BoxRec

Don't get me wrong I was glad to see haye's new style and he finnished off his opponent well but he was beating a fighter who didn't have a good chin at the weight and someone who seemed a very easy option in the top 10. I hope that Haye dose well but the way he was talking after that fight it still seemed as if he thought he was world no. 1 without any of the rounds.

Has haye proved any of the previouse doubts about stamina or tactical nievaty rong or did he beat an over rated fighter?

All I know is that Kellys far better than Enzo's last Rich LaMontague. Word on Kelly is that he's a good fighter, he has chin problems just and against a puncher like Haye thats bad news.

There are still doubts about David Haye, stamina and his chin being the obvious but for all that he`s still the most exciting British fighter we`ve got.
His punching power is second to none, lets just hope he has learnt the lesson Thompson gave him.

I think the fight just further proved that in the talent shallow Cruiser pool Haye can get inside the top ten with his handspeed and power alone.

I hadn't seen Kelly since his LHW days and expected him to look fat at 25lbs north but he looked in decent condition.

He was clearly past his sell by date as i think Richie said but with Briggs & RJJ inflicting the only losses on his record before last night it was a good name to have and obviously the right time. He should have known enough to be able to stifle Haye and give him some rounds but no.

He desperately needs rounds before he tries to step right up again. He should be fed some unambitious HW journeymen just to get used to the distance - Is Derek McCafferty still around? Julius i'm sure would be keen to earn some more burger money.

Haye has excellent power, that's all it proved. kelly didn't really offer a lot of firepower, and was past his best.

It's the same old problem for haye, he needs rounds under his belt, but the only people likely to give him rounds, will possibly also beat him.

It only reinforced people's opinion on his power. kelly was pretty poor

I don't want to sound like a bad anorak or anything, but fornicate it. Correct me if i'm wrong, but shouldn,t Haye's win be a DQ? After the 2nd knockdown, Kelly's corner threw in the towel, which Mickey Vann ignored and continued the count. Kelly's cornerman then entered the ring while Vann was still counting, surely this is should result in a DQ win for Haye? Sorry 'bout this i'm just bored.

Technically thats probably right but i'm not sure vann is gonna bother with bullshit officiating. After all it is Mickey 'take no shit' Vann

[quote="Lefthookhappy19"]All I know is that Kellys far better than Enzo's last Rich LaMontague. Word
[quote]

Micky Vann is my hero. One day I hope to be a top flight referee like him, I try to catch all his fights. He's pure class, especially the way he wears his kec's round his chest

I don't think there is any question that Haye is better than Enzo, but the difference is that Haye is potencially world class where as Enzo is a Typicall Warren Hype job with a sh-t title and without IMO much tallent to show for it.

WHere would people like to see Haye go from hear. I would like to see him look to europe and take some of the fighters in the top 5 or so there. Excluding Enzo the top 5 in the EBU ranking still has some makible matches

1 Vincenzo CANTATORE (I) (29-3-1 his losses are By KO but don't know much about him)

2 Valery BRUDOV (Rus) (28-0 looked at record on boxrec dosen't seem to be against top opposition although don't know how much of that is boxrec being incompleet)

3 Carl THOMPSON (GB) (would like to see the rematch sometime soon)

4 Enzo MACCARINELLI (GB) (warren wouldn't make this one)

5 Krzysztof WLODARCZYK (PL) (30-1 don't know much)

Have to plead ignorance but I would certainly say that many of the fighters their would be good expireance and I would rather he fought the top people in EUrope than putting undue preassur on himself by fighting in the US.

josh fg wrote:I don't think there is any question that Haye is better than Enzo, but the difference is that Haye is potencially world class where as Enzo is a Typicall Warren Hype job with a sh-t title and without IMO much tallent to show for it.

WHere would people like to see Haye go from hear. I would like to see him look to europe and take some of the fighters in the top 5 or so there. Excluding Enzo the top 5 in the EBU ranking still has some makible matches

1 Vincenzo CANTATORE (I) (29-3-1 his losses are By KO but don't know much about him)

2 Valery BRUDOV (Rus) (28-0 looked at record on boxrec dosen't seem to be against top opposition although don't know how much of that is boxrec being incompleet)

3 Carl THOMPSON (GB) (would like to see the rematch sometime soon)

4 Enzo MACCARINELLI (GB) (warren wouldn't make this one)

5 Krzysztof WLODARCZYK (PL) (30-1 don't know much)

Have to plead ignorance but I would certainly say that many of the fighters their would be good expireance and I would rather he fought the top people in EUrope than putting undue preassur on himself by fighting in the US.

I agree. Out of the two, Haye has more potential, and it seems, more ambition. Haye's talking of being Number 1 at the weight, while all Enzo seems to want is a fight with Nelson, which is a fight he can't win IMO.

It was a blowout of a smaller LHW as I predicted. Good for his confidence but what he actually needs to prove to himself and us is he can fight a real cruserweight with a chin who can take him in the later rounds.

Haye is the Cruserweight Wlad Klitchko (no bad thing) until he proves otherwise

he needs to take on an opponent who can give him rounds, and then try and make a thompson rematch. he should have learnt his lesson now, but can Haye actually fight for 12 rounds and pace himself accordingly.

