BoxRec

David Haye is CW #3 of all time, it is my opinion. Anyone who consider him to be under #5 is blind or a hater.
In the same time, I can not see him to be among the top 10 HW (active since 2000).

So, the answer is obvious - CW.............

ValMar wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 11:10 David Haye is CW #3 of all time, it is my opinion. Anyone who consider him to be under #5 is blind or a hater.
In the same time, I can not see him to be among the top 10 HW (active since 2000).

So, the answer is obvious - CW.............

Yup! 100%

oogiebe wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 11:59

ValMar wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 11:10 David Haye is CW #3 of all time, it is my opinion. Anyone who consider him to be under #5 is blind or a hater.
In the same time, I can not see him to be among the top 10 HW (active since 2000).

So, the answer is obvious - CW.............

Yup! 100%

ValMar wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 11:10 David Haye is CW #3 of all time, it is my opinion. Anyone who consider him to be under #5 is blind or a hater.

In terms of accomplishments, is David Haye’s credentials at cruiserweight much better than the likes of Carlos DeLeon, Johnny Nelson, Krzysztof Wlodarczyk, Marco Huck and Steve Cunningham?

Another name, for instance Denis Lebedev, he’s been consistently rated as a top-five RING-rated cruiserweight for nine consecutive years between 2010 and 2018, whilst also engaging in loads of world title bouts. Is he much less accomplished than David Haye?

I think it’s a bit harsh to state that anyone that rates the Hayemaker outside the top-five as being “blind” or a “hater”, because some of the guys I listed were fairly decent and achieved a lot at cruiserweight.

For the record, I do feel that David Haye should be regarded as an all-time top-five cruiserweight, but I wouldn’t be outraged if people placed two or three of the names I listed above him.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 13:03

ValMar wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 11:10 David Haye is CW #3 of all time, it is my opinion. Anyone who consider him to be under #5 is blind or a hater.

In terms of accomplishments, is David Haye’s credentials at cruiserweight much better than the likes of Carlos DeLeon, Johnny Nelson, Krzysztof Wlodarczyk, Marco Huck and Steve Cunningham?

Another name, for instance Denis Lebedev, he’s been consistently rated as a top-five RING-rated cruiserweight for nine consecutive years between 2010 and 2018, whilst also engaging in loads of world title bouts. Is he much less accomplished than David Haye?

I think it’s a bit harsh to state that anyone that rates the Hayemaker outside the top-five as being “blind” or a “hater”, because some of the guys I listed were fairly decent and achieved a lot at cruiserweight.

For the record, I do feel that David Haye should be regarded as an all-time top-five cruiserweight, but I wouldn’t be outraged if people placed two or three of the names I listed above him.

OK, instead of "blind/or hater" I should have written "not so objective". Personally, I think that Haye would have defeat (prime for prime) all fighters you have mentioned, and his resume (at CW) is better, too.

ValMar wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 13:24

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 13:03

ValMar wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 11:10 David Haye is CW #3 of all time, it is my opinion. Anyone who consider him to be under #5 is blind or a hater.

In terms of accomplishments, is David Haye’s credentials at cruiserweight much better than the likes of Carlos DeLeon, Johnny Nelson, Krzysztof Wlodarczyk, Marco Huck and Steve Cunningham?

Another name, for instance Denis Lebedev, he’s been consistently rated as a top-five RING-rated cruiserweight for nine consecutive years between 2010 and 2018, whilst also engaging in loads of world title bouts. Is he much less accomplished than David Haye?

I think it’s a bit harsh to state that anyone that rates the Hayemaker outside the top-five as being “blind” or a “hater”, because some of the guys I listed were fairly decent and achieved a lot at cruiserweight.

For the record, I do feel that David Haye should be regarded as an all-time top-five cruiserweight, but I wouldn’t be outraged if people placed two or three of the names I listed above him.

OK, instead of "blind/or hater" I should have written "not so objective". Personally, I think that Haye would have defeat (prime for prime) all fighters you have mentioned, and his resume (at CW) is better, too.

For the record, I think David Haye enjoyed a marvellous career at cruiserweight, but he wasn’t dominant in that division, especially if you review his bouts against the likes of Giacobbe Fragomeni and Jean Marc Mormeck.

The Brit received too much kudos for his destruction over the renowned glass-jawed Enzo Maccarinelli and I feel the Hayemaker would have struggled against Johnny Nelson, Denis Lebedev and perhaps one or two of the other guys I’ve mentioned.

I’m not saying he doesn’t necessarily beat them all, because there’s every chance he probably might have done, but the outcome of some of these bouts would have almost been considered 50-50 in nature.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 04:50

ValMar wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 13:24

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 13:03
In terms of accomplishments, is David Haye’s credentials at cruiserweight much better than the likes of Carlos DeLeon, Johnny Nelson, Krzysztof Wlodarczyk, Marco Huck and Steve Cunningham?

