BoxRec

I'm looking forward to the build. I hope Briggs stalks Haye like he did Klitschko and knocks him off his surfboard. They should go all out WWE silliness with the build.

I'm all for this.
Haye wins in 2-3 rounds ends this lets go champ rubbish. Probably be ITV or Dave again.

Alternative Briggs fights a couple of wasters on matchroom cards an gets destroyed by AJ ..... On PPV of course

fizzjambo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

fizzjambo wrote:
Have you watched Vitali v Briggs? The man could have got seriously hurt for life.
No matter whether I like a boxer or not I don't want to see anyone "shutted up forever" like that.

Uea, but let's get real, Haye isn't a Klitschko and Briggs probably doesn't get injured after two rounds.

How much of a difference do you think Briggs' injury made against Vitali? Did it stop him moving his head? Did it make his feet as slow as they were? Would he have won the fight otherwise?
Briggs looked that bad against Klitschko as he was even then an old man, well past his best and was painfully slow. Nowt's improved there. Most thought he was pretty much done at the top level when he stopped Lyakhovich with a couple of seconds left to win his second world title - ten years ago.
Haye isn't a Klitschko and when Briggs was 27/28 and Haye was 30 they would have made a good match - it doesn't work like that though.
This, if it happens, will be a painful watch. I have no preference for either man but Briggs shouldn't be anywhere near a 'live' heavyweight who can punch for his own health these days

I have no clue what makes you think Haye is that good, you also wouldn't allow chagaev in the ring with him? Or Tarver? George Foreman was a beltholder at a higher age, Evander Holyfield fought for belts as well and for me, Haye isn't wold top material, Briggs is ranked this high for a reason. I wouldn't even be surprised if Billy Wright would win against David Haye.

I'm surprised David Haye has the balls to take this fight actually, I expected him to be way to scared for Briggs.

Haye now fighting TBA.

This is by no means a done deal, although if I were Haye I would happily go for it as Briggs will sell it well.

asdfjkl wrote:

fizzjambo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: Uea, but let's get real, Haye isn't a Klitschko and Briggs probably doesn't get injured after two rounds.

How much of a difference do you think Briggs' injury made against Vitali? Did it stop him moving his head? Did it make his feet as slow as they were? Would he have won the fight otherwise?
Briggs looked that bad against Klitschko as he was even then an old man, well past his best and was painfully slow. Nowt's improved there. Most thought he was pretty much done at the top level when he stopped Lyakhovich with a couple of seconds left to win his second world title - ten years ago.
Haye isn't a Klitschko and when Briggs was 27/28 and Haye was 30 they would have made a good match - it doesn't work like that though.
This, if it happens, will be a painful watch. I have no preference for either man but Briggs shouldn't be anywhere near a 'live' heavyweight who can punch for his own health these days

I have no clue what makes you think Haye is that good, you also wouldn't allow chagaev in the ring with him? Or Tarver? George Foreman was a beltholder at a higher age, Evander Holyfield fought for belts as well and for me, Haye isn't wold top material, Briggs is ranked this high for a reason. I wouldn't even be surprised if Billy Wright would win against David Haye.

I'm surprised David Haye has the balls to take this fight actually, I expected him to be way to scared for Briggs.

I suggest you seek the help of a local mental health specialist.

ShadrachSimmo wrote:Haye now fighting TBA.

Stuarty30 wrote:It's a step up from his last opponent but then again the guy RJJ fought last night would've been a step up! Glitter Scrot Eddie said today that Briggs would be on the Burns/Di Rocco undercard.

A heavy bag would have been a step-up from Mark De-Mori!

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

fizzjambo wrote:
How much of a difference do you think Briggs' injury made against Vitali? Did it stop him moving his head? Did it make his feet as slow as they were? Would he have won the fight otherwise?
Briggs looked that bad against Klitschko as he was even then an old man, well past his best and was painfully slow. Nowt's improved there. Most thought he was pretty much done at the top level when he stopped Lyakhovich with a couple of seconds left to win his second world title - ten years ago.
Haye isn't a Klitschko and when Briggs was 27/28 and Haye was 30 they would have made a good match - it doesn't work like that though.
This, if it happens, will be a painful watch. I have no preference for either man but Briggs shouldn't be anywhere near a 'live' heavyweight who can punch for his own health these days

I have no clue what makes you think Haye is that good, you also wouldn't allow chagaev in the ring with him? Or Tarver? George Foreman was a beltholder at a higher age, Evander Holyfield fought for belts as well and for me, Haye isn't wold top material, Briggs is ranked this high for a reason. I wouldn't even be surprised if Billy Wright would win against David Haye.

