K2 killing boxing?

by azania Thu 25 Oct 2012, 11:54 pm

First topic message reminder :

By any stretch of the imagination they are wonderful athletes, great boxers and come across as genuinely nice guys (business practices aside). But they lack the X factor that makes the heavyweight champion the flag bearer of boxing. In public they say the right things, do the right things and come across as UN ambassadors to boxing. Inside the ring they fight in a manner that leaves the viewing public comfortable. Sorry but the viewing public generally likes to be on the edge of their seat when watching boxing and especially the big men. They say that in HW boxing one punch changes everything. With K2, its a succession of jabs and the occasional right cross until the opponent is either stopped by the ref of by their corner.

You can't be nice both in and out of the rind and get the general public going. They both lack spite in and out of the ring. Their continuous dominance is killing boxing in the sense that they do not represent fight fans (not just boxing fans) but boxing purists. History will be kind to them as it should be. But the current cannot be. Hardly anyone outside of eastern europe looks forward to their fights and hardly anyone can say they deliver edge of seat stuff. Obviously their style of boxing will not change. But perhaps they can do something to get worldwide fans excited. Shag a granny instead of helping her across the road. Get done for DUI, stir the pot a little. All this Mr Nice guy "Oh look at me I am a throwback to the gentleman days" is boring. Deliver some excitement.

Rant over.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 2:18 pm

JabMachineMK2 wrote:My point wasn't to rag on his opponents, more to show that Lewis didn't always knock out all and sundry if they weren't marquee names.

Lewis is one of my favorite boxers of all time, I have him 4th in my ATG Heavyweight list and somewhere around 13/14 in my full list (people call me mental) so I'm not ragging on him either.

Lewis isn't one of my favourite boxers. And yes he didn't KO all his overmatched opponents in double quick time. But he got rid of a fair few in spectacluar fashion.

I have him outside my top 10.

by Guest Fri 26 Oct 2012, 2:33 pm

azania wrote:
sohotnot wrote:
azania wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
rowley wrote:
paperbag_puncher wrote:

As for changing their personalities outside the ring that's a ridiculous point. If it takes a retarded thug who goes round bashing grannies and the like to get your juices flowing (a) their might be something wrong with you and (b)

Amen to that Paperbag, asking a genuinely nice guy educated to PhD level to put up some completely false personality as a brain dead moron perhaps says more about you Az than it does the brothers.

Aye, great post Paperbag and I can't really add anything to it. The only thing I would say, in terms of personalities, is that Wladimir was completely outshone on that infamous Ringside episode. David Hayes hilarious Borat impression had me rolling around on the floor. RALMAO (just for you, Jeff) infact. It was a real hoot...

I would love to give Az the benefit of the doubt and say he was trying to stimulate a decent debate on the subject, but 25 times bitten, 50 times shy. His thoughts on K2 are far too well known and this could, just maybe, be an attempt to engage the entire board against him again.

Yawn.

Purely boxing debates. No politics and less focus on out of the ring stuff. Are a couple of nice guys but dullards ruling the roost of boxing good for the sport?

Why wouldn't they be good for the sport? I consider them decent role models for the sport, even though we don't here about it so much there's still the anti boxing lobby & those that want to ban MMA, labeling both sports thug sports for unintelligent thugs. Do we need more gangsters in the sport?

I said purely boxing in the post you're responding. In purely boxing terms, do you find them exciting?

no i don't find them very exciting but neither do I feel they are killing boxing. Ok I'll except that the post I responded to was purely about there boxing but you have also mentioned their personality's & their conduct outside or the ring in this & countless other articles regarding them & the current state of heavyweight boxing on this forum. Would you prefer to have more gangster & bad boy persona's in boxing & in you opinion would that really reverse the killing of boxing by K2?

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 2:43 pm

First and foremost to me the HW champion should be the dominant force in boxing. He should deliver excitement. If that HW champ is head and shoulders better than all others, he should be dominant and show that domination in his performances by beating thoroughly any challenge put before them. K2 do not do that. They win, win convincingly but bore me. If that HW champion is controversial, all the better. Who said they have to be gangsta to be controversial or even bad boy persona? I'd even swap controversial for interesting.

by JabMachineMK2 Fri 26 Oct 2012, 2:54 pm

Basically Az is saying he wants more John Terrys and Joey Bartons and less Zinedine Zidanes and Peles.

Nice.

by Rowley Fri 26 Oct 2012, 2:57 pm

So we are back to them not fulfilling your pre conceived ideas as to what a heavyweight champion should be then Az.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 2:58 pm

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Basically Az is saying he wants more John Terrys and Joey Bartons and less Zinedine Zidanes and Peles.

