Haye reapplies for British licence.

First topic message reminder :

Subject to medical checks the board are expected to accept his application, but could this mean a deal with Vitali is close?

Haye has constantly said he would only fight Vitali or retire, and mentioned they've been in talks for a while during his gyms open day. Haye vs Vitali this summer anyone?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:But he was still faster than the Klits.. watch the fight....

He also came off a lay off later to take Holy 12 and beat Ray Mercer easier than Lewis in his prime....

he fought holy 4 months after mercier.

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:

calling people a jerk is an indication of anger/frustration.

Just stating a fact.

Do you remember a thread about slave contracts where you had no evidence whatsoever yet you were making up facts. Now you know how it feels to argue with someone who makes things up.

Show me the evidence that Tyson deliberately went out into the 3rd round to get himself DQ'd. That is your opinion and not fact. But I see ou have admitted to making things up. Wrt to the slave contract, I was giving an opinion based on evidence. You offer nothing of the sort.

your evidence was hearsay eg David Haye said so hahahahahah

And you have no evidence other than opinions made due to the boxer you like.

You're all over Boxrec tonight Victor, would be advisable to watch the fights it catalogues on their instead.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He beat a guy called Gerry Cooney, never heard of him before so Spinks must be rubbish.

You say wlad is overrated because he fights bums and yet you say spinks is a great fighter even though he only has 1 name on his record.

make your mind up.

Anyway wlad and tysons victories are equal glad we all agree.

Well beating Mercer after a layoff is even better...

Take Ghosty's advice......We've seen these guys..

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:

calling people a jerk is an indication of anger/frustration.

Just stating a fact.

Do you remember a thread about slave contracts where you had no evidence whatsoever yet you were making up facts. Now you know how it feels to argue with someone who makes things up.

Show me the evidence that Tyson deliberately went out into the 3rd round to get himself DQ'd. That is your opinion and not fact. But I see ou have admitted to making things up. Wrt to the slave contract, I was giving an opinion based on evidence. You offer nothing of the sort.

your evidence was hearsay eg David Haye said so hahahahahah

And you have no evidence other than opinions made due to the boxer you like.

Well done that post should be nominated for reply of the week. Have a pat on the back from me for such a great reply.

victorgarco wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He beat a guy called Gerry Cooney, never heard of him before so Spinks must be rubbish.

You say wlad is overrated because he fights bums and yet you say spinks is a great fighter even though he only has 1 name on his record.

make your mind up.

Anyway wlad and tysons victories are equal glad we all agree.

Spinks was one of the greatest LHW who ever lived. Extremely awkward fighter.

May I ask Victor, are you really questioning the greatness of Michael Spinks?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Well beating Mercer after a layoff is even better...

Take Ghosty's advice......We've seen these guys..

There was no layoff.

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:

calling people a jerk is an indication of anger/frustration.

Just stating a fact.

Do you remember a thread about slave contracts where you had no evidence whatsoever yet you were making up facts. Now you know how it feels to argue with someone who makes things up.

Show me the evidence that Tyson deliberately went out into the 3rd round to get himself DQ'd. That is your opinion and not fact. But I see ou have admitted to making things up. Wrt to the slave contract, I was giving an opinion based on evidence. You offer nothing of the sort.

your evidence was hearsay eg David Haye said so hahahahahah

And you have no evidence other than opinions made due to the boxer you like.

Well done that post should be nominated for reply of the week. Have a pat on the back from me for such a great reply.

Give it a rest son.

He was 42 wasn't he??? and beat a guy easily that Lewis struggled with...

Lewis that 38 year old that beat prime Vitali..

Stop wumming.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He was 42 wasn't he??? and beat a guy easily that Lewis struggled with...

Lewis that 38 year old that beat prime Vitali..

Stop wumming.....

Why was vitali prime?

And why are you turning this into a vitali v lewis debate?

I think it has something to do with your fixation with age and numbers, i've yet to see you qualify an opinion with anything other than that.

Because you might have watched a Lewis fight!!

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I think it has something to do with your fixation with age and numbers, i've yet to see you qualify an opinion with anything other than that.

