Haye Signs With Matchroom

First topic message reminder :

Apologies if this has already been posted but Eddie Hearn has confirmed that David Haye has signed a 'long-term' promotional agreement with Matchroom and will face Manuel Charr in June.

This seems like a good move for both men. Haye gets the Sky platform and Matchroom get the heavyweight they were lacking.

Thoughts?

azania wrote:Tyson gets marked down because he had the potential to be the very best. All in all he had a very good reign with 9 defences which is better than many chumps ahead of him.

He was overrated, then criminally underrated.

Tyson was a great fighter for a short time.

What is a great champion.........That's the question surely..........

Been a champion for seven years straight .... plus a stint before....unified...made a lot of defences........

We acknowledge Calzaghe and Pedroza as great..........

Being the best for 4 years and a contender for another 4 isn't that short. He had more defences than most yet is rated below them.

Tyson and Dempsey are like chalk and cheese in the ATG ratings

Dempsey gets rated more for his legend than his actual record or acheivements for me.

Wlad is going to amass a record of such consistency, statistics and longetivity that I can see him featuring top 15 for many people.

Not saying it is right but boxers will frequently be downgraded to some extent if there is a perception that they could have achieved more than they actually did which is certainly the case with Tyson. As others have alluded to his reign or achievements are none too shabby and stand favourable comparison with many we consider greats but there is still the perception he under-achieved to some extent. As those of us of a certain age there was talk when he first burst onto the scene that he could go on to be the greatest heavyweight ever and we all know he fell someway short of that, no matter what some of his more enthusiastic cheerleaders will argue to the contrary.

Often compare Naz to Tyson. When one looks at Naz’ achievements dispassionately in comparison with other great Brits they are pretty decent, established himself as the pre-eminent featherweight for a good few years but in relation to his potential or what he looked capable of achieving he perhaps fell a bit short. Probably should not count against them but think it does to some extent.

That's an interesting piece Rowley...........and probably spot on..

Coming from another angle though one might say with analysis that a guy who was 5ft 10 and giving away inches and weight in a lot of cases might have over-achieved........

But I'm sure your view is more the accepted one ....

I'll also venture that Tyson's personality doesn't help his status in the alltime ranks as well.........

Dempsey was the matinee idol...

I can't see how Wlad isn't in a top 15. I see him around 13/14 personally. He's fought everyone except his brother, when was the last time we thought "Wlad really should be facing X but won't"? - He's fought everyone thats been deserving and some stiffs along the way. He's been undefeated for 8 years, unified belts, looked invincible - put on a career best against our own hope in David Haye - I really don't see what else he can do apart from fight twice on one night.

I don't like Wlads fighting style. He bores me, but its effective. You can't tell me any heavyweight in history doesn't struggle with him. I'm not saying he'd beat them, far from it, but if we're talking about ATG's, he can't rank below people he'd see off quite easily like Holyfield.

My 10 - 15 reads

10. Gene Tunney
11. Jack Dempsey
12. Riddick Bowe
13. Sonny Liston
14. Wladimir Klitschko
15. Evander Holyfield

You have Tunney above Dempsey ???

azania wrote:Tyson gets marked down because he had the potential to be the very best. All in all he had a very good reign with 9 defences which is better than many chumps ahead of him.

Agree to an extent Az, but he also gets marked down because;

1. Poor quality of opposition- with the possible exception of Tucker and Bruno, most of those he defended against were past their best, or not that good anyway.

2. Never showed the ability to comeback from adversity. no real plan B.

3. Lost his crown to a massive underdog in a one sided beating.

4. Never in a great fight ( not something I perscribe to personally, but it matters to some)

5. Lack of longevity- good no. of defences, but as alluded to earlier he really swept away the dying embers of the 80s and then missed the hot fighters of the 90's in Bowe , Lewis etc.

but that said with the exception of Ali, it's pretty easy to critise any of the top HWs careers, so I think you could make a case fior Tyson being anywhere up to 4 or 5

I do, the fact he beat Dempsey twice. I preferred his style, plus the fact he was impossible to stop.

Douglas - Tyson wasn't one sided beating...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Douglas - Tyson wasn't one sided beating...

I agree, although it is portrayed as such because the invincible-ness was exposed as a myth.

horizontalhero wrote:

azania wrote:Tyson gets marked down because he had the potential to be the very best. All in all he had a very good reign with 9 defences which is better than many chumps ahead of him.

Agree to an extent Az, but he also gets marked down because;

1. Poor quality of opposition- with the possible exception of Tucker and Bruno, most of those he defended against were past their best, or not that good anyway.

2. Never showed the ability to comeback from adversity. no real plan B.

3. Lost his crown to a massive underdog in a one sided beating.

4. Never in a great fight ( not something I perscribe to personally, but it matters to some)

5. Lack of longevity- good no. of defences, but as alluded to earlier he really swept away the dying embers of the 80s and then missed the hot fighters of the 90's in Bowe , Lewis etc.

but that said with the exception of Ali, it's pretty easy to critise any of the top HWs careers, so I think you could make a case fior Tyson being anywhere up to 4 or 5

1. The likes of Tucker and Tubbs, for all of their faults, knew far more than the plodders we have at heavyweight today.

2. Tyson came back against Douglas and came within a smidge of knocking him out.

3. It wasn't one-sided. Douglas had to fight like the devil to win that one.

4. The Ruddock rematch was a good fight. The Douglas fight was great.

5. He came out of prison an already faded fighter and scared the crap out of a division that had rolled along in the doldrums. Bowe. Lewis and Holyfield couldn't sort out who was top dog all the time he was gone.

hazharrison wrote:Bowe. Lewis and Holyfield couldn't sort out who was top dog all the time he was gone.