Nice.

ZZ was no shrinking violet. Remember the world cup final? Neither was Pele. He could dish it out when need be. Maradona is my favourite player of the lot though. And please don't mention Terry and me in the same sentence.

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 26 Oct 2012, 2:59 pm

Ok, so to clear things up, Az finds K2 exceptionally boring and believes that it doesn't really do much for the sport having them as heavyweight champions.

Lots of other people think that there are far more pertinent issues in the sport that need to to addressed before we pick apart the impact K2 have.

There you go, done.

I am locking the thread now before we have another 3 pages of the same thing regurgitated over and over again.

Now, how do you lock a thread?

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 3:00 pm

rowley wrote:So we are back to them not fulfilling your pre conceived ideas as to what a heavyweight champion should be then Az.

Well yes. I was a personal rant and I believe if one is objective, it is a common held view regarding K2. Perhaps if someone less divisive poster said it, there wouldn't be this knee jerk reaction to disagree.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 3:01 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Ok, so to clear things up, Az finds K2 exceptionally boring and believes that it doesn't really do much for the sport having them as heavyweight champions.

Lots of other people think that there are far more pertinent issues in the sport that need to to addressed before we pick apart the impact K2 have.

There you go, done.

I am locking the thread now before we have another 3 pages of the same thing regurgitated over and over again.

Now, how do you lock a thread?

There are a whole list of issues wrong with the sport of boxing of which the K2 are one of them.

by Rowley Fri 26 Oct 2012, 3:01 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Now, how do you lock a thread?

Like this mate

by Rowley Fri 26 Oct 2012, 3:04 pm

Just my little joke, as you were.

by Guest Fri 26 Oct 2012, 3:06 pm

azania wrote:First and foremost to me the HW champion should be the dominant force in boxing. He should deliver excitement. If that HW champ is head and shoulders better than all others, he should be dominant and show that domination in his performances by beating thoroughly any challenge put before them. K2 do not do that. They win, win convincingly but bore me. If that HW champion is controversial, all the better. Who said they have to be gangsta to be controversial or even bad boy persona? I'd even swap controversial for interesting.

I understand your opinion there but dont particularly agree with you. For me the heavyweight division generally has not been the most exciting division, middle, welter & light seem to have been much more exciting, had a much more even playing field over the generations & have produced plenty of atg's, the lighter divisions always will for me. I think the problem lies with the powers that be constantly hyping & pushing HW division as something else at the expense of the lower weights.

Well Tyson seems to be a favorite persona of yours & the controversy that goes with boxers has often been connected with their out of ring conduct rather than in ring.

by **ShahenshahG** Fri 26 Oct 2012, 3:06 pm

rowley wrote:Just my little joke, as you were.

are you E-flashing?

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 26 Oct 2012, 3:14 pm

azania wrote:

There are a whole list of issues wrong with the sport of boxing of which the K2 are one of them.

They certainly are in your opinion, but not in mine.

Your OP asked a specific question about whether they are 'killing' boxing or not? The answer is a pretty straight forward 'no'. You could, at a stretch, argue they are 'damaging' boxing, but not 'killing' it. I don't happen to hold that view, but I can use my imagination enough to see how someone could formulate that opinion. But, in response to the direct question you asked, they are not 'killing' the sport, and it a pointless exercise in arguing that they are.

It is nothing to do with you being a 'divisive' poster as you put it, I wouldn't flatter yourself that much princess. It is more to do with the fact it is a silly notion that will no doubt swallow up a further 2 pages of guff.

And yes, I appreciate the fact I have just contributed to said guff.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 3:15 pm

sohotnot wrote:
azania wrote:First and foremost to me the HW champion should be the dominant force in boxing. He should deliver excitement. If that HW champ is head and shoulders better than all others, he should be dominant and show that domination in his performances by beating thoroughly any challenge put before them. K2 do not do that. They win, win convincingly but bore me. If that HW champion is controversial, all the better. Who said they have to be gangsta to be controversial or even bad boy persona? I'd even swap controversial for interesting.

I understand your opinion there but dont particularly agree with you. For me the heavyweight division generally has not been the most exciting division, middle, welter & light seem to have been much more exciting, had a much more even playing field over the generations & have produced plenty of atg's, the lighter divisions always will for me. I think the problem lies with the powers that be constantly hyping & pushing HW division as something else at the expense of the lower weights.

