BoxRec

DavidPayne wrote:I wasn't in awe of Haye's boxing brilliance, as proffered by all those with a vested interest.

There were entire rounds he did 4/5ths of Sweet FA.

Glad he won of course and Ruiz will be a better spectacle.

stujones wrote:I think Colin is generally spot on about this. I do think people are going overboard with the win, personally. People seem to forget that Haye was a HOT Favourite when this fight was announced and was still a favourite at the first bell (odds were closing rapidly, yes). This in a fight held in Germany, when was the last time a British CHALLENGER was favourite fighting abroad.

Well I guess you could class Hatton as a challenger against Urango, and also Calzaghe against Hopkins. The first of these fights got heavily criticised on here, and the 2nd not many predicted Hopkins to win... against a highly experience champion in his own respect.

Yes, its easier to win abroad these days, I personally attribute this (maybe one for a seperate thread) to the fact it is easier for British fans to get abroad now and the atmosphere is largely "british". I honestly think that what helped Haye, Calzaghe and Hatton get the nod in close fights. The fights actually felt like they were in Britain with the noise and support for the British fighter.

Anyway, the performance was effective, but generally unimpressive. The decision was debatable (would the scorecards been any different at home), and Valuev in the run up was hyped up as something he really wasn't. Many people didn't think he beat Ruiz first time, and many people think a 46 year old Holyfield should be wearing the belt now.

It's a sign of the times, and the dire times the Heavyweights are in at the moment, when knowledgable scribes (of the new generation) like Terry speak highly of how Haye "worked the body". Not meaning to offend Terry at all, yes compared to the rest of the current crop Haye did "work the body".... compared to a bygone era - Haye worked f all.

Again, not a dig at Terry at all, just shows how the heavyweight devision has gone down hill in the last decade. Now, Ali never fought a giant like Valuev, but I am sure he would have "gone for it" a bit more than Haye. He wouldn't have "settled" for a points defeat like Haye seemed to.... yes I know he got the decision - but it was too close for him to think he was way ahead and he seemed settled to continue to fight as he did. If he would have lost, we would all be saying "serves the bugger right for not trying" - in much the same way we stated about David Starie, Howard Eastman, Eamonn Magee, Michael Carruth etc who lost close fights in Germany.

Compare Haye's performance with recent world challengers like Ray Austin, Tony Thompson, Owen Beck, Ibragimov, Sam Peter, Hasim Rahman etc and you have to look at it favourably. Compare it to Max Baer vs Primo Carnera - well there is no comparison.

stujones wrote:I think Colin is generally spot on about this. I do think people are going overboard with the win, personally. People seem to forget that Haye was a HOT Favourite when this fight was announced and was still a favourite at the first bell (odds were closing rapidly, yes). This in a fight held in Germany, when was the last time a British CHALLENGER was favourite fighting abroad.

Well I guess you could class Hatton as a challenger against Urango, and also Calzaghe against Hopkins. The first of these fights got heavily criticised on here, and the 2nd not many predicted Hopkins to win... against a highly experience champion in his own respect.

Yes, its easier to win abroad these days, I personally attribute this (maybe one for a seperate thread) to the fact it is easier for British fans to get abroad now and the atmosphere is largely "british". I honestly think that what helped Haye, Calzaghe and Hatton get the nod in close fights. The fights actually felt like they were in Britain with the noise and support for the British fighter.

Anyway, the performance was effective, but generally unimpressive. The decision was debatable (would the scorecards been any different at home), and Valuev in the run up was hyped up as something he really wasn't. Many people didn't think he beat Ruiz first time, and many people think a 46 year old Holyfield should be wearing the belt now.

It's a sign of the times, and the dire times the Heavyweights are in at the moment, when knowledgable scribes (of the new generation) like Terry speak highly of how Haye "worked the body". Not meaning to offend Terry at all, yes compared to the rest of the current crop Haye did "work the body".... compared to a bygone era - Haye worked f all.

Again, not a dig at Terry at all, just shows how the heavyweight devision has gone down hill in the last decade. Now, Ali never fought a giant like Valuev, but I am sure he would have "gone for it" a bit more than Haye. He wouldn't have "settled" for a points defeat like Haye seemed to.... yes I know he got the decision - but it was too close for him to think he was way ahead and he seemed settled to continue to fight as he did. If he would have lost, we would all be saying "serves the bugger right for not trying" - in much the same way we stated about David Starie, Howard Eastman, Eamonn Magee, Michael Carruth etc who lost close fights in Germany.

Compare Haye's performance with recent world challengers like Ray Austin, Tony Thompson, Owen Beck, Ibragimov, Sam Peter, Hasim Rahman etc and you have to look at it favourably. Compare it to Max Baer vs Primo Carnera - well there is no comparison.

stujones wrote:I think Colin is generally spot on about this. I do think people are going overboard with the win, personally. People seem to forget that Haye was a HOT Favourite when this fight was announced and was still a favourite at the first bell (odds were closing rapidly, yes). This in a fight held in Germany, when was the last time a British CHALLENGER was favourite fighting abroad.

