BoxRec

SteveO wrote:

danundisputed wrote:The question I have is:
What about the "Lineal World Heavyweight Championship Title?"
It says the man who beats the man and Fury didn't lose his title in the ring.
Does he remain the Lineal champion?
Is he retired?
Is the "Lineal World Heavyweight Championship Title" also vacant?
Answers are welcome?

Fury will remain the lineal champion unless he announces his retirement or is not allowed to box again.

Hi Steve, how is it going? Thanks for your answer, it is as I expected it, Fury stays lineal champ!

Another thing I want to ask you (i already asked it in another post and want to know what you think of it)
Is W. Klitschko still WBO Super Champion? Fury was only the regular WBO champ.
According to the WBO Ratings from September 2016 Klitschko is still WBO Super champ!
Most of the people replied that it must be a mistake but honestly I don't think so
Anyway, I'm looking forward to your answer

More belts means more champions ducking each other.

They need to make a rule where a champion of another belt
can work their way to become a mandatory fighter for another title belt.

At the moment if you are champ of another belt you are wiped from the rankings of another belt..


Also this 4 man fight off for a belt seems like a good idea except Klitschko vs Parker or Ruiz will be boring because Klitschko makes boring fights

Haye vs Parker or Ruiz sounds exciting !!

danundisputed wrote:Hi Steve, how is it going? Thanks for your answer, it is as I expected it, Fury stays lineal champ!

Another thing I want to ask you (i already asked it in another post and want to know what you think of it)
Is W. Klitschko still WBO Super Champion? Fury was only the regular WBO champ.
According to the WBO Ratings from September 2016 Klitschko is still WBO Super champ!
Most of the people replied that it must be a mistake but honestly I don't think so
Anyway, I'm looking forward to your answer

Hi Dan
Klitschko won the WBO 'Super-Champion' belt when he beat Sultan Ibragimov. I believe it is an 'honorary' title which he will keep.
The criterea for being awarded the belt is on the WBO website:
http://www.wboboxing.com/what-is-a-wbo-super-champion/

Rob3_142 wrote:

Like a Boss wrote:With respect to the vacant WBO title - there are renewed doubts Parker vs Ruiz will be sanctioned to fight for it.

WBO president Francisco "Paco" Valcarcel has told ESPN boxing writer Dan Rafael that the organisation may set up a 4 man box-off for the vacant title involving the 4 leading available contenders.

That would have fights involving No 1 Parker (21-0, 18 KOs), No 2 Klitschko (64-4, 54 KOs), No 3 Ruiz (29-0, 19 KOs) and No 4 David Haye (28-2, 26 KOs).

The WBO are expected to discuss the scenario at their annual conference in Puerto Rico next week.

Wow - David Haye being thrown into the mix! Can't believe his name is even being mentioned after his last two come back fights...

Regardless of who they were he blew them both away. He was hardly going to start with the best in world after being out of it for so long.

Like a Boss wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

Like a Boss wrote:With respect to the vacant WBO title - there are renewed doubts Parker vs Ruiz will be sanctioned to fight for it.

WBO president Francisco "Paco" Valcarcel has told ESPN boxing writer Dan Rafael that the organisation may set up a 4 man box-off for the vacant title involving the 4 leading available contenders.

That would have fights involving No 1 Parker (21-0, 18 KOs), No 2 Klitschko (64-4, 54 KOs), No 3 Ruiz (29-0, 19 KOs) and No 4 David Haye (28-2, 26 KOs).

The WBO are expected to discuss the scenario at their annual conference in Puerto Rico next week.

Wow - David Haye being thrown into the mix! Can't believe his name is even being mentioned after his last two come back fights...

Regardless of who they were he blew them both away. He was hardly going to start with the best in world after being out of it for so long.

Who they are matters a lot. Hughie Fury has blown opponents away yet he's clearly not a big puncher at a high level.