I'm surprised David Haye has the balls to take this fight actually, I expected him to be way to scared for Briggs.

I suggest you seek the help of a local mental health specialist.

I suggest you wait till David Haye fights someone you yourself have ever heard of.

*edit: He indeed chickened out sadly... But expected

There's more chance of this happening now after what's happened with Browne.

asdfjkl wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: I have no clue what makes you think Haye is that good, you also wouldn't allow chagaev in the ring with him? Or Tarver? George Foreman was a beltholder at a higher age, Evander Holyfield fought for belts as well and for me, Haye isn't wold top material, Briggs is ranked this high for a reason. I wouldn't even be surprised if Billy Wright would win against David Haye.

I'm surprised David Haye has the balls to take this fight actually, I expected him to be way to scared for Briggs.

I suggest you seek the help of a local mental health specialist.

I suggest you wait till David Haye fights someone you yourself have ever heard of.

*edit: He indeed chickened out sadly... But expected

Can you explain what exactly Haye would have to fear from Briggs? Do you honestly think Briggs would have any chance of winning. Where is the evidence that Haye 'chickened out?' You have no idea why the fight didn't happen. Perhaps Briggs asked for too much money, or failed a medical, or any one of a host of reasons we don't know.

asdfjkl wrote:

fizzjambo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: Uea, but let's get real, Haye isn't a Klitschko and Briggs probably doesn't get injured after two rounds.

How much of a difference do you think Briggs' injury made against Vitali? Did it stop him moving his head? Did it make his feet as slow as they were? Would he have won the fight otherwise?
Briggs looked that bad against Klitschko as he was even then an old man, well past his best and was painfully slow. Nowt's improved there. Most thought he was pretty much done at the top level when he stopped Lyakhovich with a couple of seconds left to win his second world title - ten years ago.
Haye isn't a Klitschko and when Briggs was 27/28 and Haye was 30 they would have made a good match - it doesn't work like that though.
This, if it happens, will be a painful watch. I have no preference for either man but Briggs shouldn't be anywhere near a 'live' heavyweight who can punch for his own health these days

I have no clue what makes you think Haye is that good, you also wouldn't allow chagaev in the ring with him? Or Tarver? George Foreman was a beltholder at a higher age, Evander Holyfield fought for belts as well and for me, Haye isn't wold top material, Briggs is ranked this high for a reason. I wouldn't even be surprised if Billy Wright would win against David Haye.

I'm surprised David Haye has the balls to take this fight actually, I expected him to be way to scared for Briggs.

I'm beginning to regret getting into this but here goes....

On potential opponents that you've listed:
Chagev - Obviously he would be fine - he's kept reasonably active, has beaten a couple of fringe-contender type guys and isn't ancient. Nowt great but acceptable.
Tarver - Obviously not! 47 years ancient, now a two time drug cheat, zero win of any note at heavyweight - Bit like Briggs then isn't he?!
Wright - The mention of his name strongly suggests you haven't got a clue what your taking about. Wright is 51, Hogg fat, has never beaten a single heavyweight of any note, been stopped within five rounds of the three times he has fought anyone close to top end level and likes to outweigh his opponents by at least 70/80 odd pounds.

Holyfield and Foreman are both all time greats (for the record Briggs falls somewhat short of this). By the age of 44 Holyfield was well shot, had been beaten by Larry Donald and wouldn't have been an acceptable opponent for Haye. Foreman beat Moorer at 45 - an exceptional achievment, but this was a man who'd beaten Frazier, Norton and Lyle - an elite level heavy. After beating Moorer he got a gift vs Shultz and could only beat Savarese on a split. To finish, at age 48, he got completly jobbed against a very average 25 year old heavy in his prime - which shows just how bang average Briggs is!

