Haye vs Klitschko prediction?

First topic message reminder :

I know it has probably been done before but been new I am interested to hear your views on who will win, and how? etc...

I believe that Wlad will beat Haye by late KO or on points, however in my heart I hope that Haye wins. Just can't see him getting past Wlad's jab even with his speed I think he will stuggle to cope with the speed and power of the jab. Haye may have the power to hurt Wlad, hoping he can find away through Wlad's defence.

Marky wrote:I predict... A draw!

The old saying goes, (something along the lines of) "you need a knockout in Germany just to get the draw".

My example is Lennox Lewis v Evander Holyfield for Lewis's WBC and Holyfield's IBF and WBA World Heavyweight Championships.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/03/99/lewis_vs_holyfield/296539.stm

Klitschko is the home fighter, like Holyfield was. I think Haye will win on points, at least the way I score a fight, just like I (and everyone else) did for Lewis. A draw was the controversial way to save Holyfield and his titles without completely robbing Lewis of his title, just like it would be the controversial way to save Klitschko and his titles without completely robbing Haye of his title. Coupled with some inconsistant scorecards coming from judges of bouts in Germany over the years, and I think the £5 bet I placed on the draw at 33/1 was worth the gamble...

You can get the draw at 60/1 on Betfair if you really fancy it.

Andy - I'm glad it's not just me then! He's proficient, no doubt, but that's about it. If he was 6'1,-6'3 he'd be a very average heavy.

BALTIMORA wrote:Andy - I'm glad it's not just me then! He's proficient, no doubt, but that's about it. If he was 6'1,-6'3 he'd be a very average heavy.

To be fair Balti that is a bit of a "if my aunty had nuts" comment. He is not 6ft 1 he is 6ft 5 so his size cannot be overlooked.

I know that Jeff, I just feel he's given a bit too much praise for a trait which is essentially genetic rather than learned. He's a big guy who uses his reach and his weight but doesn't do anything particularly better than a lot of smaller guys.

Wlad does remind me a little of Primo Carnera with a slightly better chin. That's not to say Carnera wasn't good, he was very good, but he was a stopgap champ.
Would love to add a "lol", however I missed that debate so will manfully resist the temptation.

See where you're coming from Balti but for me prefer to look on him as a guy who showed some weaknesses early in his career and has worked hard to adapt his style to utilise his strengths and protect his weaknesses to a point where he has become a solid, if largely uninspiring heavyweight champion. May be getting soft but whilst he is not a guy I would go out of my way to watch he has warmed on me a lot of late, think he comes across well.

andygf wrote:Wlad does remind me a little of Primo Carnera with a slightly better chin. That's not to say Carnera wasn't good, he was very good, but he was a stopgap champ.
Would love to add a "lol", however I missed that debate so will manfully resist the temptation.

Please do avoid using L*L, even if the intention is solely to get a rise out of me it remains the calling card of the cretin.

Isn't that part of boxing though, utilising what you have to the fullest effect? On the flipside I do see your point though, Wladimir has been elevated to a level a little beyond what I personally have seen in him. He has a great jab and good power, but he isn't the most mobile, and he fights in straight lines. Ultimately that hasn't changed, it's just that no recently has been capable of getting to him.

In regard to the OP I'm torn, but I've decided to fall down on the patriotic side of the fence and say Haye KO 7/

rowley wrote:See where you're coming from Balti but for me prefer to look on him as a guy who showed some weaknesses early in his career and has worked hard to adapt his style to utilise his strengths and protect his weaknesses to a point where he has become a solid, if largely uninspiring heavyweight champion. May be getting soft but whilst he is not a guy I would go out of my way to watch he has warmed on me a lot of late, think he comes across well.

He has improved, but even watching the Chagaev fight earlier Wlad seems excessively wary and really doesn't like going backwards. I just wonder if him not being a natural fighter will be an important factor.

As for how he comes across...he doesn't come accross badly, but he has that very rigid and unfunny former USSR/eastern bloc, wherever it is, sense of humour, and he seems like he's a little devoid of nig in the way of an actually interesting personality. Reminds me of a Russian colleague at work.

BALTIMORA wrote:I know that Jeff, I just feel he's given a bit too much praise for a trait which is essentially genetic rather than learned. He's a big guy who uses his reach and his weight but doesn't do anything particularly better than a lot of smaller guys.

I dont see whats genetic about having a good jab or being able to control the ring.

