BoxRec

Seeing a bit on social media and elsewhere (Boxing Monthly survey with a lot of people making this a formality) - but in my opinion, Bellew is a tough guy not short on belief and not without a chance.
A puncher can only do you if he lands. Haye must also be wary of taking a good shot off Bellew, in my opinion.
I’m not really interested in the fight - sorry - but I am interested in how the match-up is being perceived by fans.
So here is my question - Does Tony Bellew have a chance in this fight or is it really a formality for David Haye?
In my personal opinion I think Bellew is being written off far, far too easily.......but on the other hand, David Haye is not an old man, he probably does not abuse himself - and I think back to how he obliterated another slightly smaller man - Enzo Maccarinelli...

Bellew winning isnt impossible, but I think it's very unlikely. Haye is not only bigger, he's plain old better.

Of course this is a one sided fight. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to promote it.

Edit: or knows eff all about boxing.

crusader wrote:Bellew winning isnt impossible, but I think it's very unlikely. Haye is not only bigger, he's plain old better.

See you have a very logical argument. But my feeling was that Bellew was the in form fighter....he’s perhaps not the sack of potatoes some people once thought.
Then again......although he had a long lay off, Haye boxed punch perfectly when he clinically KO’d Chisora three years ago.........this is not exactly a fighter with the rust set in.
Bellew in it with an eye on his best payday?

Boxerbeetle wrote:Of course this is a one sided fight. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to promote it.

Edit: or knows eff all about boxing.

Let’s see what happens after a few punches have been thrown. It’s exactly this type of “of course” attitude that made me make the thread.

magwitch wrote:

crusader wrote:Bellew winning isnt impossible, but I think it's very unlikely. Haye is not only bigger, he's plain old better.

See you have a very logical argument. But my feeling was that Bellew was the in form fighter....he’s perhaps not the sack of potatoes some people once thought.
Then again......although he had a long lay off, Haye boxed punch perfectly when he clinically KO’d Chisora three years ago.........this is not exactly a fighter with the rust set in.
Bellew in it with an eye on his best payday?

Closer to 5 years that was.

Miss match and I can't wait...

Going to have a monster bet on haye early

bigjack wrote:

magwitch wrote:

crusader wrote:Bellew winning isnt impossible, but I think it's very unlikely. Haye is not only bigger, he's plain old better.

See you have a very logical argument. But my feeling was that Bellew was the in form fighter....he’s perhaps not the sack of potatoes some people once thought.
Then again......although he had a long lay off, Haye boxed punch perfectly when he clinically KO’d Chisora three years ago.........this is not exactly a fighter with the rust set in.
Bellew in it with an eye on his best payday?

Closer to 5 years that was.

So that puts another interesting spin on it. I think getting old (in sports terms) is WAY overplayed nowadays. Lifestyle, even genetics is more important than any number. So given that Bellew must surely be around the strongestt he will ever be, let’s see if age can come into this.

I'd love to see bellew do it, I like bellew , haye is a fool, but he will beat bellew

mullenman wrote:Miss match and I can't wait...

Going to have a monster bet on haye early

I’d only do what you can afford to lose mate - but I sense with his inactivity and extra timber, Haye would sooner win early than late

very one sided

its a 95% fight in hayes favour

magwitch wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:Of course this is a one sided fight. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to promote it.

Edit: or knows eff all about boxing.

Let’s see what happens after a few punches have been thrown. It’s exactly this type of “of course” attitude that made me make the thread.

So are you going on record saying you think this isn't a one-sided fight?

if there is no title at stake what is the purpose of a 12 round fight?

mimmy123 wrote:if there is no title at stake what is the purpose of a 12 round fight?

Your guess is as good as mine mate - I never stopped to think about that tbh. That says something about advertising and marketing when they slip something past you like a 12 round non-title affair!
For the sake of argument - let’s suppose it comes down to one thing - DOSH

magwitch wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:if there is no title at stake what is the purpose of a 12 round fight?

Your guess is as good as mine mate - I never stopped to think about that tbh. That says something about advertising and marketing when they slip something past you like a 12 round non-title affair!
For the sake of argument - let’s suppose it comes down to one thing - DOSH

Im sure ive seen non title fights before go 12 rounds but I thought rules were rules? non title fights 10 rounds, title fights 12 rounds.

magwitch wrote:Seeing a bit on social media and elsewhere (Boxing Monthly survey with a lot of people making this a formality) - but in my opinion, Bellew is a tough guy not short on belief and not without a chance.
A puncher can only do you if he lands. Haye must also be wary of taking a good shot off Bellew, in my opinion.
I’m not really interested in the fight - sorry - but I am interested in how the match-up is being perceived by fans.
So here is my question - Does Tony Bellew have a chance in this fight or is it really a formality for David Haye?
In my personal opinion I think Bellew is being written off far, far too easily.......but on the other hand, David Haye is not an old man, he probably does not abuse himself - and I think back to how he obliterated another slightly smaller man - Enzo Maccarinelli...

You bet it's one sided.

Do you think David Haye would take a risky fight before getting a big money title shot?

David's HW career has been one of the most cynical in living memory & the fact that this fight has fallen into his lap must make it Christmas every day of the week for him.

I'd be more than surprised if Bellew is still functional after Haye's first onslaught.

rhino222 wrote:very one sided

its a 95% fight in hayes favour

Yes. It'll be as one sided as a gang rape.

It's a travesty of a match. Surely won't last more than a few rounds.

The only way Bellew wins is if Haye has essentially become shot during his time off. Haye is bigger, hits harder, is quicker - the best Haye is just better in every respect than the best Bellew.

That said I don't think it's beyond belief that Haye may have got old.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

magwitch wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:Of course this is a one sided fight. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to promote it.

Edit: or knows eff all about boxing.

Let’s see what happens after a few punches have been thrown. It’s exactly this type of “of course” attitude that made me make the thread.

So are you going on record saying you think this isn't a one-sided fight?

Well?

Fearful_Freddie wrote:It's a travesty of a match. Surely won't last more than a few rounds.

Agreed. Haye is probably one of the top heavies vs a fat cruiser.

Course it is, Bellew saying he'll take over after 4 is a pipe dream, how many fighters last 4 with Haye? Over in 2 I think.

Bellew was a podgy light heavy weight, a fat cruiserweight, he has no business at heavy weight. Of course it is a mismatch- look at the bookies odds FFS-! Bellew will be Knocked out the minute Haye connects. Haye could stand and let Bellew have a free shot at him and he wouldn't knock him out.
The fight is a complete and utter farce, sold on the bank of pantomime antics. Shame on anyone who buys it and shame on me for even dscussing it and giving it attention on here.

Bellew isn't a KO artist - can't believe the media hype saying he has one punch knock out powaaa

mimmy123 wrote:if there is no title at stake what is the purpose of a 12 round fight?

Because it's recognised as the Championship distance and Haye hasn't had a 12 rounder in a long time.