Well Tyson seems to be a favorite persona of yours & the controversy that goes with boxers has often been connected with their out of ring conduct rather than in ring.

Lewis' reign was not particular exciting. Holmes was equally dire except for the Cooney fight and hype. But he stool tall over the division and got rid of over-matched fighters with ease and a crowd pleasing manner. Its not always the rivalries or quality of the division that matters but the manner of victory. K2 are more dominant over their division than Holmes was over his but Holmes will always be ranked higher because of the manner of his wins.

Before Tyson went ape, he was talked about and his fights were compelling viewing. He was doing adverts for Pepsi. He was marketted as a clean living kid and his indescresions were hidden and victims paid off. His out of the ring activities were not an issue.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 3:17 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
azania wrote:

There are a whole list of issues wrong with the sport of boxing of which the K2 are one of them.

They certainly are in your opinion, but not in mine.

Your OP asked a specific question about whether they are 'killing' boxing or not? The answer is a pretty straight forward 'no'. You could, at a stretch, argue they are 'damaging' boxing, but not 'killing' it. I don't happen to hold that view, but I can use my imagination enough to see how someone could formulate that opinion. But, in response to the direct question you asked, they are not 'killing' the sport, and it a pointless exercise in arguing that they are.

It is nothing to do with you being a 'divisive' poster as you put it, I wouldn't flatter yourself that much princess. It is more to do with the fact it is a silly notion that will no doubt swallow up a further 2 pages of guff.

And yes, I appreciate the fact I have just contributed to said guff.

I'm not going to change the OP to give a more accurate reflection of what I meant.

Are they good for boxing in this day and age where other sports are competing with boxing for air time? I don't thik they are.

by Super D Boon Fri 26 Oct 2012, 4:14 pm

azania wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:
azania wrote:Pernel I found boring. But he was a superb boxer who is probably one of the top 5 lightweights in history.

He was in the top 1, Az. Haven't you listened to anything I've said regarding Pernell over the past few months?

Not his fault he didn't have a big punch either. But Wlad is supposed to be a huge puncher. His safety first approach works for him, but for boxing as a whole, it is not good.

That's just your ridiculously biased opinion. I think they do wonders for boxing and have saved the heavyweight division from being a complete laughing stock. If only old man Vitali would leave it all to his brother that would be what I'd wish for now.

I suppose what is better for boxing is a loud, rude and arrogant KO aritst from London who fights once every Martian calendar year!

by Rodney Fri 26 Oct 2012, 5:02 pm

azania wrote:By any stretch of the imagination they are wonderful athletes, great boxers and come across as genuinely nice guys (business practices aside). But they lack the X factor that makes the heavyweight champion the flag bearer of boxing. In public they say the right things, do the right things and come across as UN ambassadors to boxing. Inside the ring they fight in a manner that leaves the viewing public comfortable. Sorry but the viewing public generally likes to be on the edge of their seat when watching boxing and especially the big men. They say that in HW boxing one punch changes everything. With K2, its a succession of jabs and the occasional right cross until the opponent is either stopped by the ref of by their corner.

You can't be nice both in and out of the rind and get the general public going. They both lack spite in and out of the ring. Their continuous dominance is killing boxing in the sense that they do not represent fight fans (not just boxing fans) but boxing purists. History will be kind to them as it should be. But the current cannot be. Hardly anyone outside of eastern europe looks forward to their fights and hardly anyone can say they deliver edge of seat stuff. Obviously their style of boxing will not change. But perhaps they can do something to get worldwide fans excited. Shag a granny instead of helping her across the road. Get done for DUI, stir the pot a little. All this Mr Nice guy "Oh look at me I am a throwback to the gentleman days" is boring. Deliver some excitement.

Rant over.

Total nonsense, that's all I can say.

Cheers Rodders

by paperbag_puncher Fri 26 Oct 2012, 5:05 pm

azania wrote:
paperbag_puncher wrote:
azania wrote:By any stretch of the imagination they are wonderful athletes, great boxers and come across as genuinely nice guys (business practices aside). But they lack the X factor that makes the heavyweight champion the flag bearer of boxing. In public they say the right things, do the right things and come across as UN ambassadors to boxing. Inside the ring they fight in a manner that leaves the viewing public comfortable. History will be kind to them as it should
.

Don't really see the problem. At the end of the day its their livlihood and careers. Is Wlad gonna fight in a way that makes him successful in the ring, earns lots of money and makes sure he keeps racking up the wins? Or should he drop his guard, stick his chin out and just trade so that he might excite a few naysayers on forums around the world? Simple question to answer for him really.