This is not about Haye being a great heavy - I've already, painstakingly, told you I don't think he is or was. I don't think he deserves a shot straight at a title either.

Let's be honest though. He was a very good Cruiserweight who beat some lower top 10/15 level heavyweights and was well beaten, although hardly beaten up, by Wlad. He's still a good age for a heavy, is an ex-champion who has only lost to Wlad and I think most fair minded people would judge him to be around top 20 level. I think he should earn any shot he gets (although money will likely dictate otherwise) but he should be fighting someone like Chagev, Helenius, Hammer, Stirverne, Scott, etc now.

Please tell me what creditable threat Briggs poses to Haye?

fizzjambo wrote:I'm beginning to regret getting into this but here goes....

On potential opponents that you've listed:
Chagev - Obviously he would be fine - he's kept reasonably active, has beaten a couple of fringe-contender type guys and isn't ancient. Nowt great but acceptable.
Tarver - Obviously not! 47 years ancient, now a two time drug cheat, zero win of any note at heavyweight - Bit like Briggs then isn't he?!
Wright - The mention of his name strongly suggests you haven't got a clue what your taking about. Wright is 51, Hogg fat, has never beaten a single heavyweight of any note, been stopped within five rounds of the three times he has fought anyone close to top end level and likes to outweigh his opponents by at least 70/80 odd pounds.

Holyfield and Foreman are both all time greats (for the record Briggs falls somewhat short of this). By the age of 44 Holyfield was well shot, had been beaten by Larry Donald and wouldn't have been an acceptable opponent for Haye. Foreman beat Moorer at 45 - an exceptional achievment, but this was a man who'd beaten Frazier, Norton and Lyle - an elite level heavy. After beating Moorer he got a gift vs Shultz and could only beat Savarese on a split. To finish, at age 48, he got completly jobbed against a very average 25 year old heavy in his prime - which shows just how bang average Briggs is!

This is not about Haye being a great heavy - I've already, painstakingly, told you I don't think he is or was. I don't think he deserves a shot straight at a title either.

Let's be honest though. He was a very good Cruiserweight who beat some lower top 10/15 level heavyweights and was well beaten, although hardly beaten up, by Wlad. He's still a good age for a heavy, is an ex-champion who has only lost to Wlad and I think most fair minded people would judge him to be around top 20 level. I think he should earn any shot he gets (although money will likely dictate otherwise) but he should be fighting someone like Chagev, Helenius, Hammer, Stirverne, Scott, etc now.

Please tell me what creditable threat Briggs poses to Haye?

Long story short, both Briggs and Haye aren't top of the world. Especially right now I can't think out any reason for Chagaev, Stiverne, Scott, Helenius or Hammer to fight David Haye. or Briggs, I'm not even saying Haye can't beat them, but they simply won't accept the fight because they are way higher ranked fighters, I don't expect any of the boxers you named to achieve a much higher rank as they currently got, Helenius perhaps, but that's the only one. Both Briggs and Haye are better fighters as their current ranks suggest, so for me Haye-Briggs sounds like a very fair fight. It's up to them to show who's the better one, I don't think either of them has much options left.

Also, I really don't think Briggs is that bad, I've seen 50+ year olds competing the the world strongest men just a few years ago, age doesn't say everything.

The way the both of these are with the media this fight has the potential to be huge.

Both have current reputations way higher than their current ability.

I'd love to see the fight great spectacle, great build up and a ideal fight for Haye.

I'd fancy Haye to force a stoppage around Round 6 though.

LETS GO CHAMP

asdfjkl wrote:

fizzjambo wrote:I'm beginning to regret getting into this but here goes....

On potential opponents that you've listed:
Chagev - Obviously he would be fine - he's kept reasonably active, has beaten a couple of fringe-contender type guys and isn't ancient. Nowt great but acceptable.
Tarver - Obviously not! 47 years ancient, now a two time drug cheat, zero win of any note at heavyweight - Bit like Briggs then isn't he?!
Wright - The mention of his name strongly suggests you haven't got a clue what your taking about. Wright is 51, Hogg fat, has never beaten a single heavyweight of any note, been stopped within five rounds of the three times he has fought anyone close to top end level and likes to outweigh his opponents by at least 70/80 odd pounds.

