David Haye retiring?

[trigger2 3,145]

hes shit anyway. hes better off retiring now save his self the embarasment of losing to the other klitchko brother.

[Plong 21]

Good fighter, just way too small for the modern heavyweight division, should have stayed at cruiserweight but the money is know where near heavyweight money.

I completely disagree,he showed in the klitschko fight he had the tools to hang in the division just not the desire.

In the Klitschko fight it showed he was way too small he had to be negative as he was too small to get his range, I don't see what else he could have done in that fight. He would have just got knocked out had he been more aggresive. Klitschko's are masters at keeping a fight at range, that's the reason why fighters like Holyfield and Toney have avoided them.

[gnasher16 30,165]

In the Klitschko fight it showed he was way too small he had to be negative as he was too small to get his range, I don't see what else he could have done in that fight. He would have just got knocked out had he been more aggresive. Klitschko's are masters at keeping a fight at range, that's the reason why fighters like Holyfield and Toney have avoided them.

 

Styles make fights mate size dictates nothing......Holyfield never avoided Lennox or Bowe,s rangey style why would he avoid Klitchkos.....he may have been aware that his age didnt allow the necessary mobility but size was never an issue.

David Haye did not go out to win the fight with Klitchsko....thats the reason he made such a poor showing.....he never tried to win the rounds and simply hoped to pounce on a Klitchsko mistake that never came,thats why it was such an easy fight Klitchsko knew he only needed to not make mistakes to win.Haye had/has the power to knock out any heavyweight....but if he wont commit to his punches it wont ( and didnt ) happen.

[blan89 159]

Good fighter, just way too small for the modern heavyweight division, should have stayed at cruiserweight but the money is know where near heavyweight money.

I completely disagree,he showed in the klitschko fight he had the tools to hang in the division just not the desire.

In the Klitschko fight it showed he was way too small he had to be negative as he was too small to get his range, I don't see what else he could have done in that fight. He would have just got knocked out had he been more aggresive. Klitschko's are masters at keeping a fight at range, that's the reason why fighters like Holyfield and Toney have avoided them.

 

he didn't take much damage in that fight,he could certainly of been much more positive imo he got into range easily enough when he wanted and could easily of capitalised on wlads missed shots rather than waste every opportunity he was given.

 

not to say he would/could of won but he could of made it competitive .

[Plong 21]

If Haye fights the Kliichko's 10 times he will lose every time, size doe's come into it simple as, Valuev had he been 6'2" instead of 7'2" would have been nothing more than a journey man. Rember watching him fight at York Hall on the under card on a Frank Maloney promotion he had next to no skill he was just too big for the guy he was fighting. You say Haye didn't take much damage but this is a guy who has been dropped 3 or 4 times fighting against cruiserweights he can't risk taking big shot's. Look what happened to Adamek simlar size to Haye also an ex cruiserweight champion, when he boxed Vitali tried doing what everone said Haye should have done and was on the wrong end of a battering. Manny Steward said it when Lewis retired the heavyweight division will never see a true champion under 6'6" again.

[jamie g 17]

Tyson Fury x Haye would of been a good all British fight.

 

 

he got made to look a fool when he used the toe injury to try and hide that he was simply out done buy a bigger better heavy weight,

but i still think he would smash tyson fury right up.

[Plong 21]

Yeah Fury is still a few fights off, still gets caught with some daft shots and looks a little bit of a novice still at times but does seem to be getting better with every fight but given a year or two could go on to be world champion.

[graham4877 1,181]

No loss at all with him going, just need carl froch gone and all!

[Plong 21]

In the Klitschko fight it showed he was way too small he had to be negative as he was too small to get his range, I don't see what else he could have done in that fight. He would have just got knocked out had he been more aggresive. Klitschko's are masters at keeping a fight at range, that's the reason why fighters like Holyfield and Toney have avoided them.

 

Styles make fights mate size dictates nothing......Holyfield never avoided Lennox or Bowe,s rangey style why would he avoid Klitchkos.....he may have been aware that his age didnt allow the necessary mobility but size was never an issue.

David Haye did not go out to win the fight with Klitchsko....thats the reason he made such a poor showing.....he never tried to win the rounds and simply hoped to pounce on a Klitchsko mistake that never came,thats why it was such an easy fight Klitchsko knew he only needed to not make mistakes to win.Haye had/has the power to knock out any heavyweight....but if he wont commit to his punches it wont ( and didnt ) happen.

Bowe and Lewis are both 6'5" both beat him when he was in his prime, yes he beat Bowe once but got stopped by Bowe in the rematch and the draw with Lewis was a poor decsion. Holyfield was a great heavyweight but in his prime only boxed 2 fighters with big height advantage in those five fights won 1 drew 1 lost 3.

[rob190364 2,594]

In the Klitschko fight it showed he was way too small he had to be negative as he was too small to get his range, I don't see what else he could have done in that fight. He would have just got knocked out had he been more aggresive. Klitschko's are masters at keeping a fight at range, that's the reason why fighters like Holyfield and Toney have avoided them.