If anything most of Wlads style has been carefully learned and honed in the gym and through experience and training. I consider him a much more manufactured fighter as opposed to a natural one.

If Hearns wasnt 6'1 with a gigantic reach then ........

Exactly. I'm not denying Wlad has been taught certain elements, but take away his size advantage and he's nothing special. His jab is effective because of his height and reach. Nothing wrong with playing to one's strengths, but compared to a lot of other boxers his skill set is fairly straightforward. I know it's worked for him thus far so why change now, but seeing him consistently fight smaller guys it seems he's afforded certain luxuries by import virtue of his size rather than any more complex skills than jab & grab.

And manos-what you're saying about Hearns is exactly the reason I don't hold his win over Duran against Duran so much, but that's another thread entirely.

BALTIMORA wrote:Exactly. I'm not denying Wlad has been taught certain elements, but take away his size advantage and he's nothing special. His jab is effective because of his height and reach. Nothing wrong with playing to one's strengths, but compared to a lot of other boxers his skill set is fairly straightforward. I know it's worked for him thus far so why change now, but seeing him consistently fight smaller guys it seems he's afforded certain luxuries by import virtue of his size rather than any more complex skills than jab & grab.

I think its impossible to say because his whole style and strategy has been developed with his strengths in mind.

If he was smaller then he may be a lot quicker and would have adopted a different approach. Maybe if Haye was 6'6 then he would be useless because much of his speed and athleticism would be lost and he has no jab to speak of.

I dont hold Durans defeat against Hearns to heavily against him either, but its not just that one fight. All of Hearns fights at Welter and Light Middle were done with him holding large physical advantages nearly all the time with which he based his style on. Maybe if you take away these physical advantages he becomes just an average Welter/Light Middle with questionable durability and cetainly no chance of competing at Middle and above.

The reason I'd cut Hearns a little slack though is because he always had an upper weight limit to adhere to, which is something Wlad's never had to worry about. If a guy who's 6'1 can make 147lbs I'm inclined to give him credit for the fact that his mass is roughly the same, just distributed differently.

You make a good point about how a smaller Wlad/larger Haye might fight differently, but three or four inches at heavyweight shouldn't be enough to enforce a change in style. I don't for one second believe the way Wlad fights is the ONLY way he could if he wanted to, but more that it works well, and part of THAT is down to him holding those physical advantages.

One thing I'm certain of is that this won't be an exciting fight. Wlad is ultra cautious and won't engage haye unless he thinks his jab has turned him into a sitting duck. Wlad is not a natural hard fighting man, a fact he readily admits himself. Haye - at heavyweight at least - has also become a more cautious fighter. He stays out of range and susses his opponents out. He has speed and power but he's no gatti type fighter, he ambushes his opponents but spends a lot of time moving backwards. This will definitely be a cagey affair, with wlad looking to work behind the jab and haye looking to stay away from it and wait for an opening.

Haye has a great chance because he possesses both attributes that can cause wlad trouble. No good having enough speed to get past the jab if your punches aren't heavy enough to capitalise on wlads fragility. And no good having big power if you're too slow and cumbersome to get past the jab and makeit count. Haye has enough power to wobble wlad, but more importantly he has the speed and athleticism to make it count. He is also smart and he and booth are meticulous in their preparation. He is a huge threat to wlad and I fancy him to pull off the upset inside 6 rounds. Haye to win in rounds 4-6 is 13/2, and I'll offset it with a smaller bet on wlad to win in rounds 10-12 which is a fairly generous 9/1. I certainly don't think it'll ho the distance, neither guy has gone the full 12 on many occasions and I don't think that'll change here.

I think Wlads size works against the fighters he's fought because frankly they have all been useless, against a quality smaller heavy I don't see his jab being that effective, an aggressive fighter like Frazier despite being massively outweighed probably takes him out in double quick time and would also favour Dempsey to finish him quicker than he did Willard. Even someone like Marciano stands a good chance of blasting him out and that's not even getting started with the stylists like Louis, Ali, Lewis or Holmes. Really don't rate the guy.

Also don't think the Hearns analogy is the same as he was a Welterweight, he didn't weigh more than Leonard nor was he stronger than him, the same goes for Hagler who was clearly the stronger tougher fighter.