Another name, for instance Denis Lebedev, he’s been consistently rated as a top-five RING-rated cruiserweight for nine consecutive years between 2010 and 2018, whilst also engaging in loads of world title bouts. Is he much less accomplished than David Haye?

I think it’s a bit harsh to state that anyone that rates the Hayemaker outside the top-five as being “blind” or a “hater”, because some of the guys I listed were fairly decent and achieved a lot at cruiserweight.

For the record, I do feel that David Haye should be regarded as an all-time top-five cruiserweight, but I wouldn’t be outraged if people placed two or three of the names I listed above him.

OK, instead of "blind/or hater" I should have written "not so objective". Personally, I think that Haye would have defeat (prime for prime) all fighters you have mentioned, and his resume (at CW) is better, too.

For the record, I think David Haye enjoyed a marvellous career at cruiserweight, but he wasn’t dominant in that division, especially if you review his bouts against the likes of Giacobbe Fragomeni and Jean Marc Mormeck.

The Brit received too much kudos for his destruction over the renowned glass-jawed Enzo Maccarinelli and I feel the Hayemaker would have struggled against Johnny Nelson, Denis Lebedev and perhaps one or two of the other guys I’ve mentioned.

I’m not saying he doesn’t necessarily beat them all, because there’s every chance he probably might have done, but the outcome of some of these bouts would have almost been considered 50-50 in nature.

this is a good point, haye actually had a number if struggles and wasnt this dominant force many think

down and stopped by thompson
down and badly hurt by mock
tough bsttle with fragomeni
down and badly hurt vs mormeck

he was a very good cruiser but still a rather flawed one, and his chin seemed worse at cruiser then heavy

jamamb wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 07:27

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 04:50

ValMar wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 13:24

OK, instead of "blind/or hater" I should have written "not so objective". Personally, I think that Haye would have defeat (prime for prime) all fighters you have mentioned, and his resume (at CW) is better, too.

For the record, I think David Haye enjoyed a marvellous career at cruiserweight, but he wasn’t dominant in that division, especially if you review his bouts against the likes of Giacobbe Fragomeni and Jean Marc Mormeck.

The Brit received too much kudos for his destruction over the renowned glass-jawed Enzo Maccarinelli and I feel the Hayemaker would have struggled against Johnny Nelson, Denis Lebedev and perhaps one or two of the other guys I’ve mentioned.

I’m not saying he doesn’t necessarily beat them all, because there’s every chance he probably might have done, but the outcome of some of these bouts would have almost been considered 50-50 in nature.

this is a good point, haye actually had a number if struggles and wasnt this dominant force many think

down and stopped by thompson
down and badly hurt by mock
tough bsttle with fragomeni
down and badly hurt vs mormeck

he was a very good cruiser but still a rather flawed one, and his chin seemed worse at cruiser then heavy

I agree!

So, let’s consider an imaginary scenario, whereby Carl Thompson had failed to survive the terrible onslaught he had to endure during the first three rounds against the Hayemaker towards the end of 2004, two things would have inevitably happened to David Haye:

• He wouldn’t have learned from his mistakes and would have continued having problems with pacing himself during bouts
• He would have almost certainly challenged for Johnny Nelson’s WBO world title in his very next outing in 2005

Despite Johnny Nelson being far removed from his prime in 2005, he still had enough ability left to exploit the naïve Hayemakers’ poor pacing and he would have highly-likely stopped the unbeaten Haye at the very moment the youngster started showing signs of fatigue.

In terms of “prime versus prime”, David Haye would have been heavily-favoured (by mainstream casuals) to beat Johnny Nelson, but I personally consider this bout as being almost 50-50 in nature, because ‘The Entertainer’ was vastly underrated and very durable.

Superficially-speaking, Johnny Nelson’s resume seems poor, because he failed to win 24% of his 59 bouts and also suffered a dozen losses.

However, there are obvious reasons why he’s regarded as one of the all-time-great cruiserweights, because he almost continuously showed signs of improvement and he was also unbeaten for the final 21 bouts of his career, with 14 of them being world championship fights, which I believe is a record that has never been surpassed.

If we try to compare Haye’s and Nelson’s performances against a common foe:

• David Haye suffered a fifth-round stoppage loss to a far past-his-prime 40-year old version of Carl Thompson.

• In stark contrast, Johnny Nelson initially captured his world title by beating a prime 34-year-old version of the very same man within five rounds

People seem to wrongly believe that the cruiserweight division only ever had three decent fighters, such as: Holyfield; Usyk; and Haye, whilst forgetting that there have been a lot of other good boxers that have competed in the same weight class.

