Warren- Enzo can beat Haye

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 15 Jul 2006, 14:07

This is not a 50/50 fight.

David Haye would walk through Enzo in 3 rounds or less.

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 15 Jul 2006, 15:27

First hard shot could end it, I'd bet Haye landed first. What's the height difference between the two btw?

states · Post by **states** » 15 Jul 2006, 20:03

I'm telling you all, Maccarinelli sparks Haye.

Of course, I can be as confident as I like, because they'll never meet.

But if they do, you can all hold me to that statement.

josh fg · Post by **josh fg** » 15 Jul 2006, 20:21

states wrote:I'm telling you all, Maccarinelli sparks Haye.

Of course, I can be as confident as I like, because they'll never meet.

But if they do, you can all hold me to that statement.

Stylisticaly what makes you say that?

states · Post by **states** » 15 Jul 2006, 20:44

It's little more than a gut feeling, to be honest. I think we all agree that Haye can take out Maccarinelli with one shot, and vice-versa. And the general consensus is that Haye is quicker, and is therefore more likely to land his shot first...

Whilst I can see that point of view, and totally understand those who say Haye would spark Enzo, I'm not so sure.

Firstly, does Haye really hit THAT hard? Sure, he's far from feather-fisted, but Thompson was never off his feet (admittedly, it came very early in Haye's career). More pertinantly, neither was Johanssen, who never looked truly hurt.

Secondly, Haye looks good, but how much of his work is actually that effective? That low-slung stace looks great for T.V. But does it actually unsettle an opponent?

Thirdly, stamina: Haye is still to prove that he has any. Yes, he went 8 rounds last time, but he basically took 4 of them off. Maccarinelli may well have looked vulnerable against Hobson (And make no mistake, Even a fan like me felt he did) but you can't deny that he showed a full-fight engine there.

There's also the matter of Chin to consider: Haye still has big questions about his. And whilst nobody is calling Maccarinelli the new Holyfield, he has at least shown that he's perhaps not as shaky as was thought.

Of course, none of this really answers your question, but I am trying to get to that. I understand where you're coming from: Maccarinelli is far too upright, and far too easy to hit. Don't disagree with that. I just think that, deep down, he wants to fight, and he could ride out an early storm from Haye. I think it's more than likely Haye would land a big shot and more than likely seriously hurt the Welshman, I just think Enzo would instinctively fire back with enough to stop Haye, although it would take 3 or 4 rounds to totally discourage Bermondsey's finest, and he'd probably have to climb off the floor to do it. So much of boxing is heart, and I honestly think Enzo has more of it.

Damn, that sounds vague. But I hope you get my point. I think it's the intangibles that win it for Maccarinelli. Either way, let's just hope we see it. It's a cracking, cracking fight.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 16 Jul 2006, 09:15

I agree, Macarinelli has proved he can win a dogfight, Haye couldn't beat a 40 year old Carl Thompson! If he hit that hard he'd have stopped Thompson lord knows he landed enough punches in the first couple of rounds.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 16 Jul 2006, 10:02

Well thanks for letting us know Frank, cause we sure as hell wont find out in the ring as you'd never risk the fight.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 16 Jul 2006, 15:05

states wrote:It's little more than a gut feeling, to be honest. I think we all agree that Haye can take out Maccarinelli with one shot, and vice-versa. And the general consensus is that Haye is quicker, and is therefore more likely to land his shot first...

Whilst I can see that point of view, and totally understand those who say Haye would spark Enzo, I'm not so sure.

Firstly, does Haye really hit THAT hard? Sure, he's far from feather-fisted, but Thompson was never off his feet (admittedly, it came very early in Haye's career). More pertinantly, neither was Johanssen, who never looked truly hurt.

Secondly, Haye looks good, but how much of his work is actually that effective? That low-slung stace looks great for T.V. But does it actually unsettle an opponent?

Thirdly, stamina: Haye is still to prove that he has any. Yes, he went 8 rounds last time, but he basically took 4 of them off. Maccarinelli may well have looked vulnerable against Hobson (And make no mistake, Even a fan like me felt he did) but you can't deny that he showed a full-fight engine there.

There's also the matter of Chin to consider: Haye still has big questions about his. And whilst nobody is calling Maccarinelli the new Holyfield, he has at least shown that he's perhaps not as shaky as was thought.

Of course, none of this really answers your question, but I am trying to get to that. I understand where you're coming from: Maccarinelli is far too upright, and far too easy to hit. Don't disagree with that. I just think that, deep down, he wants to fight, and he could ride out an early storm from Haye. I think it's more than likely Haye would land a big shot and more than likely seriously hurt the Welshman, I just think Enzo would instinctively fire back with enough to stop Haye, although it would take 3 or 4 rounds to totally discourage Bermondsey's finest, and he'd probably have to climb off the floor to do it. So much of boxing is heart, and I honestly think Enzo has more of it.

Damn, that sounds vague. But I hope you get my point. I think it's the intangibles that win it for Maccarinelli. Either way, let's just hope we see it. It's a cracking, cracking fight.

That's exactly how I feel. Haye's power is much talked about, but Thompson was hit with everything but the kitchen sink, and was never really close to being stopped, and never really badly hurt despite looking wobbly. Now Thompson is what I call a puncher, even at 40 he iced Rothman with one punch, something Haye has yet to achieve against somneone of that quality.