I'm quite surprised by some of the responses, I don't know what Haye has done to warrant quotes as "I don't think there is any question that Haye is better than Enzo".

I see it as one chinny banger vs another chinny banger. Whoever lands first wins - I have plenty of questions as to who is the better. I don't know if Haye hits harder, I don't know if Haye has the better chin. I expected more people to say Maccrinelli is better to be honest.

I'm not saying that he is, but I am well on the fence if they would collide. I do give Enzo the edge in Stamina and if it goes past 5 I would favour the Welshman.

As for this fight, the only thing we learned is that Kelly is a shot to pieces Light Heavyweight who couldn't take Haye's shots. Learned nothing knew about David.

Haye proved that Kelly was totally shot and should retire, he did a good job but he seriously needs a guy to extend him rounds!! I still think the Thompson loss will benefit him in the long run.

stujones wrote:I'm quite surprised by some of the responses, I don't know what Haye has done to warrant quotes as "I don't think there is any question that Haye is better than Enzo".

I see it as one chinny banger vs another chinny banger. Whoever lands first wins - I have plenty of questions as to who is the better. I don't know if Haye hits harder, I don't know if Haye has the better chin. I expected more people to say Maccrinelli is better to be honest.

I'm not saying that he is, but I am well on the fence if they would collide. I do give Enzo the edge in Stamina and if it goes past 5 I would favour the Welshman.

As for this fight, the only thing we learned is that Kelly is a shot to pieces Light Heavyweight who couldn't take Haye's shots. Learned nothing knew about David.

Hayes much slicker and faster and hits a little harder. Hes also fought better comp.

Haye has certainly fought more consistent opposition while Enzo has been fed a fair few routine WBU bums along the way.

I still don't know if Kelly and Williams at this stage of their careers is really alot better than Scott or Andrai Kirsten at their respected stages. Perhaps they are, not seen enough of either of the four since to gauge how shot they are. Certainly Williams looked shot as Kelly did also, Scott went on and did a good show vs Hobson (looking clearly not as good as when he fought Enzo).

Who do you think would have won between Bruce Scott (2003) or Glen Kelly (2005). I would have favoured the former. Apart from Kelly and Williams, Haye has only beaten primarily journeyman - same with Maccrinelli.

Although, if you compare their respected defeats, certainly Carl Thompson is better than Lee Swaby.

stujones wrote:I'm quite surprised by some of the responses, I don't know what Haye has done to warrant quotes as "I don't think there is any question that Haye is better than Enzo".

I see it as one chinny banger vs another chinny banger. Whoever lands first wins - I have plenty of questions as to who is the better. I don't know if Haye hits harder, I don't know if Haye has the better chin. I expected more people to say Maccrinelli is better to be honest.

I'm not saying that he is, but I am well on the fence if they would collide. I do give Enzo the edge in Stamina and if it goes past 5 I would favour the Welshman.

As for this fight, the only thing we learned is that Kelly is a shot to pieces Light Heavyweight who couldn't take Haye's shots. Learned nothing knew about David.

There are no questions over Macca's stamina, and he's shown he can overcome an opponent rallying.

The Haye-Macarinelli fight just screams out to be made, doesn't it? I know that having a domestic dust-up paraded as a 'world title' (I'm assuming the WBU would be involved) fight is a bit daft, but I'd be more than happy to see it. Can't imagine we'd need the 12 round championship distance though.

As was mentioned earlier, it's a bit of a 'sitting on the fence' fight with regards picking a winner, but I'll stick my neck out and pick Enzo. I actually think he hits just as hard as Haye: He's not as flashy, and he doesn't have the same handspeed, but I think he measures the single shots better. Plus, for me, he's better grounded, despite Haye's success as an amateur. I think he's less likely to get caught than Haye, he certainly tucks himself up better. Plus, as JamesMcdonnell said, he does have the 12 round experience.

That said, I certainly wouldn't put money on this one. The other point of course, is that it'd be nice to see Hobson get it on with either of them.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

stujones wrote:I'm quite surprised by some of the responses, I don't know what Haye has done to warrant quotes as "I don't think there is any question that Haye is better than Enzo".

I see it as one chinny banger vs another chinny banger. Whoever lands first wins - I have plenty of questions as to who is the better. I don't know if Haye hits harder, I don't know if Haye has the better chin. I expected more people to say Maccrinelli is better to be honest.

I'm not saying that he is, but I am well on the fence if they would collide. I do give Enzo the edge in Stamina and if it goes past 5 I would favour the Welshman.

As for this fight, the only thing we learned is that Kelly is a shot to pieces Light Heavyweight who couldn't take Haye's shots. Learned nothing knew about David.

There are no questions over Macca's stamina, and he's shown he can overcome an opponent rallying.

Yes, no questions about Enzo's stamina. Haye fans might argue that David proved he could overcome a crisis vs Mock, but a crisis against a journeyman who finishes skills are not great is not as significant as the crisis Enzo vs Scott.

How do you rate hobson vs enzo or haye?????

I thought he was underwhelming in his last fight. I actually think he might be the most rounded fighter of the three ATM, he seems to do everything reasonably well, but I don't think his upside is what Haye's and Macca's is.