Syntax Error wrote: ↑25 Nov 2018, 16:18 Haye had one of the most cynical HW careers ever.

Agreed. Only I don’t really blame him for this. I’d call it skilful matchmaking

fanman wrote: ↑10 Nov 2018, 15:58 he was better at heavy. was fasting to make 190, so was weaker there obviously. more decent wins at heavy too ; chisora, valuev, ruiz, harrison! , respectsble loss v vlad.

What the fvck kinda crack you on mate?

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑10 Nov 2018, 18:40 He was a damned good cruiserweight, who beat alot of stiff competition, but it was at heavyweight where we saw just how special he was--- Barrett, Harrison, Ruiz, Valuev, Chisora, Bonin, and the effort against Klitschko (when nobody thought he'd last more than a few rounds) showed he was damned good and certainly was in the top three at that time.

Retrospectively, it's clear enough to me that he likely would have lost to Tyson Fury--- in part because 2012-2013 was the beginning of Haye becoming injury prone, and a confrontation with a 250+ pound man who could box pretty good probably would have accelerated the damage and IN FACT just the training for Fury did mess him up as he was forced to pull out of the fight TWICE and have shoulder surgery.

After Chisora it was injury after injury for Haye and it was obvious he couldn't continue against legitimate contenders--- hence matches with two nonentities and Bellew, whom he thought would be an easy stepping stone.

1. the names highlighted are not at all credible
2. Loads had him favourite vs Wlad

ya tons picked haye, and many by quite decsivive ko too


there was a popular impression that he had the speed and power to get there and shatter the fragile chin, and that he was way beyond the league of anyone wlad had been beating . a lot of 'watch wlad lose to the first decent opponent hes faced in years'

tbh i could see that, but despite wlads chin he showed himself good at managing distance withhisjab and quick step back, plus had the power himself to make haye weary. vitali was much more beatable for haye in 2011-2012, slow , open, not nearly asmuch pop

jamamb wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 09:19 ya tons picked haye, and many by quite decsivive ko too


there was a popular impression that he had the speed and power to get there and shatter the fragile chin, and that he was way beyond the league of anyone wlad had been beating

tbh i could see that, but despite wlads chin he showed himself good at managing distance withhisjab and quick step back, plus had the power himself to make haye weary. vitali was much more beatable for haye in 2011-2012, slow , open, not nearly asmuch pop

Yeah I honestly though Haye would blast him but Wlad did a great job showing Haye who was boss, he kept slamming him to the ground, stark reminder of who was the true HW

fanman wrote: ↑10 Nov 2018, 15:58he was better at heavy. was fasting to make 190, so was weaker there obviously.

David Haye was a 200lbs cruiserweight, only weighed 210lbs for his heavyweight bouts against Chisora, Klitschko and Harrison and was 220lbs for the final contest of his career against Tony Bellew, which is probably very close to the typical weight a cruiser would rehydrate to come fight night.

Six months after his retirement from the sport, David Haye now looks like a light heavyweight in comparison to the 250lbs, but trim, Dereck Chisora:

Other than win a version of the World title against one of the worst champions in Heavyweight history what did he achieve other than spout his gob off and act like a flash cuunt?

Lets not forget that prior to the Haye-Valuev fight, a 47-48 year old Holyfield dominated the big Russian in a widely disputed decision when in reality he barely threw a punch in one of the most bizarre fights I’ve ever seen.

Haye’s HW debut was against journeyman Barrett. Then obviously Haye beat Valuev, in another controversial decision- this time it went against the Russian- personally I don’t think Haye did enough to win that fight.

He then had a couple of easy fights against a “passed it” John Ruiz who was coming off the back of several loses (and the odd win) and then Fraudley fcuking Harrison.

Then Haye lost his next fight to Klitschko in his next fight. Admittedly the size difference played a big part but he barely won a round.

That led to his first retirement. Do we consider these years as his prime?

He had a brief comeback against Chisora where he looked like he was gassing before the KO. But fair do’s it was a decent win, far from a great win though.

Then he flirted with Tyson Fury for a year (incidentally I believe he Fury would have been susceptible to Haye’s overhand right and I would have loved to see that fight as Cunningham had just dropped Fury with the same punch Haye specialised in).

And the less said about his latest comeback the better- knocking out two punchbags with a jab, calling out then letting down pensioner Briggs then getting embarrassed by that overrated gobby scouser TWICE.

But the general consensus was he was a great British heavyweight- maybe he’s spouted that himself that much people have started to believe it

bury_lad wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 11:21 Other than win a version of the World title against one of the worst champions in Heavyweight history what did he achieve other than spout his gob off and act like a flash cuunt?