Holyfield and Foreman are both all time greats (for the record Briggs falls somewhat short of this). By the age of 44 Holyfield was well shot, had been beaten by Larry Donald and wouldn't have been an acceptable opponent for Haye. Foreman beat Moorer at 45 - an exceptional achievment, but this was a man who'd beaten Frazier, Norton and Lyle - an elite level heavy. After beating Moorer he got a gift vs Shultz and could only beat Savarese on a split. To finish, at age 48, he got completly jobbed against a very average 25 year old heavy in his prime - which shows just how bang average Briggs is!

This is not about Haye being a great heavy - I've already, painstakingly, told you I don't think he is or was. I don't think he deserves a shot straight at a title either.

Let's be honest though. He was a very good Cruiserweight who beat some lower top 10/15 level heavyweights and was well beaten, although hardly beaten up, by Wlad. He's still a good age for a heavy, is an ex-champion who has only lost to Wlad and I think most fair minded people would judge him to be around top 20 level. I think he should earn any shot he gets (although money will likely dictate otherwise) but he should be fighting someone like Chagev, Helenius, Hammer, Stirverne, Scott, etc now.

Please tell me what creditable threat Briggs poses to Haye?

Long story short, both Briggs and Haye aren't top of the world. Especially right now I can't think out any reason for Chagaev, Stiverne, Scott, Helenius or Hammer to fight David Haye. or Briggs, I'm not even saying Haye can't beat them, but they simply won't accept the fight because they are way higher ranked fighters, I don't expect any of the boxers you named to achieve a much higher rank as they currently got, Helenius perhaps, but that's the only one. Both Briggs and Haye are better fighters as their current ranks suggest, so for me Haye-Briggs sounds like a very fair fight. It's up to them to show who's the better one, I don't think either of them has much options left.

Also, I really don't think Briggs is that bad, I've seen 50+ year olds competing the the world strongest men just a few years ago, age doesn't say everything.

You clearly don't understand that boxing is a business, it's not about who 'deserves' a fight - if there's enough money on the table, Chagaev, Stiverne, Scott, Helenius or Hammer would all take a fight with Haye. A win over Haye for any of them would be a massive name on their ledger, and they would raise their profiles. Provided the risk was balanced by the reward. Whether Haye would want any of those names right now, is another matter.

Whether or not you rate Haye (I don't especially), he's a former world champ at 2 weights, and is well known.

Briggs is so far past his best that I really don't want to see him in with Haye, it would be a merciless pummelling.
Haye has plenty of options, he sold out a big venue in London fighting an absolute nobody, and he clearly can bring a lot of punters to a fight.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

fizzjambo wrote:I'm beginning to regret getting into this but here goes....

On potential opponents that you've listed:
Chagev - Obviously he would be fine - he's kept reasonably active, has beaten a couple of fringe-contender type guys and isn't ancient. Nowt great but acceptable.
Tarver - Obviously not! 47 years ancient, now a two time drug cheat, zero win of any note at heavyweight - Bit like Briggs then isn't he?!
Wright - The mention of his name strongly suggests you haven't got a clue what your taking about. Wright is 51, Hogg fat, has never beaten a single heavyweight of any note, been stopped within five rounds of the three times he has fought anyone close to top end level and likes to outweigh his opponents by at least 70/80 odd pounds.

Holyfield and Foreman are both all time greats (for the record Briggs falls somewhat short of this). By the age of 44 Holyfield was well shot, had been beaten by Larry Donald and wouldn't have been an acceptable opponent for Haye. Foreman beat Moorer at 45 - an exceptional achievment, but this was a man who'd beaten Frazier, Norton and Lyle - an elite level heavy. After beating Moorer he got a gift vs Shultz and could only beat Savarese on a split. To finish, at age 48, he got completly jobbed against a very average 25 year old heavy in his prime - which shows just how bang average Briggs is!

This is not about Haye being a great heavy - I've already, painstakingly, told you I don't think he is or was. I don't think he deserves a shot straight at a title either.

