Tonight proves one thing......

[RJP]

.......the posters on boxrec are a reactionary mob who have zero credibility.

Six weeks ago you were all on here hailing Adam Booth as the best tactical genius since Rommell after a fight (Groves-Degale) that I had scored as a draw. Back then (it seems so long ago doesn't it boxreccers) many of you were writing off James Degale as a bum after a fight hat even the judges could only separate by a round - at most.

Six weeks on, most of the same reactionary mob are now turning on the same tactical genius and his progeny after a fight where the bigger man ultimately proved himself to be too big for the smaller man over 12 rounds.

Judging myself, with the 'knockdown' and the points deduction included, I had the fight scored at 116-112, but expected the home judges to go for something in the region of 117-111.

Reading some of the bile on here though, you'd think Klitschko had dominated Haye for 12 rounds and that Haye had somehow embarrassed himself.

As far as I'm concerned, the right man clearly won, largely by virtue of the fact that he was simply too big and strong for his opponent. Haye was over-reaching all night (hence his lack of balance) and Wlad had a significant reach advantage and, whenever Haye did get inside, was simply too visibly strong. Tactically, Haye fought an ok fight: make him miss (which he did, often) then land with the counter. The fact that this tactic didn't work is mainly down to the fact that Wlad is a much bigger/stronger man who can actually box.

Yet all the wise-after-the-event mob here spout shit about Haye being outclassed and Booth getting the tactics wrong (like I said, these same armchair experts were writing off Degale after a waifer thin decision six weeks ago).

Why not just accept that, on this occasion, Wlad had the physical tools to comfortably hold off the threat of the smaller mam, rather than try to rewrite history?

Sometimes the lack of balanced and rational discussion on here really does piss me off!

[exittored]

.......the posters on boxrec are a reactionary mob who have zero credibility.

Six weeks ago you were all on here hailing Adam Booth as the best tactical genius since Rommell after a fight (Groves-Degale) that I had scored as a draw. Back then (it seems so long ago doesn't it boxreccers) many of you were writing off James Degale as a bum after a fight hat even the judges could only separate by a round - at most.

Six weeks on, most of the same reactionary mob are now turning on the same tactical genius and his progeny after a fight where the bigger man ultimately proved himself to be too big for the smaller man over 12 rounds.

Judging myself, with the 'knockdown' and the points deduction included, I had the fight scored at 116-112, but expected the home judges to go for something in the region of 117-111.

Reading some of the bile on here though, you'd think Klitschko had dominated Haye for 12 rounds and that Haye had somehow embarrassed himself.

As far as I'm concerned, the right man clearly won, largely by virtue of the fact that he was simply too big and strong for his opponent. Haye was over-reaching all night (hence his lack of balance) and Wlad had a significant reach advantage and, whenever Haye did get inside, was simply too visibly strong. Tactically, Haye fought an ok fight: make him miss (which he did, often) then land with the counter. The fact that this tactic didn't work is mainly down to the fact that Wlad is a much bigger/stronger man who can actually box.

Yet all the wise-after-the-event mob here spout shit about Haye being outclassed and Booth getting the tactics wrong (like I said, these same armchair experts were writing off Degale after a waifer thin decision six weeks ago).

Why not just accept that, on this occasion, Wlad had the physical tools to comfortably hold off the threat of the smaller mam, rather than try to rewrite history?

Sometimes the lack of balanced and rational discussion on here really does piss me off!

Brilliant post mate...shame you don't post more on here but after tonight i don't blame you. I've been contributing to this forum since 2003, one of the reasons i left first time around 2008 was due to the growing stupidity here and it's shown itself here tonight bigtime.

It's always been laughable to me that some contributers here seem to look down at other sites like eastside boxing and BS as though great intellectual debate is going on here, sorry to burst their bubble but you just have to look at this forum tonight to know it isn't.

Yes David was dissapointing but he was always up against it. He tried his best and came up short, hardly grounds to disrespect him even if he promised much more pre-fight.

No matter what he's achieved an amazing amount in his 30 years, Ring Crusierweight champion and winning a portion of the Heavyweight champion and then giving the Ring Heavyweight champion the best fight he's had for 6 years.

[whicker]

.......the posters on boxrec are a reactionary mob who have zero credibility.

True. A bunch of wise-after-the-event smartarses.

My predication was that the fight would be stopped early on a cut...

But, it retrospect, the fight that "actually happened" DID seem kind of predicatable. Maybe I can do some metal gymnastics and convince myself thats what I thought all along....

[RJP]

Cheers pal. As far as I'm concerned, the fight pretty much went to the script. The only chance I gave Haye was if he mugged Klit early (ala Corrie Sanders) but it was pretty clear early on that, had he tried to work on the inside, Klit was just too strong and would have completely sapped his strength in the clinches.