Lets not forget that prior to the Haye-Valuev fight, a 47-48 year old Holyfield dominated the big Russian in a widely disputed decision when in reality he barely threw a punch in one of the most bizarre fights I’ve ever seen.

Haye’s HW debut was against journeyman Barrett. Then obviously Haye beat Valuev, in another controversial decision- this time it went against the Russian- personally I don’t think Haye did enough to win that fight.

He then had a couple of easy fights against a “passed it” John Ruiz who was coming off the back of several loses (and the odd win) and then Fraudley fcuking Harrison.

Then Haye lost his next fight to Klitschko in his next fight. Admittedly the size difference played a big part but he barely won a round.

That led to his first retirement. Do we consider these years as his prime?

He had a brief comeback against Chisora where he looked like he was gassing before the KO. But fair do’s it was a decent win, far from a great win though.

Then he flirted with Tyson Fury for a year (incidentally I believe he Fury would have been susceptible to Haye’s overhand right and I would have loved to see that fight as Cunningham had just dropped Fury with the same punch Haye specialised in).

And the less said about his latest comeback the better- knocking out two punchbags with a jab, calling out then letting down pensioner Briggs then getting embarrassed by that overrated gobby scouser TWICE.

But the general consensus was he was a great British heavyweight- maybe he’s spouted that himself that much people have started to believe it

I could have written this, although I wouldn't have been quite so harsh.

Haye was a damn good fighter and It's fair to say he was a better CW than HW.

I just don't rate his HW endeavours highly at all.

I do think he deserved the nod against Valuev, but that's not saying much, as like you have said, 98 year old, shopworn Holyfield deserved the nod against the giant lummox.

Haye's defences of his trinket were a joke and the one time he fought a bona fide world class HW, he effectively bitched out of the fight, despite calling WK a bitch before they ever fought, somewhat ironically.

After this, he became a broken down shell of his former self.

In short, he was a very good fighter, but ultimately promised more than he delivered.

Too many self-proclaimed hardcore fight fans are fickle. They have no loyalty and often find it very easy to abandon showing support for their fallen “hero”.

One moment they passionately argue that their current flavour of the month fighter is dominating their peers, but the second the hype train gets derailed, they either lose interest altogether or they resort to ridiculing their former idols.

We’ve seen this before with Manny Pacquiao, Sergey Kovalev and Luis Ortiz, we’re seeing it now with David Haye and I have no doubt we’ll witness this phenomenon again the very next time some previously perceived fearsome name tastes defeat.

The words “Haye” and “hero” are mutually exclusive

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 12:11 Too many self-proclaimed hardcore fight fans are fickle. They have no loyalty and often find it very easy to abandon showing support for their fallen “hero”.

One moment they passionately argue that their current flavour of the month fighter is dominating their peers, but the second the hype train gets derailed, they either lose interest altogether or they resort to ridiculing their former idols.

We’ve seen this before with Manny Pacquiao, Sergey Kovalev and Luis Ortiz, we’re seeing it now with David Haye and I have no doubt we’ll witness this phenomenon again the very next time some previously perceived fearsome name tastes defeat.

Who is the next, Wilder or Fury ?

IMHO David Haye wasn't special in either division.

oogiebe wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 14:29 IMHO David Haye wasn't special in either division.

Who is/was special at CW ?

ValMar wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 14:40

oogiebe wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 14:29 IMHO David Haye wasn't special in either division.

Who is/was special at CW ?

Holyfield; Usyk is really all the floats my boat as special at CW. Although Holyfield didn't stay around as long, moving up to HW.

oogiebe wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 14:47

ValMar wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 14:40

oogiebe wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 14:29 IMHO David Haye wasn't special in either division.

Who is/was special at CW ?

Holyfield; Usyk is really all the floats my boat as special at CW. Although Holyfield didn't stay around as long, moving up to HW.

Since 1979, only 2 special fighters. Very strange criterion......

ValMar wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 14:59

oogiebe wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 14:47

ValMar wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 14:40

Who is/was special at CW ?

Holyfield; Usyk is really all the floats my boat as special at CW. Although Holyfield didn't stay around as long, moving up to HW.

Since 1979, only 2 special fighters. Very strange criterion......

I've been accused of worse. I just don't see any other CW who was so head and shoulders above the rest. Just MHO.

oogiebe wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 15:12

ValMar wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 14:59

oogiebe wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 14:47

Holyfield; Usyk is really all the floats my boat as special at CW. Although Holyfield didn't stay around as long, moving up to HW.

Since 1979, only 2 special fighters. Very strange criterion......

I've been accused of worse. I just don't see any other CW who was so head and shoulders above the rest. Just MHO.

I would like to see your recent top ten HW list.