The basic point with Hearns is that he nearly always held large physical advantages over his opponents in light middle and welter and his physique allowed him to do so. He was a massive Welter regardless of weight. Take away his physical advantages of huge height, a freakish heavyweight length reach and great power and what have you got? I think its pointless to do that and equally pointless to do it to Wlad or any other fighter because it changes the dynamics of their style and strengths completely. Wlad is quite athletic and fast for a 6'6 guy so if you start sizing him down I dont see why he shouldnt improve in athletic terms.

I rate Wlads jab pretty highly. Certainly dont see how it fails to be effective against small guys like Marciano who attack in straight lines and are easy to hit. A bob and weave fighter like Frazier/Dempsey may have more success but even good small heavies like Tyson with good speed and movement have come unstuck against a good jab.

Against smaller and quicker heavyweights its natural that the jab will have less success landing. I would be pretty surprised if Haye didnt make Wlad miss more than he ever has before with it. But even when its not landing with great regularity its still effective at controlling range, holding the ring and bossing the fight and it makes it difficult for the opponent to mount their own attacks.

The Haye fight will be an acid test of sorts for Wlads jab and whether it holds up to scrutiny. Even if Wlad gets knocked out but has been winning the rounds previously behind the jab then I would still consider it quality. If he controls the fight behind the jab for the most part then I think it holds up. Would certainly expect he wont have it as easy to land as against previous opponents but unless Haye is able to bypass and counter it regularly enough to win the rounds himself I would have to believe it to be very effective as a tool.

As I've said; yes Hearns held those height and reach advantages, but he was still able to make the weight limit, however that may or may not have affected him. Wlad doesn't have to do that. He can hold those advantages AND be 30lbs heavier on the scales. That's a BIG factor to take into account.

It's a fairly simple premise whereby the lack of upper weight limit at heavyweight opens the gates for the current breed of 'super heavyweight', of which Wlad can be considered to be one.

Wlad isn't restricted to fighting how he does because of his size, but rather he chooses to because he's not comfortable with anything else. He tried fighting differently and had his bum handed to him. Not sure how much credit Steward should take for telling a tall guy to fight tall.

Hearns had the ability to go with his size and could outbox the best of them something I very much doubt Wlad could do at Heavyweight, you are over playing how good he actually is, easy to look half decent when your fighting the Samuel Peters of the world.

Yeah but Im not saying Wlad is on Hearns level. The point Im making is that its pointless to try to take away a fighters strengths and then say they wouldnt be that good without them. Saying Wlad would be useless if he was 6'1-6'3 may/may not be true but is largely irrelevant. I think Hearns would be significantly less effective and great at welter and light middle if he was alot smaller and didnt have any reach advantages. Its proportional, rather than a direct comparison between the two.

Im not sure where people are getting that he tried to fight different and got knocked out. Hes always fought the same way and tried to box behind the jab. Hes just alot better now than he was when he was beaten. I dont think nearly enough credit is being given if its just coming down to "hes big" or "he boxes tall". He fights to his strengths and protects his weaknesses which seems pretty smart to me. Why would he fight differently?

Why is it irrelevant? Valuev is derided because he's only achieved anything based on his height. Not the best of examples, but it's not all that different. I just don't see how 'jab-jab-grab' can be celebrated as a finely honed fighting style. If Wlad wasn't able to exercise his advantage of height and weight by leaning on opponents would he still be as effective?

He's able to use his advantages because his opponents have been of a very low standard, hard to say much about him or how good his jab is when we have no level to gauge him against

BALTIMORA wrote:Why is it irrelevant? Valuev is derided because he's only achieved anything based on his height. Not the best of examples, but it's not all that different. I just don't see how 'jab-jab-grab' can be celebrated as a finely honed fighting style. If Wlad wasn't able to exercise his advantage of height and weight by leaning on opponents would he still be as effective?

I dont see the point of evening asking the question in the first place though. Hes a one dimensional fighter, but that one dimension is good and has been highly effective. It suits his strengths and weaknesses to great effect. Whats the point of saying like "if he wasnt as tall?". If Haye wasnt as fast he might be no good, if Foreman wasnt as powerful he mightnt have been as successful and so on. I can understand if you question his jab being as good as its made out as, or if the quality of his opposition flatter him. But I dont get changing the whole dynamics of him as a fighter. If he wasnt 6'6 then he would have a whole different set of attributes and could be a completely different fighter. His style and everything else may be different.

I think Valuev was too big. The sheer size and weight advantages he held were outweighed by the loss of speed, mobility and technique. Wlad is much closer to a middle ground.