I suspect Booth knew this, so went for the plan of trying to make Wlad miss (which he often did) and then landing with the counter (which he manage occasionally). Haye thought the right fight but the fact is that he guy in the other corner was too big and too good. Why not accept that rather than posting dumb ass reactionary comments?

[He's Gone Jim!]

Agree entirely. Haye was poor but thats down to Wlad entirely. He'd always make Haye look bad.

[Deserter]

Haye thought the right fight but the fact is that he guy in the other corner was too big and too good. Why not accept that rather than dumb ass reactionary comments about it being down to your toe?

Just helped you out a bit

Jokes aside, I did genuinely feel that Vlad was dominant, controlling the pace and the ring, restricting Haye to those occasional hail-marys and outlanding him signifcantly - that would fall within my definition of dominance.

However, I'd agree with you about the unncessary vilification of Booth, who has always struck me as a decent, shrewd operator.

[greenyox3]

Spot on...you & your trainer can have the best plan in the world, but if you're opponent is simply better than you, there isn't really much you can do about it. Better man won, simples!

[exittored]

Cheers pal. As far as I'm concerned, the fight pretty much went to the script. The only chance I gave Haye was if he mugged Klit early (ala Corrie Sanders) but it was pretty clear early on that, had he tried to work on the inside, Klit was just too strong and would have completely sapped his strength in the clinches.

I suspect Booth knew this, so went for the plan of trying to make Wlad miss (which he often did) and then landing with the counter (which he manage occasionally). Haye thought the right fight but the fact is that he guy in the other corner was too big and too good. Why not accept that rather than posting dumb ass reactionary comments?

I wasn't quite clear what Hayes gameplan was, after seeing him weigh-in at 15st 3lbs i suspected they kept him light for a hit and get out tactic ala Groves/Degale and try to nick it on points but that clearly wasn't the case during the fight and it seemed more pot shotting and wild 'hayemakers' so maybe they should have had him closer to 16st deploying that tactic.

Also i wasn't as impressed with Wlad as some on here, he did what was needed but didn't look unbeatable to me as was the case in previous fights. Actually give David Price a year and i'd give him a decent chance of beating Wlad and if the 23 year old Tyson Fury continues to improve his stamina and skills and beats Chisora convincingly i'd even give him a chance in the near future when Wlads slowed down a bit.

[TheCobra]

.......the posters on boxrec are a reactionary mob who have zero credibility.

Six weeks ago you were all on here hailing Adam Booth as the best tactical genius since Rommell after a fight (Groves-Degale) that I had scored as a draw. Back then (it seems so long ago doesn't it boxreccers) many of you were writing off James Degale as a bum after a fight hat even the judges could only separate by a round - at most.

Six weeks on, most of the same reactionary mob are now turning on the same tactical genius and his progeny after a fight where the bigger man ultimately proved himself to be too big for the smaller man over 12 rounds.

Judging myself, with the 'knockdown' and the points deduction included, I had the fight scored at 116-112, but expected the home judges to go for something in the region of 117-111.

Reading some of the bile on here though, you'd think Klitschko had dominated Haye for 12 rounds and that Haye had somehow embarrassed himself.

As far as I'm concerned, the right man clearly won, largely by virtue of the fact that he was simply too big and strong for his opponent. Haye was over-reaching all night (hence his lack of balance) and Wlad had a significant reach advantage and, whenever Haye did get inside, was simply too visibly strong. Tactically, Haye fought an ok fight: make him miss (which he did, often) then land with the counter. The fact that this tactic didn't work is mainly down to the fact that Wlad is a much bigger/stronger man who can actually box.

Yet all the wise-after-the-event mob here spout shit about Haye being outclassed and Booth getting the tactics wrong (like I said, these same armchair experts were writing off Degale after a waifer thin decision six weeks ago).

Why not just accept that, on this occasion, Wlad had the physical tools to comfortably hold off the threat of the smaller mam, rather than try to rewrite history?

Sometimes the lack of balanced and rational discussion on here really does piss me off!

Excellent post, summed it up really, haye just fell short (literally) and was edged out by the better man. A comprehensive beating it was not. The only reason I think people are going on so much is because of how much talking Haye did to sell the fight. Same with Wlad who promised a big KO. We were prmoised fireworks, instead we got one of those cheapo box sets that have like a few crappy catherine wheels and mini rockets.

[thaibox uk]

People were quick to slag of DeGale (and rightly so) for acting with no class before the Groves fight yet are asking for respect for Haye who had no class before or after the fight.
Haye showed his true character in the fight whinging,cheating and makeing poor excuses after,Hese no better than Harrison with his smoke and mirrors act and I personally am glad he lost

[lefthook82]

I'll tell you straight up I have only rate Booth for the Degale win. That's it

Haye has been favourite in 25 out of his 27 fights and in the two where he was underdog he got off the floor to ko Mormeck in one and lost widely in the other.