Like a Boss wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

Like a Boss wrote:With respect to the vacant WBO title - there are renewed doubts Parker vs Ruiz will be sanctioned to fight for it.

WBO president Francisco "Paco" Valcarcel has told ESPN boxing writer Dan Rafael that the organisation may set up a 4 man box-off for the vacant title involving the 4 leading available contenders.

That would have fights involving No 1 Parker (21-0, 18 KOs), No 2 Klitschko (64-4, 54 KOs), No 3 Ruiz (29-0, 19 KOs) and No 4 David Haye (28-2, 26 KOs).

The WBO are expected to discuss the scenario at their annual conference in Puerto Rico next week.

Wow - David Haye being thrown into the mix! Can't believe his name is even being mentioned after his last two come back fights...

Regardless of who they were he blew them both away. He was hardly going to start with the best in world after being out of it for so long.

Yeah I'm sorry, but who he fought probably weighs the situation 70:30. Don't get me wrong, knocking someone out in the first round is definitely better than scraping a split decision. However when you're knocking down skittles outside the top 100, it counts for nothing. If he wants to fight these guys, do it behind closed doors, at least then he can't go around trying to convince people he's relevant because he fought nobody.

BitPlayer wrote:

Like a Boss wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:
Wow - David Haye being thrown into the mix! Can't believe his name is even being mentioned after his last two come back fights...

Regardless of who they were he blew them both away. He was hardly going to start with the best in world after being out of it for so long.

Who they are matters a lot. Hughie Fury has blown opponents away yet he's clearly not a big puncher at a high level.

Haye is shaking off ring rust after 3 and a half years out of it. Hughie Fury's entire career spans less than that. Very different cases.

Rob3_142 wrote:

Like a Boss wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:
Wow - David Haye being thrown into the mix! Can't believe his name is even being mentioned after his last two come back fights...

Regardless of who they were he blew them both away. He was hardly going to start with the best in world after being out of it for so long.

Yeah I'm sorry, but who he fought probably weighs the situation 70:30. Don't get me wrong, knocking someone out in the first round is definitely better than scraping a split decision. However when you're knocking down skittles outside the top 100, it counts for nothing. If he wants to fight these guys, do it behind closed doors, at least then he can't go around trying to convince people he's relevant because he fought nobody.

I don't understand what people see in David Haye either, he's a dwarf compared to real heavyweights. I can't see him knocking out Briggs for example.

asdfjkl wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

Like a Boss wrote:
Regardless of who they were he blew them both away. He was hardly going to start with the best in world after being out of it for so long.

Yeah I'm sorry, but who he fought probably weighs the situation 70:30. Don't get me wrong, knocking someone out in the first round is definitely better than scraping a split decision. However when you're knocking down skittles outside the top 100, it counts for nothing. If he wants to fight these guys, do it behind closed doors, at least then he can't go around trying to convince people he's relevant because he fought nobody.

I don't understand what people see in David Haye either, he's a dwarf compared to real heavyweights. I can't see him knocking out Briggs for example.

This is the other very relevant point. He just does not like fighting big guys. Look at his CV, other than Valuev (whom is a candidate for worst HW champion ever), he has never scored a win against tall opposition. Haye definitely packs a punch, moves great, and is arguably the quickest in the division (at least on par with Parker), but what's his tactics against someone who has 5-6 inches on him?

JohnWilkinson wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

Like a Boss wrote:With respect to the vacant WBO title - there are renewed doubts Parker vs Ruiz will be sanctioned to fight for it.

WBO president Francisco "Paco" Valcarcel has told ESPN boxing writer Dan Rafael that the organisation may set up a 4 man box-off for the vacant title involving the 4 leading available contenders.

That would have fights involving No 1 Parker (21-0, 18 KOs), No 2 Klitschko (64-4, 54 KOs), No 3 Ruiz (29-0, 19 KOs) and No 4 David Haye (28-2, 26 KOs).

