. Wlad was the man but Haye won a belt. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then Khan, Froch, Burns, Calzaghe, Hatton, Nas, Benn and Eubank lose any right to call themselves world champions. Which they don't.

Hmmm, I disagree. Haye didn't beat a man who was really a champ to win his title and he didn't defend it successfully against anyone deserving so it is valid to say the bloke was never 'truly' a champ. How can Haye be a 'world champ' when the likes of Bonavena, Quarry, Lyle, Shavers et al never were? It doesn't add up.

Most of the other guys you mention were WBO champs, known in the 90s as the WBObscure, continuously criticised for their ridiculous challengers that were unranked by everyone else. A very UK-friendly belt to win when you had a moneymaking fighter and you didn't want someone world class to beat him up in the US.

Are we really supposed to believe Herbie Hide is a 'two time world heabyweight champion'? Really?

Oh don't get me wrong, I think the current situation with multiple belt holders is farcical. But in recognising a belt holder there has to be some consistency - a kind of all or nothing approach.

As much as Haye didn't beat the generally recognised No 1 in the division (Wlad), he did beat a man who held the belt legitimately (Valuev). Haye wasn't THE man, but he was A man. What frustrates me is that people are willing to pick and choose to suit their own agenda. Take saturday night as a prime example. You have two"world" title fights - Alexander Povetkin v Cedric Boswell and Brandon Rios v John Murray. Both are for the WBA World title in their respective divisions, but in both cases their division already has a "Super" champion - Wlad and Juan Manuel Marquez are still recognised by the WBA as title holders. Now, while most people dismiss Povetkin as a paper champ, Rios is generally recognised as a genuine title holder, yet they both won their titles despite the presence of a man who even their own commission rates higher. They are either both champions or neither are champions - you can't have it both ways and support a legitimate argument.

What if Haye beats Vitali? Does that still render him a non-champion? My personal approach to recognising a champion as such is that he must have either won the belt from a belt holder or, if taking up a vacant title, he becomes a Champion at the point that he beats a title holder. As an example, Ricky Burns was a Lightweight Champ as he beat beltholder Roman Martinez to gain the title. Nathan Cleverly was awarded the title stripped from Braehmer and has since defended agaainst two non-titlists (Kuziemski and Bellew), therefore I don't consider him a "Champion".

And for the guy who responded earlier that Khan is the LWW champion, what about Tim Bradley? Both he and Khan have similar resumes at 140lb, both are undefeated since unifying the belts, both hold titles with a lineage going back a similar timeframe, so to recognise one above the other comes down to personal preference and not objective reasoning.

[loaded_gloves]

I think the answer is to line up the major sanctioning bodies (and the WBO if you want to count them) against a wall and open fire on all of them. Make sure the worst of it hits the WBA guy Mendoza.

Those WBO guys you mention.... it's hard to take them seriously as 'world champions'. Can you imagine Burns as a champ in the days of Roberto Duran?

The WBO in fact were founded by the WBA's bribe collector. That gives us a good idea of what the WBO is.

[earsjohn]

I think the answer is to line up the major sanctioning bodies (and the WBO if you want to count them) against a wall and open fire on all of them. Make sure the worst of it hits the WBA guy Mendoza.

Those WBO guys you mention.... it's hard to take them seriously as 'world champions'. Can you imagine Burns as a champ in the days of Roberto Duran?

The WBO in fact were founded by the WBA's bribe collector. That gives us a good idea of what the WBO is.

Wasn't Jim Watt Lightweight champion immediately following Duran? I think Burns would have given him (Watt, not Duran) a decent argument.

[Finn]

You do talk some bollocks Karl - you posted this to start with -
"Tyson was a young kid whose fights got gradually more difficult to the point he went out on his sheild against Douglas. No comparison between the two.

Unless you're talking about Tyson's somewhat farcical post-prison stint."

You say tysons career was good until douglas (who was a massive underdog) and his career after prison was farcical but then list his most entertaining fights as being holyfield and lewis.

You just say what ever suits you to try and make a point (badly). Hayes fights against barrett, bonin and ruiz - mismatched? quite possibly! Boring? only if you hate boxing.

Can you seriously not see the difference between a 20 year old Mike Tyson and David Haye at 31?