 

Styles make fights mate size dictates nothing......Holyfield never avoided Lennox or Bowe,s rangey style why would he avoid Klitchkos.....he may have been aware that his age didnt allow the necessary mobility but size was never an issue.

David Haye did not go out to win the fight with Klitchsko....thats the reason he made such a poor showing.....he never tried to win the rounds and simply hoped to pounce on a Klitchsko mistake that never came,thats why it was such an easy fight Klitchsko knew he only needed to not make mistakes to win.Haye had/has the power to knock out any heavyweight....but if he wont commit to his punches it wont ( and didnt ) happen.

I quite like reading your posts on boxing/boxers bud, you obviously know a lot about it.

[gnasher16 30,165]

Bowe and Lewis are both 6'5" both beat him when he was in his prime, yes he beat Bowe once but got stopped by Bowe in the rematch and the draw with Lewis was a poor decsion. Holyfield was a great heavyweight but in his prime only boxed 2 fighters with big height advantage in those five fights won 1 drew 1 lost 3.

 

He was 37 when he fought Lewis i wouldnt say it was his prime.....Bowe in my opinion could have been a great fighter,neither of those opponents were a disgrace to lose to.....( incidentally Bowe/Holyfield fought 3 times not twice Bowe came out 2-1 up )........your making more of this size thing than actually exists....for instance was height/size an issue when Dempsey knocked out Jess Willard or a 200 lb Jack Sharkey knocked out a 270lb Carnera.....historically size has never been a factor why would it suddenly be one now......Tyson always struggled with tall fighters but thats only because his fighting style went against him,he had no jab whatsoever and found it hard to box his way in .....hence styles dictate fights not size.

David Haye stylistically fought the wrong fight against Klitchsko.....nothing more nothing less.....its just the way boxing is a good cruiserweight (or even light heavyweight in the old days ) has to fight at heavyweight to make top money.....Holyfield was an all time great at light heavy and cruiserweight but i wouldnt call him an all time great heavyweight......obviously in extreme cases yes size is obviously an issue you got to be sensible about it i agree with you about Valuev....you could look right back to Stanley Ketchell to see how size can be an issue when its extreme......I really thought Mike Spinks would beat Tyson when he came up from light heavy,stylistically he had his number but he plain bottled it,again nothing to do with size.

Edited October 12, 2011 by gnasher16

[marshman 7,758]

There's an old saying, a good big un beats a good little un!

[gnasher16 30,165]

There's an old saying, a good big un beats a good little un!

Best not tell the ol lurchers and terriers that one eh

Tell that to the many smaller competitors human and animal who have outgamed,outworked and out talented their bigger opponents......

[marshman 7,758]

If size didn't matter there wouldn't be weight division!

[Plong 21]

Bowe and Lewis are both 6'5" both beat him when he was in his prime, yes he beat Bowe once but got stopped by Bowe in the rematch and the draw with Lewis was a poor decsion. Holyfield was a great heavyweight but in his prime only boxed 2 fighters with big height advantage in those five fights won 1 drew 1 lost 3.

 

He was 37 when he fought Lewis i wouldnt say it was his prime.....Bowe in my opinion could have been a great fighter,neither of those opponents were a disgrace to lose to.....( incidentally Bowe/Holyfield fought 3 times not twice Bowe came out 2-1 up )........your making more of this size thing than actually exists....for instance was height/size an issue when Dempsey knocked out Jess Willard or a 200 lb Jack Sharkey knocked out a 270lb Carnera.....historically size has never been a factor why would it suddenly be one now......Tyson always struggled with tall fighters but thats only because his fighting style went against him,he had no jab whatsoever and found it hard to box his way in .....hence styles dictate fights not size.

David Haye stylistically fought the wrong fight against Klitchsko.....nothing more nothing less.....its just the way boxing is a good cruiserweight (or even light heavyweight in the old days ) has to fight at heavyweight to make top money.....Holyfield was an all time great at light heavy and cruiserweight but i wouldnt call him an all time great heavyweight......obviously in extreme cases yes size is obviously an issue you got to be sensible about it i agree with you about Valuev....you could look right back to Stanley Ketchell to see how size can be an issue when its extreme......I really thought Mike Spinks would beat Tyson when he came up from light heavy,stylistically he had his number but he plain bottled it,again nothing to do with size.

I know he fought Bowe 3 times that's why I said in the five fights against Lewis & Bowe he won 1 drew 1 lost 3, I think a lot of fighters bottled it against Tyson, reason he got beat by Buster Douglas was Douglas had the death of his mother on his mind so Tyson could not get in his head. At 37 Holyfield still had plenty left, look at B-Hop 46 years old and in another title fight on Saturday, puts Chad Dawson in a no win situation beats Hopkins and in years to come people will say yeah but Hopkins was 46, no matter how well he fights.