Vitali entered his prime after Lewis. I think the Lewis fight gave him that attention and recognition that he needed and also the self belief to become no1. it is a shame that vitali got an injury that made him retire in 04 because his prime would have been from 04-10 in my view.

Convenient that his prime was slap bang in the middle of his retirement especially as he would have been an ancient 35-39 year old. What are you basing this opinion on because I have not seen a marked improvement in Vitali since that Lewis loss.

Could you also answer my previous question regarding Michael Spinks.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Convenient that his prime was slap bang in the middle of his retirement especially as he would have been an ancient 35-39 year old. What are you basing this opinion on because I have not seen a marked improvement in Vitali since that Lewis loss.

Could you also answer my previous question regarding Michael Spinks.

Age alone does not show prime. Holmes was 38 had not fought for 2 years and had come off 2 losses. he had also said that money was his only motive in fighting Tyson.

can you re ask the question regarding spinks

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Convenient that his prime was slap bang in the middle of his retirement especially as he would have been an ancient 35-39 year old. What are you basing this opinion on because I have not seen a marked improvement in Vitali since that Lewis loss.

I haven't seen ANY improvement.

You've not answered my question at all Victor, why was Vitali not in his prime when he faced Lewis?

Also are you honestly trying to question the greatness of Michael Spinks in comparison to Wlad?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You've not answered my question at all Victor, why was Vitali not in his prime when he faced Lewis?

Also are you honestly trying to question the greatness of Michael Spinks in comparison to Wlad?

tell me some great fighters spinks has beat apart from holmes?

Marvin pops Johnson and Dwight Qawi............were excellent wins..

Both top fighters..

Is your knowledge that bad you genuinely couldn't pick out the names by doing your favourite thing and looking on Boxrec?

I doubt you've heard of any of this but here goes; Lopez, Johnson, Qawi, Mustafa and Davis. Spinks is universally considered to be among the 5 greatest light heavyweights of all time sometimes even as high as number 2 but 5 at the worst.

Victor you're over your head here son. You're starting to sound like Gordy.

Number 3 at 175 for me....

Eddie mustafa muhammad......should have had a rematch but came in five pounds over weight and wanted a non-title fight..with the weight advantage..

Why are you mentioning people he fought at a weight other than HW? makes no sense at all.

okay then he was garbage.....just like all the rest of them apart from the Klits.....

Ali..Louis all garbage and overrated too..

It makes all the sense in the world, he was a great light heavyweight who dethroned a great heavyweight, his greatness isn't defined by being heavyweight champion.

Suppose the names i've mentioned are alien to you any way.

Yes it does. Take Pac for example. For me his greatest wins are over MAB and Erik. His wins at a higher weight are an add on.

makes no sense at all. I won't look at toney's record at middle weight and say he was a great HW fighter because look who he beat when he weighed 50kgs less will I.

David Haye unified the CW but I will not look at that record when discussing how good he is at HW.

"Makes no sense"

the irony...

Just by beating a great heavyweight he showed how good he was at the weight, don't be fooled by the Tyson fight he could have given many heavyweights real trouble. If you wish to ignore the bulk of his career then that's your choice but he was the first man to do what he did.

Oh dear!

The Spinks fight shows the "Intimidatory presence" Of Tyson I referred to..

And his freakish speed/punch power combination.

Exactly...Can't think of many quicker in the last 35 years!!

To put it into context Victor.

Archie Moore tried and failed
Billy Conn tried and failed
Bob Foster tried and failed
John Henry Lewis tried and failed
Georges Carpentier tried and failed

There has only ever been one undisputed light heavweight champion who has gone on to beat the best heavyweight in the world and that is Michael Spinks.

Spinks was nothing special at hw.

Are you saying Tyson's victories are better than Wlad's based on a fight against 1 man who had 4 fights at hw?

victorgarco wrote:Spinks was nothing special at hw.

Are you saying Tyson's victories are better than Wlad's based on a fight against 1 man who had 4 fights at hw?

Your expert reasoning has made me change my mind..

1. Wlad
2. Vitali
3. Ali
4. Louis
5. Johnson....................

So wait Larry Holmes lost to someone twice that wasn't that special?