As for changing their personalities outside the ring that's a ridiculous point. If it takes a retarded thug who goes round bashing grannies and the like to get your juices flowing (a) their might be something wrong with you and (b) There are plenty of reality shows full of these cretins to keep you amused. Seriously though there's nothing cooler than and its easier to follow and support a proper badass but wouldn't be worse if Wlad manufactured this kind of personality? It would be cringey.

If these guys were a tad more exciting both in and out of the ring, but preferably in the ring, they would be huge names the world over. They are terrific fighters without doubt. But by god they are boring. I'm not saying Wlad should stick his chin out to please fans. You can be thoroughly dominant and exciting. They are thoroughly dominant but boring.

As for their opponents, please dont say things like Mormeck is like Tyson. That is taking us for fools. Just be honest,. Say I'll ko him quickly.

Some of what you say is true but I don't see why they would change their style or how they can change their personalities. I'm not a huge Klitschko fan and have been stung by them many times. I'll never forget the first time I tried to get the missus to stay up and watch a fight. Unfortunately it was Wlad vs Ibragimov. "They're both world champions, undefeated blah blah blah its gonna be epic". The next fight she watched was Haye vs Wlad. You see the pattern? She may never watch another fight with me again...

Anyway enough about me. I think the situation would be far worse without them. It would be like pass the parcel with a group of larely limited, unmotivated fighters. You say the HW champ of the world should be exciting well I also think they should be dominant. You should look at them and think he would beat anybody in the world. Which makes it even more exciting when they get toppled.

Don't forget Vitali used to be quite exciting. Hes old now and had some serious injuries. Its a wonder he came back at all let alone dominated. Wlad used to be a lot more gung ho too but look where that got him? I say this as someone who appreciates the Klitschkos rather than as a big fan of them or anything.

by **ShahenshahG** Fri 26 Oct 2012, 5:06 pm

Rodney wrote:
azania wrote:By any stretch of the imagination they are wonderful athletes, great boxers and come across as genuinely nice guys (business practices aside). But they lack the X factor that makes the heavyweight champion the flag bearer of boxing. In public they say the right things, do the right things and come across as UN ambassadors to boxing. Inside the ring they fight in a manner that leaves the viewing public comfortable. Sorry but the viewing public generally likes to be on the edge of their seat when watching boxing and especially the big men. They say that in HW boxing one punch changes everything. With K2, its a succession of jabs and the occasional right cross until the opponent is either stopped by the ref of by their corner.

You can't be nice both in and out of the rind and get the general public going. They both lack spite in and out of the ring. Their continuous dominance is killing boxing in the sense that they do not represent fight fans (not just boxing fans) but boxing purists. History will be kind to them as it should be. But the current cannot be. Hardly anyone outside of eastern europe looks forward to their fights and hardly anyone can say they deliver edge of seat stuff. Obviously their style of boxing will not change. But perhaps they can do something to get worldwide fans excited. Shag a granny instead of helping her across the road. Get done for DUI, stir the pot a little. All this Mr Nice guy "Oh look at me I am a throwback to the gentleman days" is boring. Deliver some excitement.

Rant over.

Total nonsense, that's all I can say.

Cheers Rodders

Thats not true - you occasionally say something quite perceptive and reasonable.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 26 Oct 2012, 9:08 pm

You do seem very hung up on the fact they aren't big in America when the majority of popular American fighters aren't big in a worldwide sense either. Mayweather for instance is seen as a huge draw but that is solely down to his popularity in America, nowhere else does he or would he draw in huge crowds, boxers have and always will be bigger in the country that they compete in.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 9:18 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You do seem very hung up on the fact they aren't big in America when the majority of popular American fighters aren't big in a worldwide sense either. Mayweather for instance is seen as a huge draw but that is solely down to his popularity in America, nowhere else does he or would he draw in huge crowds, boxers have and always will be bigger in the country that they compete in.

I'm talking the HW champ. Not an ordinary boxer. The HW champ is known worldwide, or should be. Outside of eastern europe, the only ones who know K2 are hardcore fans and boxing journalists.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 26 Oct 2012, 9:20 pm

Who outside of America knew who Holmes, Holyfield, Bowe or Moorer were? If we're logical about this then only Ali and Tyson have ever had worldwide appeal with everyone else being confined to America.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 9:21 pm

Super D Boon wrote:
azania wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:
azania wrote:Pernel I found boring. But he was a superb boxer who is probably one of the top 5 lightweights in history.