The WBO are expected to discuss the scenario at their annual conference in Puerto Rico next week.

Wow - David Haye being thrown into the mix! Can't believe his name is even being mentioned after his last two come back fights...

David Haye is backed by his past record at the now. Basically. Personally I think he is solid in Heavyweight division boxing. Sure, and YES it is easy to see the leading in all of this. That he would be rated #4 is reflection on the past accomplishments. In that light he deserves what he gets here.
About the lineral championship. Pretty much it is as Lennox here says. Their ARE NO RULES. Though, Ring mag. pretty much gives the recognition to the lineral champion. Now, it IS Open Question, always. What about time rules?
I would say that RING hasn't thought out all details.
They showed how numb they were the few years ago under N.Collins when RING began the "Alphabet wars!"
Best, we stick to the lead of the WBO WBC IBF & WBA. Though, their duel and tri titles per wt. they aught to grow-out of. It lends to the perceived and the true corruption of the entire Sport.
All true world champs are WBO WBC IBF WBA nothing different.

So just out of curiosity, could you list your top three Haye achievements as a heavyweight?

1. Convincing people Mark De Mori was a good opponent
2. Convincing people Audley Harrison was a good opponent
3. Convincing people Arnold Gjergjaj was a good opponent

BitPlayer wrote:1. Convincing people Mark De Mori was a good opponent
2. Convincing people Audley Harrison was a good opponent
3. Convincing people Arnold Gjergjaj was a good opponent

Touché.

BitPlayer wrote:1. Convincing people Mark De Mori was a good opponent
2. Convincing people Audley Harrison was a good opponent
3. Convincing people Arnold Gjergjaj was a good opponent

...if that doesn't make him an ATG, I don't know what does

JohnWilkinson wrote:Yeah. He is 28-2-0 26 Ko's. Dereck Chisora TKO-5 (2012), Lasted distance at least vs Wlad. (2011), Tko-9 John Ruiz (2010). MD Nikolay Valuev. 1st to beat Giacobbe Fragomeni. Has faced some nice records thru-out. 27-9-1 UD-12; 14-0-0 tKo8; 38-4-1 KO1 (12), 38-10-1 TKO.
Boxer turned pro against someone 41-72-8 W-RTD2 (3:00) (4). Also: 30-3-2 boxer TKO; 31-9-1 boxer TKO. The other loss (Thompson) was 32-6-0.
DeMori maybe a decent boxer. That more recent win...no. Not at all.

Wait, was this Haye's achievements?

Rob3_142 wrote:So just out of curiosity, could you list your top three Haye achievements as a heavyweight?

David Haye has:
• Four of the eleven heavyweight fights that he has competed in were for the world title and he only tasted defeat in one of them.
• In terms of pure stats, Haye’s last nine heavyweight opponents (W=321; L=27; D =3) have had far better resumes than the likes of: Wilder (W=242; L=42; D =8); Joshua (W=248; L=66; D =7); Parker (W=252; L=31; D =6); and Fury (W=248; L=33; D =1).
• Six of his heavyweight opponents had competed in world title fights (two of them were current champs and one was a former two-time WBA champion).
• Went the distance against the prime version of Wladimir Klitschko (a dead-cert first ballot Hall-of-Famer), at a time when he was only the third man to go the distance with Dr Steelhammer during a four year-two month period.
• Six of Haye’s opponents had competed in a combined total of 50 world title fights, winning the vast majority of them (i.e. Klitschko = 28; Ruiz = 11; Valuev = 8; Barrett = 1; and Harrison = 1; Chisora = 1).

I’ve excluded Haye’s accomplishments at cruiserweight, a weight class where he can legitimately argue that he’s the second greatest fighter to ever compete in that weight division.

For sure, I can understand the reason for Haye receiving widespread criticism for facing opponents like Gjergjaj and de Mori (combined resume of W=60; L=1; D=2), but there’s no point in ignoring or refusing to recognise the man’s accomplishments, because he’s had a very good career regardless as to whatever the future holds for him.