The only reason Spinks could compete against Holmes let alone beat him was because he was that damn special.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So wait Larry Holmes lost to someone twice that wasn't that special?

The only reason Spinks could compete against Holmes let alone beat him was because he was that damn special.

Yes he gets credit for beating Holmes. But he ducked tucker and was stripped of a belt for it.


The debate was wlad v tyson's victories. is the only victory youc an name that is better spinks? purely and solely on the fact he beat holmes

We've been over this already, I came up with 6/7 wins of Tysons that I considered better than any of Wlads. So you call Haye a great win based on him beating 3 useless fighters beforehand but refuse to do the same for Spinks despite him being a far far better boxer.

victorgarco wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So wait Larry Holmes lost to someone twice that wasn't that special?

The only reason Spinks could compete against Holmes let alone beat him was because he was that damn special.

Yes he gets credit for beating Holmes. But he ducked tucker and was stripped of a belt for it.


The debate was wlad v tyson's victories. is the only victory youc an name that is better spinks? purely and solely on the fact he beat holmes

You're doing the same nonsense again. You have been given numerous names who are considered better than any of Wlad victims. Then you focus on one and claim we are only talking about one boxer.

Deja vu.

Can I ask how old you are?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:We've been over this already, I came up with 6/7 wins of Tysons that I considered better than any of Wlads. So you call Haye a great win based on him beating 3 useless fighters beforehand but refuse to do the same for Spinks despite him being a far far better boxer.

You mentioned Holmes who as stated was retired for 2 years, had come off 2 losses and stated he only fought for the money. You mentioned birbeck which someone else replied t. And you mentioned about 2 more names which people replied to.

Tysons victories are the same rating as wlad's see earlier in the thread as to why.

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So wait Larry Holmes lost to someone twice that wasn't that special?

The only reason Spinks could compete against Holmes let alone beat him was because he was that damn special.

Yes he gets credit for beating Holmes. But he ducked tucker and was stripped of a belt for it.


The debate was wlad v tyson's victories. is the only victory youc an name that is better spinks? purely and solely on the fact he beat holmes

You're doing the same nonsense again. You have been given numerous names who are considered better than any of Wlad victims. Then you focus on one and claim we are only talking about one boxer.

Deja vu.

Can I ask how old you are?

Az you are not part of this debate. I already told you to turn your computer off and have a cup of tea. You can post what you want but you wont get a reply from me on this thread until you learn some manners.

Not as far as i'm concerned, you can come up with as many excuses as you want but I rate Tysons opposition far higher, read earlier in the thread as to why. Do you suffer from neurological problem that results in you thinking you could possibly change my mind, that's YOU, a guy who (not bigging myself up as my knowledge pales in comparison to others) knows far less than I do.

Funny lad victor. A piece of advice. Try debating with the others with some integrity and honesty. And keep the goal posts set.

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So wait Larry Holmes lost to someone twice that wasn't that special?

The only reason Spinks could compete against Holmes let alone beat him was because he was that damn special.

Yes he gets credit for beating Holmes. But he ducked tucker and was stripped of a belt for it.


The debate was wlad v tyson's victories. is the only victory youc an name that is better spinks? purely and solely on the fact he beat holmes

You're doing the same nonsense again. You have been given numerous names who are considered better than any of Wlad victims. Then you focus on one and claim we are only talking about one boxer.

Deja vu.

Can I ask how old you are?

Az you are not part of this debate. I already told you to turn your computer off and have a cup of tea. You can post what you want but you wont get a reply from me on this thread until you learn some manners.

I'm confused, wasn't that a reply?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not as far as i'm concerned, you can come up with as many excuses as you want but I rate Tysons opposition far higher, read earlier in the thread as to why. Do you suffer from neurological problem that results in you thinking you could possibly change my mind, that's YOU, a guy who (not bigging myself up as my knowledge pales in comparison to others) knows far less than I do.

I don't care about trying to change your mind. You listed a few boxers who tyson beat and that was it. You said birbick and bruno are better than anything wlad fought which is nonsense.

If you have to tell others you know more than them on any given subject it usually means you doubt yourself and probably you have less knowledge than them.

"Try debating with honesty and Integrity"

Wise words from AZ..