He was in the top 1, Az. Haven't you listened to anything I've said regarding Pernell over the past few months?

Not his fault he didn't have a big punch either. But Wlad is supposed to be a huge puncher. His safety first approach works for him, but for boxing as a whole, it is not good.

That's just your ridiculously biased opinion. I think they do wonders for boxing and have saved the heavyweight division from being a complete laughing stock. If only old man Vitali would leave it all to his brother that would be what I'd wish for now.

I suppose what is better for boxing is a loud, rude and arrogant KO aritst from London who fights once every Martian calendar year!

Do you think that if Wlad were an exciting fighter he would be as anonymous as he is now?

Haye is a marketeer. But were he have to dethroned Wlad in the manner which he predicted, it would have been good for boxing as a whole. We would have had an exciting fighter with a personality. But alas he didn't and probably would still be waiting for his first defence.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 9:23 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Who outside of America knew who Holmes, Holyfield, Bowe or Moorer were? If we're logical about this then only Ali and Tyson have ever had worldwide appeal with everyone else being confined to America.

What? Are you serious? Not so much Bowe and Moorer (they weren't dominant as Wlad is), but the rest were well known in Southern Africa and West Africa. Can't speak for Asia. I actually watched the Moorer/Holy rematch in Accra, Ghana.

Lewis was well known in Africa, Tyson was well everywhere. K2 are anonymous.

by Il Gialloblu Sat 27 Oct 2012, 12:32 pm

azania wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:Who outside of America knew who Holmes, Holyfield, Bowe or Moorer were? If we're logical about this then only Ali and Tyson have ever had worldwide appeal with everyone else being confined to America.

What? Are you serious? Not so much Bowe and Moorer (they weren't dominant as Wlad is), but the rest were well known in Southern Africa and West Africa. Can't speak for Asia. I actually watched the Moorer/Holy rematch in Accra, Ghana.

Lewis was well known in Africa, Tyson was well everywhere. K2 are anonymous.

I've just done a survey. I asked one 25 year old Chinese girl - my missus - to name as many boxers as she can.

This sounds like the worst Family Fortunes round in the history of Les Dennis but stick with me.

Straight away, she said Ali. I asked if she had any more. She said Tyson. Any more? No. Obviously this wasn't the widest net ever cast in the name of research but I think that very fact, allied with the A/S/L of the interviewee and the results I reported a few sentences ago, maybe reinforces a point or two made by someone earlier. Might not though.

by Super D Boon Sat 27 Oct 2012, 2:46 pm

azania wrote:
Super D Boon wrote:
azania wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:
azania wrote:Pernel I found boring. But he was a superb boxer who is probably one of the top 5 lightweights in history.

He was in the top 1, Az. Haven't you listened to anything I've said regarding Pernell over the past few months?

Not his fault he didn't have a big punch either. But Wlad is supposed to be a huge puncher. His safety first approach works for him, but for boxing as a whole, it is not good.

That's just your ridiculously biased opinion. I think they do wonders for boxing and have saved the heavyweight division from being a complete laughing stock. If only old man Vitali would leave it all to his brother that would be what I'd wish for now.

I suppose what is better for boxing is a loud, rude and arrogant KO aritst from London who fights once every Martian calendar year!

Do you think that if Wlad were an exciting fighter he would be as anonymous as he is now?

Haye is a marketeer. But were he have to dethroned Wlad in the manner which he predicted, it would have been good for boxing as a whole. We would have had an exciting fighter with a personality. But alas he didn't and probably would still be waiting for his first defence.

You've contradicted yourself there Az. First you say Haye beating Wlad would have been great for boxing then say we would have still been waiting for his first defence.

It would have been far WORSE for boxing had Haye won. He intended to dethrone Wlad and ride off into the sunset and leave the heavyweight division a shambles. A win for Haye would have been good for David Haye and no-one else.

by Imperial Ghosty Sat 27 Oct 2012, 3:13 pm

Sorry az but Holmes, Holyfield and bowe did not have worldwide appeal, they were American fighters who didn't transcend at all. Only Ali and Tyson can make that claim.

by Nico the gman Sat 27 Oct 2012, 3:57 pm

Unless your a boxing fan most sports fans will never have heard of Holmes,Bowe and Holyfield and Lewis would be in the same bracket.

Dead right ghosty, Ali was a one off and had great charisma and character,Tyson was this young destructive machine who was like a throw back from years gone bye.

by azania Sun 28 Oct 2012, 12:55 pm

Super D Boon wrote:
azania wrote:
Super D Boon wrote:
azania wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:
azania wrote:Pernel I found boring. But he was a superb boxer who is probably one of the top 5 lightweights in history.

