Page 1 of 1

The Guardian's Kevin Mitchell disagrees with our Oliver

Posted: 22 Nov 2010, 06:57
by dondada
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... david-haye

I have to say, I'm more with Mr Mitchell than Mr Fennell.

Re: The Guardian's Kevin Mitchell disagrees with our Oliver

Posted: 22 Nov 2010, 07:43
by Glyn Leach
Interesting as ever, but I really don't believe any fighter should ever be hung by his pre fight promises. What of Haye's promises of a one-sided 'fight'? That didn't happen either, all he gave us was a one-sided third round, for two rounds he did barely more, if any more, than Harrison. Should Haye be castigated for 'going back on his word', too? Pre fight statements should always be taken with a pinch of salt. Quite often they are designed to be misleading, to tell an opponent to expect A when really the gameplan is B. But always, always, a fighter will tell you he is going to win. So what if he doesn't, then? Withhold his purse for having lied? That, essentially, is my argument against why Harrison should be taken to task over statements he made before the event. Walking and talking are always different things, for Audley Harrison and any other human being.

Re: The Guardian's Kevin Mitchell disagrees with our Oliver

Posted: 22 Nov 2010, 07:45
by gobbles
Glyn Leach wrote:Interesting as ever, but I really don't believe any fighter should ever be hung by his pre fight promises. What of Haye's promises of a one-sided 'fight'? That didn't happen either, all he gave us was a one-sided third round, for two rounds he did barely more, if any more, than Harrison. Should Haye be castigated for 'going back on his word', too? Pre fight statements should always be taken with a pinch of salt. Quite often they are designed to be misleading, to tell an opponent to expect A when really the gameplan is B. But always, always, a fighter will tell you he is going to win. So what if he doesn't, then? Withhold his purse for having lied? That, essentially, is my argument against why Harrison should be taken to task over statements he made before the event. Walking and talking are always different things, for Audley Harrison and any other human being.

The most classic example of which being Haye saying he was going to have a tear-up with Valuev and flatten him, only to fight the entire fight on the move.

Re: The Guardian's Kevin Mitchell disagrees with our Oliver

Posted: 22 Nov 2010, 07:48
by dekker88
gobbles wrote:
Glyn Leach wrote:Interesting as ever, but I really don't believe any fighter should ever be hung by his pre fight promises. What of Haye's promises of a one-sided 'fight'? That didn't happen either, all he gave us was a one-sided third round, for two rounds he did barely more, if any more, than Harrison. Should Haye be castigated for 'going back on his word', too? Pre fight statements should always be taken with a pinch of salt. Quite often they are designed to be misleading, to tell an opponent to expect A when really the gameplan is B. But always, always, a fighter will tell you he is going to win. So what if he doesn't, then? Withhold his purse for having lied? That, essentially, is my argument against why Harrison should be taken to task over statements he made before the event. Walking and talking are always different things, for Audley Harrison and any other human being.

The most classic example of which being Haye saying he was going to have a tear-up with Valuev and flatten him, only to fight the entire fight on the move.
1 - did you really believe that!!

2 - like Ali did in Zaire?

3- haye injured his shoulder in rd 2 or 3...

Re: The Guardian's Kevin Mitchell disagrees with our Oliver

Posted: 22 Nov 2010, 07:51
by gobbles
dekker88 wrote:
gobbles wrote:
Glyn Leach wrote:Interesting as ever, but I really don't believe any fighter should ever be hung by his pre fight promises. What of Haye's promises of a one-sided 'fight'? That didn't happen either, all he gave us was a one-sided third round, for two rounds he did barely more, if any more, than Harrison. Should Haye be castigated for 'going back on his word', too? Pre fight statements should always be taken with a pinch of salt. Quite often they are designed to be misleading, to tell an opponent to expect A when really the gameplan is B. But always, always, a fighter will tell you he is going to win. So what if he doesn't, then? Withhold his purse for having lied? That, essentially, is my argument against why Harrison should be taken to task over statements he made before the event. Walking and talking are always different things, for Audley Harrison and any other human being.

The most classic example of which being Haye saying he was going to have a tear-up with Valuev and flatten him, only to fight the entire fight on the move.
1 - did you really believe that!!

2 - like Ali did in Zaire?

3- haye injured his shoulder in rd 2 or 3...
He injured his knuckle.

Also, had Haye not won, would he have then been ridiculed for not putting up a fight or going through with his pre-fight boasts?

Re: The Guardian's Kevin Mitchell disagrees with our Oliver

Posted: 22 Nov 2010, 07:52
by Glyn Leach
If anyone seriously believed Audley was going to turn into Nigel Benn for one fight only, well, y'know ...

Words and deeds, words and deeds. Rarely the same.