I don't find Haye to be exciting. I don't find safety-first boxers with limited boxing ability to be exciting. How any of that relates to Mike Tyson is beyond me. I'm not Tyson's biggest fan but Haye really doesn't deserve to be referred to in the same sentence.

I never said the fights were boring either, another one you've dreamt up.

And as for the Lewis and Holyfield fights being his most entertaining to me. What part of I was too young to follow him before prison do you not understand? I couldn't sit down and watch the Douglas fight live because I was 3 years old. Utter dickhead.

kingfinn is a poor poster karl, best to not rise to it

Ha ha oh no is snack bar agrees with you, you must be correct.

You've obviously confused yourself - you've stated tysons career after prison was farcical, but now its your favourite part because you've realised you've ballsed up. You said his career up to douglas was great, but now havent even watched it. Im not convinced you've seen any of his career or haye's, or many fights at all. Im actually a little embarrassed for you because i thought you were maybe about 16 yrs old but now realised you're alot older.

One sided, early stoppages against mismatched opponents is unwatcheable crap if it relates to haye, but if its another fighter like tyson an excuse is found to justify it, even if that means contradicting yourself. You dont like safety first fighters so you dont like haye, but you dont like haye sparking opponents in 1 round either? you do know haye was only a safety first fighter in 2 possibly 3 fights out of his entire career dont you?

I hear the current scene calling you and snack bar, is that guy even british or just some sad sack who's come on the british & irish forum to troll.

[loaded_gloves]

Wasn't Jim Watt Lightweight champion immediately following Duran? I think Burns would have given him (Watt, not Duran) a decent argument.

Really? Watt beat Howard Davis, arguably beat Ken Buchanan and went the full 15 with an all time great boxer-puncher in Arguello.

Not sure Burns has the credentials to be taken seriously against Jim Watt personally.

[loaded_gloves]

Sorry to chip in to this late, but David Haye's early career is not seriously being compared to Mike Tyson's is it? Has the world gone mad??

[earsjohn]

Wasn't Jim Watt Lightweight champion immediately following Duran? I think Burns would have given him (Watt, not Duran) a decent argument.

Really? Watt beat Howard Davis, arguably beat Ken Buchanan and went the full 15 with an all time great boxer-puncher in Arguello.

Not sure Burns has the credentials to be taken seriously against Jim Watt personally.

Fair enough. I've only really seen clips of Watt so I can't really compare, but Burns victories over Martinez and Katsidis demonstrated that he can tough it out with renowned punchers. He may not have got the better of Watt, but he'd surely have given him a fight?

[Captain Hook]

he was never a hw world champion. not really. in the grand scheme of things, there can only be one champ in each division, and he was soundly beaten by him.

Erm, yes he was pal...

[Captain Hook]

PS Agree he was not a great HW champ, but we can't argue he wasn't one at all!

His HW career will be remembered as ok. If he beats VK it will be seen as good, but he'll never be a great.

Had he stayed at cruiser and had solid opposition at that weight then maybe, but he didn't and there isn't.

PS Kingfinn, you've been awfully quiet since Audley foxtrotted out of Strictly mate

[smcb80]

boxing's been a lot easier for me to take since I've dismissed all the different belt holders. it's a huge relief.

[Josh1111]

It's a romantic notion that there's one champ per division and one that hasn't existed since the 1960/70's. Accept it. Wlad was the man but Haye won a belt. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then Khan, Froch, Burns, Calzaghe, Hatton, Nas, Benn and Eubank lose any right to call themselves world champions. Which they don't.

Hmmm, I disagree. Haye didn't beat a man who was really a champ to win his title and he didn't defend it successfully against anyone deserving so it is valid to say the bloke was never 'truly' a champ. How can Haye be a 'world champ' when the likes of Bonavena, Quarry, Lyle, Shavers et al never were? It doesn't add up.

Most of the other guys you mention were WBO champs, known in the 90s as the WBObscure, continuously criticised for their ridiculous challengers that were unranked by everyone else. A very UK-friendly belt to win when you had a moneymaking fighter and you didn't want someone world class to beat him up in the US.

Are we really supposed to believe Herbie Hide is a 'two time world heabyweight champion'? Really?

Oh don't get me wrong, I think the current situation with multiple belt holders is farcical. But in recognising a belt holder there has to be some consistency - a kind of all or nothing approach.