My point was that doing what he does only works so well because he's big. He's nothing special if he isn't bigger than his opponents. Leaning on your opponent works better if you're bigger and heavier. Having a decent jab works better if you're bigger and taller. He leans on people because he has zero inside game and panics when an opponent is in his face. If his opponents were of equal size he'd be less succesful is my contention.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He's able to use his advantages because his opponents have been of a very low standard, hard to say much about him or how good his jab is when we have no level to gauge him against

Yes up to a point. But his acheivements and manner of victories in recent years indicate he is definately good up to a certain level. Hes been dominant for 7 years now and while his opposition arent elite level he has proven that hes easily a class above.

I rate his jab pretty highly at te moment, if not a great deal else about him. If Haye is able deal with effectively then I will reconsider but most people in the boxing world seem to think its the real deal even if the rest of him doesnt measure up and it lends itself to a boring style.

He's decent from what i've seen but nothing more and this whole nonsense about being dominant for 7 years is such a false truth, he has largely dominated alongside his brother, were Vitali not his brother we wouldn't be having this conversation.

BALTIMORA wrote:My point was that doing what he does only works so well because he's big. He's nothing special if he isn't bigger than his opponents. Leaning on your opponent works better if you're bigger and heavier. Having a decent jab works better if you're bigger and taller. He leans on people because he has zero inside game and panics when an opponent is in his face. If his opponents were of equal size he'd be less succesful is my contention.

Well are saying if his opponents were bigger and taller or if he was smaller?

Obviosly the bigger his opponents get the less speed and mobility they have so I dont see why he cant be successful in that regard as he wouldnt have to change his style. If Haye was 6'6 and 240lbs then he may be more powerful but he would not be as quick and elusive and I think he would get beaten up by Wlads better jab, seeing as he has no jab of his own.

If you mean scaling Wlad down to 6'2 or something then I think its just too abstract. I still think he would have the ability to beat most of the competion of the last 8 years or so but theres just no telling what kind of fighter he would be as all his attributes would be different.

Klitschko is one of the most underrated boxes to have graced the sport. The apparent weak division of the heavyweights hasn't helped his recognition as a great, and in most people's eyes all he is will be a very very good boxer but no more. Haye should not be underestimated for his intelligence and tactical awareness and the public should see through the faux-facade he has created for the purposes of his dual. However, mentally Klitschko is more than his match here and quite frankly, if Haye tries to play a tactical game here he will lose. I do not agree with the professionals and pundits out there who opine that Haye has a multitude of ways in approaching the fight. Compared to Klitschko, Haye is a diminutive rival with a jab that will offer no threat. There is only one way he can win and that is to approach the fight with the exuberance and hunger of a young Tyson. He needs to exercise his speed with great effect, weave to and fro, utilise his power. His focus should be on exerting shock and awe to the big Ukrainian and the title will be his - this (IMHO) is Hayes only chance.

I can't believe so many people actually think Haye has a chance. Haye has beat nobody at Heavyweight. He has been rocked by Barrett, JMM and Maccrenelli and beaten up by Thompson.

I suspect that the 1st time Haye eats Klitscho's jab he'll realise he's in way over his head and go down like a sack of potato's.

Haye has never been in with as good a boxer as Klitscho or anyone as big and powerful. I think he'll be in for a real shock and I fancy Klitshco to win with an early stoppage or possibly around the middle rounds after giving Haye a beating.

Haye has punchers chance due to his speed and power but unless he catches vlad cold then I can't see him lasting long.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bendirs/2011/06/haye-klitschko_predictions.html

Just saw this on the BBC seems only old Fish eyes and Tyson Fury are not thinking that David Haye is in with a decent chance. Interesting to see all the previous champs are saying David can do it.

Wladimir Klitschko to do the chicken dance and go down in rounds 7-8 for me, maybe that's me thinking with my Heart though.

Carl Froch - "I fancy David Haye"

Each to their own I guess but if I had a misses like old big nose does then Haye would be the last person on my list

BALTIMORA wrote:I know that Jeff, I just feel he's given a bit too much praise for a trait which is essentially genetic rather than learned. He's a big guy who uses his reach and his weight but doesn't do anything particularly better than a lot of smaller guys.

A boxer can only base his skills around his attributes... why are other boxers that are very big not dominating the division like WK is?

With size comes advantages but it also brings disadvantages, its a boxers job to make sure one is also higher than the other... Lenox Lewis used his size advantage in most his fights.. and if Tyson was lanky he would not have had the Bulldog type style he had... and so on..