Well I guess you could class Hatton as a challenger against Urango, and also Calzaghe against Hopkins. The first of these fights got heavily criticised on here, and the 2nd not many predicted Hopkins to win... against a highly experience champion in his own respect.

Yes, its easier to win abroad these days, I personally attribute this (maybe one for a seperate thread) to the fact it is easier for British fans to get abroad now and the atmosphere is largely "british". I honestly think that what helped Haye, Calzaghe and Hatton get the nod in close fights. The fights actually felt like they were in Britain with the noise and support for the British fighter.

Anyway, the performance was effective, but generally unimpressive. The decision was debatable (would the scorecards been any different at home), and Valuev in the run up was hyped up as something he really wasn't. Many people didn't think he beat Ruiz first time, and many people think a 46 year old Holyfield should be wearing the belt now.

It's a sign of the times, and the dire times the Heavyweights are in at the moment, when knowledgable scribes (of the new generation) like Terry speak highly of how Haye "worked the body". Not meaning to offend Terry at all, yes compared to the rest of the current crop Haye did "work the body".... compared to a bygone era - Haye worked f all.

Again, not a dig at Terry at all, just shows how the heavyweight devision has gone down hill in the last decade. Now, Ali never fought a giant like Valuev, but I am sure he would have "gone for it" a bit more than Haye. He wouldn't have "settled" for a points defeat like Haye seemed to.... yes I know he got the decision - but it was too close for him to think he was way ahead and he seemed settled to continue to fight as he did. If he would have lost, we would all be saying "serves the bugger right for not trying" - in much the same way we stated about David Starie, Howard Eastman, Eamonn Magee, Michael Carruth etc who lost close fights in Germany.

Compare Haye's performance with recent world challengers like Ray Austin, Tony Thompson, Owen Beck, Ibragimov, Sam Peter, Hasim Rahman etc and you have to look at it favourably. Compare it to Max Baer vs Primo Carnera - well there is no comparison.

carrotcruncher wrote:

stujones wrote:I think Colin is generally spot on about this. I do think people are going overboard with the win, personally. People seem to forget that Haye was a HOT Favourite when this fight was announced and was still a favourite at the first bell (odds were closing rapidly, yes). This in a fight held in Germany, when was the last time a British CHALLENGER was favourite fighting abroad.

Well I guess you could class Hatton as a challenger against Urango, and also Calzaghe against Hopkins. The first of these fights got heavily criticised on here, and the 2nd not many predicted Hopkins to win... against a highly experience champion in his own respect.

Yes, its easier to win abroad these days, I personally attribute this (maybe one for a seperate thread) to the fact it is easier for British fans to get abroad now and the atmosphere is largely "british". I honestly think that what helped Haye, Calzaghe and Hatton get the nod in close fights. The fights actually felt like they were in Britain with the noise and support for the British fighter.

Anyway, the performance was effective, but generally unimpressive. The decision was debatable (would the scorecards been any different at home), and Valuev in the run up was hyped up as something he really wasn't. Many people didn't think he beat Ruiz first time, and many people think a 46 year old Holyfield should be wearing the belt now.

It's a sign of the times, and the dire times the Heavyweights are in at the moment, when knowledgable scribes (of the new generation) like Terry speak highly of how Haye "worked the body". Not meaning to offend Terry at all, yes compared to the rest of the current crop Haye did "work the body".... compared to a bygone era - Haye worked f all.

Again, not a dig at Terry at all, just shows how the heavyweight devision has gone down hill in the last decade. Now, Ali never fought a giant like Valuev, but I am sure he would have "gone for it" a bit more than Haye. He wouldn't have "settled" for a points defeat like Haye seemed to.... yes I know he got the decision - but it was too close for him to think he was way ahead and he seemed settled to continue to fight as he did. If he would have lost, we would all be saying "serves the bugger right for not trying" - in much the same way we stated about David Starie, Howard Eastman, Eamonn Magee, Michael Carruth etc who lost close fights in Germany.

Compare Haye's performance with recent world challengers like Ray Austin, Tony Thompson, Owen Beck, Ibragimov, Sam Peter, Hasim Rahman etc and you have to look at it favourably. Compare it to Max Baer vs Primo Carnera - well there is no comparison.

rhino222 wrote:

carrotcruncher wrote:

stujones wrote:I think Colin is generally spot on about this. I do think people are going overboard with the win, personally. People seem to forget that Haye was a HOT Favourite when this fight was announced and was still a favourite at the first bell (odds were closing rapidly, yes). This in a fight held in Germany, when was the last time a British CHALLENGER was favourite fighting abroad.

Well I guess you could class Hatton as a challenger against Urango, and also Calzaghe against Hopkins. The first of these fights got heavily criticised on here, and the 2nd not many predicted Hopkins to win... against a highly experience champion in his own respect.

Yes, its easier to win abroad these days, I personally attribute this (maybe one for a seperate thread) to the fact it is easier for British fans to get abroad now and the atmosphere is largely "british". I honestly think that what helped Haye, Calzaghe and Hatton get the nod in close fights. The fights actually felt like they were in Britain with the noise and support for the British fighter.