He was in the top 1, Az. Haven't you listened to anything I've said regarding Pernell over the past few months?

Not his fault he didn't have a big punch either. But Wlad is supposed to be a huge puncher. His safety first approach works for him, but for boxing as a whole, it is not good.

That's just your ridiculously biased opinion. I think they do wonders for boxing and have saved the heavyweight division from being a complete laughing stock. If only old man Vitali would leave it all to his brother that would be what I'd wish for now.

I suppose what is better for boxing is a loud, rude and arrogant KO aritst from London who fights once every Martian calendar year!

Do you think that if Wlad were an exciting fighter he would be as anonymous as he is now?

Haye is a marketeer. But were he have to dethroned Wlad in the manner which he predicted, it would have been good for boxing as a whole. We would have had an exciting fighter with a personality. But alas he didn't and probably would still be waiting for his first defence.

You've contradicted yourself there Az. First you say Haye beating Wlad would have been great for boxing then say we would have still been waiting for his first defence.

It would have been far WORSE for boxing had Haye won. He intended to dethrone Wlad and ride off into the sunset and leave the heavyweight division a shambles. A win for Haye would have been good for David Haye and no-one else.

The second point was supposed to be a joke. The build up to any Haye fight would have been more interesting than anything Wlad does. I believe Haye would have fought twice a year to defend his belt. How many times did he fight at HW and how often?

People assume Wlad fights often. He doesn't/ Its just that as soon as Vit gets rid of another opponent its assumed that K2 have fought.

by azania Sun 28 Oct 2012, 1:00 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Sorry az but Holmes, Holyfield and bowe did not have worldwide appeal, they were American fighters who didn't transcend at all. Only Ali and Tyson can make that claim.

What I can say for certain is that Holmes and Holy were well known in West and Southern Africa. Obviously not as known as Ali or Tyson, but they are more known than K2 are currently. Holmes on the back of Ali and Cooney fights became a figure. Holy because of his christian beliefs and the bite fight. I agree (as I said above about Bowe).But Holmes more so that Holy was better known.

by azania Sun 28 Oct 2012, 1:01 pm

Nico the gman wrote:Unless your a boxing fan most sports fans will never have heard of Holmes,Bowe and Holyfield and Lewis would be in the same bracket.

Dead right ghosty, Ali was a one off and had great charisma and character,Tyson was this young destructive machine who was like a throw back from years gone bye.

Sports fans knew of Holmes. I'll add that his refusal to fight Coetzee elevated him in Africa.

by Gordy Mon 29 Oct 2012, 1:32 pm

Heavyweight boxing has declined badly for a number of reasons. When Lewis retired the sport lost a great champion and there was nobody else around that could even come close to replacing him. The current heavyweights are useless and rely on being marketed and hyped up by the media rather than being good. There are either sensationally overhyped fighters like Haye, Harrison and the latest Price or else some gigantic Russian or eastern european heavyweight that is lacking in basic skills. Sadly they seemed to lose the blueprint for top class heavyweights when Lewis retired and many american athletes are going into other sports. When you also throw in the corruption that exists in boxing on top is it any wonder the sport is dying?

by **Union Cane** Mon 29 Oct 2012, 1:35 pm

Spoiler:

by Super D Boon Tue 30 Oct 2012, 1:11 pm

azania wrote:
Super D Boon wrote:
azania wrote:
Super D Boon wrote:
azania wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:
azania wrote:Pernel I found boring. But he was a superb boxer who is probably one of the top 5 lightweights in history.

He was in the top 1, Az. Haven't you listened to anything I've said regarding Pernell over the past few months?

Not his fault he didn't have a big punch either. But Wlad is supposed to be a huge puncher. His safety first approach works for him, but for boxing as a whole, it is not good.

That's just your ridiculously biased opinion. I think they do wonders for boxing and have saved the heavyweight division from being a complete laughing stock. If only old man Vitali would leave it all to his brother that would be what I'd wish for now.

I suppose what is better for boxing is a loud, rude and arrogant KO aritst from London who fights once every Martian calendar year!

Do you think that if Wlad were an exciting fighter he would be as anonymous as he is now?

Haye is a marketeer. But were he have to dethroned Wlad in the manner which he predicted, it would have been good for boxing as a whole. We would have had an exciting fighter with a personality. But alas he didn't and probably would still be waiting for his first defence.

You've contradicted yourself there Az. First you say Haye beating Wlad would have been great for boxing then say we would have still been waiting for his first defence.