As much as Haye didn't beat the generally recognised No 1 in the division (Wlad), he did beat a man who held the belt legitimately (Valuev). Haye wasn't THE man, but he was A man. What frustrates me is that people are willing to pick and choose to suit their own agenda. Take saturday night as a prime example. You have two"world" title fights - Alexander Povetkin v Cedric Boswell and Brandon Rios v John Murray. Both are for the WBA World title in their respective divisions, but in both cases their division already has a "Super" champion - Wlad and Juan Manuel Marquez are still recognised by the WBA as title holders. Now, while most people dismiss Povetkin as a paper champ, Rios is generally recognised as a genuine title holder, yet they both won their titles despite the presence of a man who even their own commission rates higher. They are either both champions or neither are champions - you can't have it both ways and support a legitimate argument.

What if Haye beats Vitali? Does that still render him a non-champion? My personal approach to recognising a champion as such is that he must have either won the belt from a belt holder or, if taking up a vacant title, he becomes a Champion at the point that he beats a title holder. As an example, Ricky Burns was a Lightweight Champ as he beat beltholder Roman Martinez to gain the title. Nathan Cleverly was awarded the title stripped from Braehmer and has since defended agaainst two non-titlists (Kuziemski and Bellew), therefore I don't consider him a "Champion".

And for the guy who responded earlier that Khan is the LWW champion, what about Tim Bradley? Both he and Khan have similar resumes at 140lb, both are undefeated since unifying the belts, both hold titles with a lineage going back a similar timeframe, so to recognise one above the other comes down to personal preference and not objective reasoning.

Brilliant post and agree with everything said

[loaded_gloves]

Fair enough. I've only really seen clips of Watt so I can't really compare, but Burns victories over Martinez and Katsidis demonstrated that he can tough it out with renowned punchers. He may not have got the better of Watt, but he'd surely have given him a fight?

Maybe.... Watt was the exact opposite of Martinez and Katsidis though, a clever, slippery counter puncher with a very precise jab and a steel chin. Would be an interesting (but probably not entertaining) bout.

[Lenny]

he did beat a man who held the belt legitimately (Valuev)

Well not really. He lost the belt to Chagaev, who in turn had it taken from him at the first opportunity to allow Valuev and the WBA's favourite son John Ruiz to fight for it. Not to mention, he probably should have lost to old man Holyfield.

David Haye surely cannot be considered a world champion at heavyweight without beating either Klitschko. A belt holder sure, but nothing more than that.

None of this takes away from his night in Paris however which should still rank up there with the best nights for a British boxer over the last 10 years.

[Karl Jade]

You've obviously confused yourself - you've stated tysons career after prison was farcical, but now its your favourite part because you've realised you've ballsed up. You said his career up to douglas was great, but now havent even watched it. Im not convinced you've seen any of his career or haye's, or many fights at all. Im actually a little embarrassed for you because i thought you were maybe about 16 yrs old but now realised you're alot older.

One sided, early stoppages against mismatched opponents is unwatcheable crap if it relates to haye, but if its another fighter like tyson an excuse is found to justify it, even if that means contradicting yourself. You dont like safety first fighters so you dont like haye, but you dont like haye sparking opponents in 1 round either? you do know haye was only a safety first fighter in 2 possibly 3 fights out of his entire career dont you?

I hear the current scene calling you and snack bar, is that guy even british or just some sad sack who's come on the british & irish forum to troll.

Once again, dreaming up things that simply haven't been said.

I've seen most of Tyson's fights before prison, I just saw them 10 years or so after they occured. Which is obviously why I was in no position to find them exciting.

If you thought I was 16, you should have projected that into your own assertions before asking a silly question about me finding Tyson's matches to be exciting. Do you find matches exciting when you know who the winner was and how?

But then, this is all assuming your posts are anything other than malignant, posturing, baiting garbage.

[Finn]

PS Agree he was not a great HW champ, but we can't argue he wasn't one at all!

His HW career will be remembered as ok. If he beats VK it will be seen as good, but he'll never be a great.

Had he stayed at cruiser and had solid opposition at that weight then maybe, but he didn't and there isn't.