Anyway, the performance was effective, but generally unimpressive. The decision was debatable (would the scorecards been any different at home), and Valuev in the run up was hyped up as something he really wasn't. Many people didn't think he beat Ruiz first time, and many people think a 46 year old Holyfield should be wearing the belt now.

It's a sign of the times, and the dire times the Heavyweights are in at the moment, when knowledgable scribes (of the new generation) like Terry speak highly of how Haye "worked the body". Not meaning to offend Terry at all, yes compared to the rest of the current crop Haye did "work the body".... compared to a bygone era - Haye worked f all.

Again, not a dig at Terry at all, just shows how the heavyweight devision has gone down hill in the last decade. Now, Ali never fought a giant like Valuev, but I am sure he would have "gone for it" a bit more than Haye. He wouldn't have "settled" for a points defeat like Haye seemed to.... yes I know he got the decision - but it was too close for him to think he was way ahead and he seemed settled to continue to fight as he did. If he would have lost, we would all be saying "serves the bugger right for not trying" - in much the same way we stated about David Starie, Howard Eastman, Eamonn Magee, Michael Carruth etc who lost close fights in Germany.

Compare Haye's performance with recent world challengers like Ray Austin, Tony Thompson, Owen Beck, Ibragimov, Sam Peter, Hasim Rahman etc and you have to look at it favourably. Compare it to Max Baer vs Primo Carnera - well there is no comparison.

but no mention of haye breaking his hand with 10 rounds still to go !! ....

come on, cut haye some slack, we will never know if he would have 'gone for it' a bit more if it was not for his right 'hayemaker' hand breaking, but lets give him a bit of praise, he gutted it out, for one of the biggest prizes in sport, he showed class footwork and still did enough to sway the non english judges. with only on ehand working on full power. valuev had 2 hands, and only threw out a range finding jab into thin air most of the time. valuev did not have a plan B, haye did. valuev did not know how to lead with a straight right hand, hook or uppercut, all he could do was jab and work off that. if the jab did not work (and it didnt) then there was nothing to follow it. its as much valuevs fault, and probably more. personally, i picked the big man to stop haye, i was rooting for david but thought valuev would have enough power to stop him, but, valuev was very very disappointing and very very amateurish and limited. i can only think of perhaps one time when valuev grabbed haye, leant on him and tired him..this should have been going on the whole fight.

DavidPayne wrote:I wasn't in awe of Haye's boxing brilliance, as proffered by all those with a vested interest.

There were entire rounds he did 4/5ths of Sweet FA.

Glad he won of course and Ruiz will be a better spectacle.

lowersmiths wrote:[quote="rhino222but no mention of haye breaking his hand with 10 rounds still to go !! ....

TheCobra wrote:Colin Hart is a miserable, cynical twat, hate the guy whenever he's on anything. One of those annoying people who doesn't just give an opinion, he gives statements of Colin Hart FACTS. STupid wanker and I'm surprised anyone gives him a column anymore the sad dinosaur.

Wrists wrote: I know Colin Hart has probably forgotten more than I know about boxing ...........................

gobbles wrote:Didn't Colin Hart tip Valuev to win?

How can you tip a guy to win, then claim he is the worst heavyweight champion in history?

.

Terry D wrote:Nothing to do with whys and wherefors, he lived most of his life away from these shores, fought under the Canadian banner and visits the UK for specific, selfish reasons. He is not a Brit. Personally, I don't give a poop about nationality but I don't believe that the only criteria for getting citizenship is to be accompanided everywhere by a diminutive Brit in a union jack suit. Turncoat is an emotive term, it suggests that I'm making a judgement on him, when I'm clearly not, just pointing out a fact, which is something you are usually in favour of

lowersmiths wrote:i said on another thread i would like to compare the punch stats of haye v valuev and johnny nelson v carlos de leon. i honestly don't think they would be much different.

if that had been wlad in there with valuev boxing like that he would have been absolutely slaughtered by the british press and almost everyone on here.

lowersmiths wrote:actually i think david haye has benefited enormously because of the coverage in the newspapers.
his last fight was terrible, he boxed like a wet fart right from the first bell until almost the last yet he has been given the benefit of the doubt by the mainstream press because he is a good talker, and he talks loudly.

Carbo wrote:

lowersmiths wrote:actually i think david haye has benefited enormously because of the coverage in the newspapers.
his last fight was terrible, he boxed like a wet fart right from the first bell until almost the last yet he has been given the benefit of the doubt by the mainstream press because he is a good talker, and he talks loudly.

Is it not more reasonable to assume that he was given the benefit of the doubt because almost all of his other fights have been exciting?

Your examples of Witter, Nelson (in earlier posts) and Ruiz in this, don't wash, for the same reason: Nelson was consistently dull to watch, Haye isn't. Anyone who watched Nelson's fight against Ezra Klein will know that his troughs were far, far lower than Haye's.

So given that he won a portion of the world heavyweight title, away from home, and every single one of his other fights (bar one) have ended with a KO one way or the other, frequently with some shaky moments for Haye, don't you think he deserves the benefit of the doubt?

Or are you just looking for anything that you can use to justify your belief that the media pursues an anti-Wincobank bias?