It would have been far WORSE for boxing had Haye won. He intended to dethrone Wlad and ride off into the sunset and leave the heavyweight division a shambles. A win for Haye would have been good for David Haye and no-one else.

The second point was supposed to be a joke. The build up to any Haye fight would have been more interesting than anything Wlad does. I believe Haye would have fought twice a year to defend his belt. How many times did he fight at HW and how often?

People assume Wlad fights often. He doesn't/ Its just that as soon as Vit gets rid of another opponent its assumed that K2 have fought.

Why do you believe that? Haye said himself he was retiring on his 31st brithday after demolishing Wlad. The reason retirement was put off was because his "master plan" didn't quite go according to plan and the subsequent "toegate" fiasco added insult to injury for his already battered reputation.

Wlad does fight often. 3 times a year until recently. By today's standards that's a very busy fighter! Haye the self appointed "saviour of the heavyweight division" fights once every Martian year. Mr Haye with all these fights you are spoiling us!!!!

by azania Tue 30 Oct 2012, 1:16 pm

I doubt he would have retired. The money available for another fight would have been too much to turn down and then there was the fight with Vitali which would have been inevitable.

by Super D Boon Tue 30 Oct 2012, 5:31 pm

Considering Haye was adamant about retirement, even stipulating a specific date. Then there's the fact that he made enough money in the Wlad fight to live happily ever anyway. Also Adam Booth urging his man to retire as planned despite defeat - then I cannot see why you think he would have fought on had he emerged victorious. It's not like Haye can be accused of being addicted to boxing given he fights nearly as infrequently as Guillermo Jones!

by azania Tue 30 Oct 2012, 6:36 pm

Yeah, he was adamant about retiring, but has he stayed retired? Money came knocking and he gloved up and fought Chisora. So much for making enough money after Wlad.

by Champagne_Socialist Wed 31 Oct 2012, 1:16 am

azania wrote:Yeah, he was adamant about retiring, but has he stayed retired? Money came knocking and he gloved up and fought Chisora. So much for making enough money after Wlad.

If he beat wlad he would have retired. He would have been seen as a national hero instead he is a national laughing stock.

by manos de piedra Wed 31 Oct 2012, 9:27 am

I have my doubts Haye would have stayed retired, or even retired at all if he had beat Wlad. I think he just kept it there as an option to avoid rushing into a fight with Vitali after who I dont think he was keen on facing at the time. But with Haye would most likely have still had ppv with Sky willing to back him heavily as a genuine British heavyweight world champ. I dont think he could turn down the money available. I suspect what would have happened would be a similar repeat of the first Wlad/Haye build up except this time with Vitali. The public pressure would be immense for an undisputed champion but Haye would probably have looked to fit in some softer defences for big money first while claiming Vitali wanted too big a split or didnt really want the fight.

by azania Wed 31 Oct 2012, 10:20 am

victorgarco wrote:
azania wrote:Yeah, he was adamant about retiring, but has he stayed retired? Money came knocking and he gloved up and fought Chisora. So much for making enough money after Wlad.

If he beat wlad he would have retired. He would have been seen as a national hero instead he is a national laughing stock.

He's a laughing stock to people who didn't like him prior to the Wlad fight. His performance cemented that for them. Importantly his detractors refuse to give Wlad the credit he deserved for putting up a terrific performance. Instead they blame Haye.

by Champagne_Socialist Wed 31 Oct 2012, 11:02 am

azania wrote:
victorgarco wrote:
azania wrote:Yeah, he was adamant about retiring, but has he stayed retired? Money came knocking and he gloved up and fought Chisora. So much for making enough money after Wlad.

If he beat wlad he would have retired. He would have been seen as a national hero instead he is a national laughing stock.

He's a laughing stock to people who didn't like him prior to the Wlad fight. His performance cemented that for them. Importantly his detractors refuse to give Wlad the credit he deserved for putting up a terrific performance. Instead they blame Haye.

He's a laughing stocl not for losing but because he spent 3 years telling everyone he was going to knock wlad out and making loads of nasty comments to then freeze when he got in the ring with him. The toe excuse also did not help.

by azania Wed 31 Oct 2012, 11:03 am

He ran into a better boxer. I take it you're not a fan of his.

by **seanmichaels** Wed 31 Oct 2012, 11:06 am

Nice to have Fedor back on the boards.

by Rowley Wed 31 Oct 2012, 11:18 am

The issue with Haye is not that he lost, I personally never expected him to do otherwise. However as I have said before given how much he mocked so many of Wlad’s other opponents and their timidity in the ring and with how loudly and frequently he proclaimed how easily he was going to run through Wlad he created a legitimate expectation amongst fans that win, lose or draw he would do so in a herculean, death before dishonor, blaze of glory kind of manner.