PS Kingfinn, you've been awfully quiet since Audley foxtrotted out of Strictly mate

leave audley alone, he got alot further than you expected though didnt he

I'll make a noise again when the fury fight is signed

[smcb80]

earsjohn, with regards the lww champion, i think that khan's resume is just slightly more impressive, not much in it. neither can fully call themselves the man until they fight each other though.

i don't see sturm as being a world champion. he won't leave his back garden or fight the several better middleweights. the real mw champ doesn't even hold a belt as far as i'm aware

[Finn]

You've obviously confused yourself - you've stated tysons career after prison was farcical, but now its your favourite part because you've realised you've ballsed up. You said his career up to douglas was great, but now havent even watched it. Im not convinced you've seen any of his career or haye's, or many fights at all. Im actually a little embarrassed for you because i thought you were maybe about 16 yrs old but now realised you're alot older.

One sided, early stoppages against mismatched opponents is unwatcheable crap if it relates to haye, but if its another fighter like tyson an excuse is found to justify it, even if that means contradicting yourself. You dont like safety first fighters so you dont like haye, but you dont like haye sparking opponents in 1 round either? you do know haye was only a safety first fighter in 2 possibly 3 fights out of his entire career dont you?

I hear the current scene calling you and snack bar, is that guy even british or just some sad sack who's come on the british & irish forum to troll.

Once again, dreaming up things that simply haven't been said.

I've seen most of Tyson's fights before prison, I just saw them 10 years or so after they occured. Which is obviously why I was in no position to find them exciting.

If you thought I was 16, you should have projected that into your own assertions before asking a silly question about me finding Tyson's matches to be exciting. Do you find matches exciting when you know who the winner was and how?

But then, this is all assuming your posts are anything other than malignant, posturing, baiting garbage.

Tysons fights will always be exciting even if you know the outcome. Which is my point we are talking about levels here and im not saying haye is on the same level as tyson but almost all of hayes fights have been exciting for the same reasons tysons were - lots of ko's, kd's and most are early stoppages. I dont see how that is suddenly unwatchable crap.

so the answer to your question is yes i do find fights i know the outcome of to be exciting, even if im too young to to have seen them live.

So far you've posted that Harrison doesnt train, John Mc D is top 5 british HW, One round ko's are unwatchable crap, byrd was a better fighter than vitali who's a quitter, harrison was given a top 10 world ranking on the sly so he could fight david haye, and ruiz was given the manditory position beacuse david haye picked him, some clear haye hating going on here, what next will you dazzle us with? Your boxing knowledge is so vast.

[Karl Jade]

You have some vivid dreams, bud. Byrd better than Vitali. For the record I love first round KOs when I don't expect them, and Audley clearly does train, just not to level that would have taken full advantage of his vast talent.

Let's leave it there. I really don't enjoy arguing with the mentally challenged.

[Finn]

You have some vivid dreams, bud. Byrd better than Vitali. For the record I love first round KOs when I don't expect them, and Audley clearly does train, just not to level that would have taken full advantage of his vast talent.

Let's leave it there. I really don't enjoy arguing with the mentally challenged.

I thought you would be used to it due to your mrs "condition" and all.

We can leave it there now you have contradicted everything you have posted on this forum.

[Karl Jade]

Use the quote function to post a contradiction. I dare you.

He won't of course. It's all in his 'Audley Harrison is becoming the people's champion' head.

[Finn]

Use the quote function to post a contradiction. I dare you.

He won't of course. It's all in his 'Audley Harrison is becoming the people's champion' head.

Im sure that wont be too hard, i'll post a few examples of you being stupid along with it -

RE tysons career:
"Unless you're talking about Tyson's somewhat farcical post-prison stint."
to
"Lewis and Holyfield fights being his most entertaining to me"

RE the Vitali Byrd fight
"Chris Byrd was a blown-up light-heavy who beat Vitali."
and
"So he didn't deserve the win because Vitali got injured?
Load of nonsense. Vitali quit when confronted with a bit of pain"

RE Audley Harrison
"I like Audley, but he'll lose to any of the current British top 5 - from Fury to McDermott"
on realising your mistake but refusing to admit it you then wrote "McDermott is ranked no.6; 2 places behind Harrison himself - so John is for all intents and purposes ranked in the British (boxrec) top 5"

another contradiction -
You wrote above "and Audley clearly does train"
denying that you wrote:
"The man doesn't train, and it's one of the main reasons why he's scared to take punches"

[Karl Jade]

There's not one single contradiction there. Look the word up.