Enlightened-One wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:So just out of curiosity, could you list your top three Haye achievements as a heavyweight?

David Haye has:
• Four of the eleven heavyweight fights that he has competed in were for the world title and he only tasted defeat in one of them.
• In terms of pure stats, Haye’s last nine heavyweight opponents (W=321; L=27; D =3) have had far better resumes than the likes of: Wilder (W=242; L=42; D =8); Joshua (W=248; L=66; D =7); Parker (W=252; L=31; D =6); and Fury (W=248; L=33; D =1).
• Six of his heavyweight opponents had competed in world title fights (two of them were current champs and one was a former two-time WBA champion).
• Went the distance against the prime version of Wladimir Klitschko (a dead-cert first ballot Hall-of-Famer), at a time when he was only the third man to go the distance with Dr Steelhammer during a four year-two month period.
• Six of Haye’s opponents had competed in a combined total of 50 world title fights, winning the vast majority of them (i.e. Klitschko = 28; Ruiz = 11; Valuev = 8; Barrett = 1; and Harrison = 1; Chisora = 1).

I’ve excluded Haye’s accomplishments at cruiserweight, a weight class where he can legitimately argue that he’s the second greatest fighter to ever compete in that weight division.

For sure, I can understand the reason for Haye receiving widespread criticism for facing opponents like Gjergjaj and de Mori (combined resume of W=60; L=1; D=2), but there’s no point in ignoring or refusing to recognise the man’s accomplishments, because he’s had a very good career regardless as to whatever the future holds for him.

I personally believe Haye has the attributes to be a great fighter, but his CV is pretty ordinary. Some of the statistics are pretty misleading, especially the second one which included the excessively padded records of De Mori and Gjergjaj (as you have already highlighted). There are lot's of fighters who have fought for world titles, whom were not worthy (including the likes of Arreola, Glazkov, Breazeale). The fight with Klitchko was arguably the only name on his CV which is worthy of his self proclaimed status, which he comfortably lost.

Rob3_142 wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:So just out of curiosity, could you list your top three Haye achievements as a heavyweight?

David Haye has:
• Four of the eleven heavyweight fights that he has competed in were for the world title and he only tasted defeat in one of them.
• In terms of pure stats, Haye’s last nine heavyweight opponents (W=321; L=27; D =3) have had far better resumes than the likes of: Wilder (W=242; L=42; D =8); Joshua (W=248; L=66; D =7); Parker (W=252; L=31; D =6); and Fury (W=248; L=33; D =1).
• Six of his heavyweight opponents had competed in world title fights (two of them were current champs and one was a former two-time WBA champion).
• Went the distance against the prime version of Wladimir Klitschko (a dead-cert first ballot Hall-of-Famer), at a time when he was only the third man to go the distance with Dr Steelhammer during a four year-two month period.
• Six of Haye’s opponents had competed in a combined total of 50 world title fights, winning the vast majority of them (i.e. Klitschko = 28; Ruiz = 11; Valuev = 8; Barrett = 1; and Harrison = 1; Chisora = 1).

I’ve excluded Haye’s accomplishments at cruiserweight, a weight class where he can legitimately argue that he’s the second greatest fighter to ever compete in that weight division.

For sure, I can understand the reason for Haye receiving widespread criticism for facing opponents like Gjergjaj and de Mori (combined resume of W=60; L=1; D=2), but there’s no point in ignoring or refusing to recognise the man’s accomplishments, because he’s had a very good career regardless as to whatever the future holds for him.

I personally believe Haye has the attributes to be a great fighter, but his CV is pretty ordinary. Some of the statistics are pretty misleading, especially the second one which included the excessively padded records of De Mori and Gjergjaj (as you have already highlighted). There are lot's of fighters who have fought for world titles, whom were not worthy (including the likes of Arreola, Glazkov, Breazeale). The fight with Klitchko was arguably the only name on his CV which is worthy of his self proclaimed status, which he comfortably lost.