Think the vitriol he attracted was a reflection of nothing more than how far he failed to live up to his bold claims and how timidly he capitulated, suspect had he thrown caution to the wind after about the 8th and even had he got sparked think people would be willing to be a little less forgiving.

Rightly or wrongly people tend to be judged by the standards they set for themselves. You only have to look at Naz, by any realistic standards he had a career to be proud of, being the preeminent featherweight for a good three years, but as he loudly and frequently told us he would be a legend of the sport and an all time great many view his career as something of a disappointment, maybe it is fair, maybe it isn’t but such is life.

by Super D Boon Wed 31 Oct 2012, 12:13 pm

victorgarco wrote:
azania wrote:Yeah, he was adamant about retiring, but has he stayed retired? Money came knocking and he gloved up and fought Chisora. So much for making enough money after Wlad.

If he beat wlad he would have retired. He would have been seen as a national hero instead he is a national laughing stock.

Indeed this is the point that Az is deliberately not taking in! Laugh

The reason Haye fought on was not for more money but was to salvage a reputation in tatters. He didn't want his career to end on such a disappointing note. Considering Adam Booth went on Sky after Wlad, imploring his man to retire as planned as well as the fact Haye had his 31st birthday/retirement etched on his brain then I really don't think it's plausible to suggest he would have carried on regardless. You also have to think about how infrequently he fights. It's not like the man can't stay out of the ring is it?? He wanted the plaudits for beating Wlad followed by a movie career where he could pose his way to a few more million, chatshows, partying with the stars, auto biogs gloating about how he "saved" the heavyweight division from Wlad. Lots of merchandising, endorsements and column inches devoted to bragging about how good he is etc.

Sadly this went out of the window when he realised just how good Wlad was. Shame...... Laugh

by manos de piedra Wed 31 Oct 2012, 12:19 pm

He could have had all that with without retiring. He would probably have continued fighting infrequently and engaging Vitali in a phoney war.

Year 1: PPV mandatory against Chagaev,

Year 2: PPV voluntary against Rahman/Holyfield/Toney

Year 3: Mega fight with Vitali

by azania Wed 31 Oct 2012, 12:22 pm

Super D Boon wrote:
victorgarco wrote:
azania wrote:Yeah, he was adamant about retiring, but has he stayed retired? Money came knocking and he gloved up and fought Chisora. So much for making enough money after Wlad.

If he beat wlad he would have retired. He would have been seen as a national hero instead he is a national laughing stock.

Indeed this is the point that Az is deliberately not taking in!

The reason Haye fought on was not for more money but was to salvage a reputation in tatters. He didn't want his career to end on such a disappointing note. Considering Adam Booth went on Sky after Wlad, imploring his man to retire as planned as well as the fact Haye had his 31st birthday/retirement etched on his brain then I really don't think it's plausible to suggest he would have carried on regardless. You also have to think about how infrequently he fights. It's not like the man can't stay out of the ring is it?? He wanted the plaudits for beating Wlad followed by a movie career where he could pose his way to a few more million, chatshows, partying with the stars, auto biogs gloating about how he "saved" the heavyweight division from Wlad. Lots of merchandising, endorsements and column inches devoted to bragging about how good he is etc.

Sadly this went out of the window when he realised just how good Wlad was. Shame......

OK. So when boxers state they will retire they always keep to it. Haye is young and could have easily made over £50m defending the titles against second tier opponents before fighting either K2 for megabucks.

by Super D Boon Wed 31 Oct 2012, 1:30 pm

But that was Haye's big problem. He doesn't fight enough of these second tier opponents which is what he needs to do to be a legitimate challenger and to be properly prepared for the likes of Wlad. He's a big shot who stinks of new money. He thought the job of toppling Wlad could be done with one hail mary and he could take his millions and retire a hero. Alas (for him) this did not happen and I disagree entirely that it would have been good for boxing if he'd been able to do this.

by manos de piedra Wed 31 Oct 2012, 1:40 pm

From a mainly financial perspective though, it would be mad to retire straight after beating Wlad. Fame, endorsements, advertising etc all that stuff is going to be far more lucrative when you are the existing heavyweight champion as opposed to retired plus he would also be drawing ppv for fighting infrequently against very beatable opposition.

by Sponsored content