Let's be honest though. He was a very good Cruiserweight who beat some lower top 10/15 level heavyweights and was well beaten, although hardly beaten up, by Wlad. He's still a good age for a heavy, is an ex-champion who has only lost to Wlad and I think most fair minded people would judge him to be around top 20 level. I think he should earn any shot he gets (although money will likely dictate otherwise) but he should be fighting someone like Chagev, Helenius, Hammer, Stirverne, Scott, etc now.

Please tell me what creditable threat Briggs poses to Haye?

Long story short, both Briggs and Haye aren't top of the world. Especially right now I can't think out any reason for Chagaev, Stiverne, Scott, Helenius or Hammer to fight David Haye. or Briggs, I'm not even saying Haye can't beat them, but they simply won't accept the fight because they are way higher ranked fighters, I don't expect any of the boxers you named to achieve a much higher rank as they currently got, Helenius perhaps, but that's the only one. Both Briggs and Haye are better fighters as their current ranks suggest, so for me Haye-Briggs sounds like a very fair fight. It's up to them to show who's the better one, I don't think either of them has much options left.

Also, I really don't think Briggs is that bad, I've seen 50+ year olds competing the the world strongest men just a few years ago, age doesn't say everything.

You clearly don't understand that boxing is a business, it's not about who 'deserves' a fight - if there's enough money on the table, Chagaev, Stiverne, Scott, Helenius or Hammer would all take a fight with Haye. A win over Haye for any of them would be a massive name on their ledger, and they would raise their profiles. Provided the risk was balanced by the reward. Whether Haye would want any of those names right now, is another matter.

Whether or not you rate Haye (I don't especially), he's a former world champ at 2 weights, and is well known.

Briggs is so far past his best that I really don't want to see him in with Haye, it would be a merciless pummelling.
Haye has plenty of options, he sold out a big venue in London fighting an absolute nobody, and he clearly can bring a lot of punters to a fight.

What makes you think Haye is a big name? Because he was something special in his cruiserweight time?
He managed to talk himself into some fights, that's all, he's a smart guy, but not a top contender.
I know all the names you named and I only know Haye thanks to Klitschko and his unfair win against Valuev while he ran around like a chicken, the only reason he sells is because of his smart mediatalk, he can do that against Briggs as well and the other names you mentioned can sell tickets as well, Haye isn't worth the risk for them, they would rather fight each other as David Haye.

asdfjkl wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: Long story short, both Briggs and Haye aren't top of the world. Especially right now I can't think out any reason for Chagaev, Stiverne, Scott, Helenius or Hammer to fight David Haye. or Briggs, I'm not even saying Haye can't beat them, but they simply won't accept the fight because they are way higher ranked fighters, I don't expect any of the boxers you named to achieve a much higher rank as they currently got, Helenius perhaps, but that's the only one. Both Briggs and Haye are better fighters as their current ranks suggest, so for me Haye-Briggs sounds like a very fair fight. It's up to them to show who's the better one, I don't think either of them has much options left.

Also, I really don't think Briggs is that bad, I've seen 50+ year olds competing the the world strongest men just a few years ago, age doesn't say everything.

You clearly don't understand that boxing is a business, it's not about who 'deserves' a fight - if there's enough money on the table, Chagaev, Stiverne, Scott, Helenius or Hammer would all take a fight with Haye. A win over Haye for any of them would be a massive name on their ledger, and they would raise their profiles. Provided the risk was balanced by the reward. Whether Haye would want any of those names right now, is another matter.

Whether or not you rate Haye (I don't especially), he's a former world champ at 2 weights, and is well known.

Briggs is so far past his best that I really don't want to see him in with Haye, it would be a merciless pummelling.
Haye has plenty of options, he sold out a big venue in London fighting an absolute nobody, and he clearly can bring a lot of punters to a fight.

What makes you think Haye is a big name? Because he was something special in his cruiserweight time?
He managed to talk himself into some fights, that's all, he's a smart guy, but not a top contender.
I know all the names you named and I only know Haye thanks to Klitschko and his unfair win against Valuev while he ran around like a chicken, the only reason he sells is because of his smart mediatalk, he can do that against Briggs as well and the other names you mentioned can sell tickets as well, Haye isn't worth the risk for them, they would rather fight each other as David Haye.