I'm not suggesting that David Haye is the leading heavyweight, because he isn't. However, barring Klitschko, his resume is better than all the other licensed "active" heavyweights.

I refuse to believe that Haye is incapable of disposing the same calibre of fighters that were beaten by the likes of Wilder, Joshua and Parker in recent years.

For sure, there are certain things about Haye's career that warrants criticism, but the overall quality of his resume isn't one of them.

Enlightened-One wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: David Haye has:
• Four of the eleven heavyweight fights that he has competed in were for the world title and he only tasted defeat in one of them.
• In terms of pure stats, Haye’s last nine heavyweight opponents (W=321; L=27; D =3) have had far better resumes than the likes of: Wilder (W=242; L=42; D =8); Joshua (W=248; L=66; D =7); Parker (W=252; L=31; D =6); and Fury (W=248; L=33; D =1).
• Six of his heavyweight opponents had competed in world title fights (two of them were current champs and one was a former two-time WBA champion).
• Went the distance against the prime version of Wladimir Klitschko (a dead-cert first ballot Hall-of-Famer), at a time when he was only the third man to go the distance with Dr Steelhammer during a four year-two month period.
• Six of Haye’s opponents had competed in a combined total of 50 world title fights, winning the vast majority of them (i.e. Klitschko = 28; Ruiz = 11; Valuev = 8; Barrett = 1; and Harrison = 1; Chisora = 1).

I’ve excluded Haye’s accomplishments at cruiserweight, a weight class where he can legitimately argue that he’s the second greatest fighter to ever compete in that weight division.

For sure, I can understand the reason for Haye receiving widespread criticism for facing opponents like Gjergjaj and de Mori (combined resume of W=60; L=1; D=2), but there’s no point in ignoring or refusing to recognise the man’s accomplishments, because he’s had a very good career regardless as to whatever the future holds for him.

I personally believe Haye has the attributes to be a great fighter, but his CV is pretty ordinary. Some of the statistics are pretty misleading, especially the second one which included the excessively padded records of De Mori and Gjergjaj (as you have already highlighted). There are lot's of fighters who have fought for world titles, whom were not worthy (including the likes of Arreola, Glazkov, Breazeale). The fight with Klitchko was arguably the only name on his CV which is worthy of his self proclaimed status, which he comfortably lost.

I'm not suggesting that David Haye is the leading heavyweight, because he isn't. However, barring Klitschko, his resume is better than all the other licensed "active" heavyweights.

I refuse to believe that Haye is incapable of disposing the same calibre of fighters that were beaten by the likes of Wilder, Joshua and Parker in recent years.

For sure, there are certain things about Haye's career that warrants criticism, but the overall quality of his resume isn't one of them.

I still think Haye's CV is very much open to criticism. I mean in his HW career to date, he's beaten Nikolay Valuev (in his last pro fight), John Ruiz (also in his last pro fight), Audley Harrison (should have been his last pro fight), and Dereck Chisora (lost 3 of his last 4 fights prior to their bout).

He did go 12 rounds with Klitchko, but was about as one sided as fights go. As far as his CV goes, I think there's limited argument to rank him inside the top 20.

The frustrating thing is he easily beats all AJ's, Parker's and Wilder's past opponents, probably with interest, but he just doesn't fight anyone. 8 fights in 8 years says it all. For me he'll always go down as someone who wasted their talent. It'd just be nice to see him being active, fighting anyone inside the top 20, and just showing us what he can do.

Rob3_142 wrote:The frustrating thing is he easily beats all AJ's, Parker's and Wilder's past opponents, probably with interest, but he just doesn't fight anyone. 8 fights in 8 years says it all. For me he'll always go down as someone who wasted their talent. It'd just be nice to see him being active, fighting anyone inside the top 20, and just showing us what he can do.

Well we definitely agree on this point.