You just don't get what being a 'big name' is - selling 20,000 tickets to fight an absolute walkover, without even an undercard fight, means you are a big name, top contender or not.

It doesn't matter WHY he is able to sell so many tickets, the fact is, he can.

Clearly you are at odds with reality, and despite all the evidence, you refuse to believe Haye is likely to get any big fights.

Sadly for you, he will. Whether it's fair or not is irrelevant, money, in boxing, as in most walks of life, talks.

asdfjkl wrote: What makes you think Haye is a big name? Because he was something special in his cruiserweight time?
He managed to talk himself into some fights, that's all, he's a smart guy, but not a top contender.
I know all the names you named and I only know Haye thanks to Klitschko and his unfair win against Valuev while he ran around like a chicken, the only reason he sells is because of his smart mediatalk, he can do that against Briggs as well and the other names you mentioned can sell tickets as well, Haye isn't worth the risk for them, they would rather fight each other as David Haye.

Whenever you want to type 'as', just put 'than'. You'll probably get it right.

I'm not so sure that Briggs will be the walkover that most are suggesting here.

Manc_Red wrote:I'm not so sure that Briggs will be the walkover that most are suggesting here.

Briggs hasn't looked good in years so I doubt very much he will last long, he's a slow as hell and has crap stamina. A punchers chance at best, the same as any fighter.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

You clearly don't understand that boxing is a business, it's not about who 'deserves' a fight - if there's enough money on the table, Chagaev, Stiverne, Scott, Helenius or Hammer would all take a fight with Haye. A win over Haye for any of them would be a massive name on their ledger, and they would raise their profiles. Provided the risk was balanced by the reward. Whether Haye would want any of those names right now, is another matter.

Whether or not you rate Haye (I don't especially), he's a former world champ at 2 weights, and is well known.

Briggs is so far past his best that I really don't want to see him in with Haye, it would be a merciless pummelling.
Haye has plenty of options, he sold out a big venue in London fighting an absolute nobody, and he clearly can bring a lot of punters to a fight.

What makes you think Haye is a big name? Because he was something special in his cruiserweight time?
He managed to talk himself into some fights, that's all, he's a smart guy, but not a top contender.
I know all the names you named and I only know Haye thanks to Klitschko and his unfair win against Valuev while he ran around like a chicken, the only reason he sells is because of his smart mediatalk, he can do that against Briggs as well and the other names you mentioned can sell tickets as well, Haye isn't worth the risk for them, they would rather fight each other as David Haye.

You just don't get what being a 'big name' is - selling 20,000 tickets to fight an absolute walkover, without even an undercard fight, means you are a big name, top contender or not.

It doesn't matter WHY he is able to sell so many tickets, the fact is, he can.

Clearly you are at odds with reality, and despite all the evidence, you refuse to believe Haye is likely to get any big fights.

Sadly for you, he will. Whether it's fair or not is irrelevant, money, in boxing, as in most walks of life, talks.

Haye is a massive name, he and Vlad got $30m a piece when they fought each other.

This could be the most overhyped fight in history, two fighters that haven't fought anyone in years, but still big names and good at getting media attention, with inflated rankings.

Nightmare Roy wrote: Haye is a massive name, he and Vlad got $30m a piece when they fought each other.

Are you drunk or ??

asdfjkl wrote:

Nightmare Roy wrote: Haye is a massive name, he and Vlad got $30m a piece when they fought each other.

Are you drunk or ??

I often find myself asking the same thing whenever you post but there is no way drink is to blame for some of the bizarre stuff you come away with. You're either awol from some sort of secure unit or you're at the glue.

Stuarty30 wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

Nightmare Roy wrote: Haye is a massive name, he and Vlad got $30m a piece when they fought each other.

Are you drunk or ??

I often find myself asking the same thing whenever you post but there is no way drink is to blame for some of the bizarre stuff you come away with. You're either awol from some sort of secure unit or you're at the glue.

Or both, unless their night team is incredibly lax.