I agree with everything except this, Lewis fought and beat Holyfield twice (yes one was classed as a draw but it was contentious) - and Bowe refused to fight him. Lewis was the top dog.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Douglas - Tyson wasn't one sided beating...

I agree, although it is portrayed as such because the invincible-ness was exposed as a myth.

It was pretty close. Just rewatched it a couple of weeks back, was a v impressive performance from Douglas. Took an underprepared Tyson to town.

Tyson was basically doing what he started doing a few fights earlier with Tubbs and Bruno - looking for one punch, the issue he faced was that Douglas knew and made sure he couldn't get it.

Did you watch round 8??

Klitschko hasn't ever shown himself to be great. When hurt he has usually folded (or flopped about on the canvas while Sam Peter trundled after him). Faced with overmatched opposition, he has jabbed, grabbed and fiddled his way past them. Great heavyweights from history would have used them to make a statement.

His signature fight was a drab game of tag with David Haye -- a blown up cruiserweight who hasn't achieved anything of note at heavyweight.

How anyone can imagine that he belongs above Holyfield is beyond me. Despite the HGH rumours (which make me ponder Holyfield's placing full stop), Holyfield beat Foreman, Bowe, Tyson, Holmes and Moorer. He pushed Lewis close and has a highlight reel of amazing "did you see that" moments.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Did you watch round 8??

Yep, Douglas in trouble. I also watched the other 9 rounds.

I think without the Klits about..Haye cleans up..

I think you're being harsh on Haye...

I remember having the mispleasure of watching Holmes - Ocasio.....Holmes-Cobb.......Holmes-Zanon..............

I can assure you not every Great heavy has made a statement on a guy he should have!!

But Wlad is limited you're right but he gets the job done..

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Bowe. Lewis and Holyfield couldn't sort out who was top dog all the time he was gone.

I agree with everything except this, Lewis fought and beat Holyfield twice (yes one was classed as a draw but it was contentious) - and Bowe refused to fight him. Lewis was the top dog.

Not by the time Tyson came out of prison. Holyfield lost to Bowe, who lost to Holyfield, who lost to Moorer, who lost to Foreman. All the while, Lewis languished on the margins -- struggling with the likes of Bruno, Tucker and Jackson -- and when he finally got his chance to come in from them against Bowe, he got himself knocked out by a journeyman.

Don King must have been into voodoo. In amidst all of that garbage, he managed to gather up all of the alphabet titles in time for Tyson's release date.

hazharrison wrote:Klitschko hasn't ever shown himself to be great. When hurt he has usually folded (or flopped about on the canvas while Sam Peter trundled after him). Faced with overmatched opposition, he has jabbed, grabbed and fiddled his way past them. Great heavyweights from history would have used them to make a statement.

His signature fight was a drab game of tag with David Haye -- a blown up cruiserweight who hasn't achieved anything of note at heavyweight.

How anyone can imagine that he belongs above Holyfield is beyond me. Despite the HGH rumours (which make me ponder Holyfield's placing full stop), Holyfield beat Foreman, Bowe, Tyson, Holmes and Moorer. He pushed Lewis close and has a highlight reel of amazing "did you see that" moments.

Sorry but I just can't agree. Overmatched? Wlad has never been over matched. Corrie Sanders beat him fair and square, but history tells us a different picture of Corrie Sanders career as opposed to Wlads. How can you dominate a division for 8 years and not be a great? You're dissecting the career of heavyweight ATG still on the top of his game. Holyfield may be an ATG cruiser, but he boxed too long and his "prime" is filled with losses to Lewis and Bowe, the two other big names at the time. He was never the man in his division, and when he had an argument to be, Lewis came along and toppled him. Wlad hasn't had that for 8 years and this is his prime. Wlad will probably fall a few places if he loses - but you can't name me another modern heavyweight with 60 wins and an 8 year dominating streak. Eddie Chambers, Sam Peter, Chagaev, Haye, Byrd - all decent wins.

Not his fault he has a boring style in a weak era. Still a great I'm afraid.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I think without the Klits about..Haye cleans up..

I think you're being harsh on Haye...

I remember having the mispleasure of watching Holmes - Ocasio.....Holmes-Cobb.......Holmes-Zanon..............

I can assure you not every Great heavy has made a statement on a guy he should have!!

But Wlad is limited you're right but he gets the job done..

I'm not knocking Haye but he hasn't done a thing at heavyweight as yet. Spinks, for example, had defeated Larry Holmes and Gerry Cooney (can't believe I'm highlighting Cooney) before facing Tyson.

Much to agree with in your post JM............but Sam Peter, Chambers decent wins??

Haz is right about Tubbs, Tucker et al..They were well schooled fighters...better than the slobs of today..........

They were celebrated as being prospects though, each with good records. Better than the current crop, sort of the start of the end as it were. I can't say that they were better than Tubbs, Tucker etc - but consider the sum of the parts.

Haye is the best heavyweight out there at the moment, and thats saying something because as Haz says, he's not done much at heavyweight, but what he has done outstrips any of the current crop besides the K bros.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Klitschko hasn't ever shown himself to be great. When hurt he has usually folded (or flopped about on the canvas while Sam Peter trundled after him). Faced with overmatched opposition, he has jabbed, grabbed and fiddled his way past them. Great heavyweights from history would have used them to make a statement.

His signature fight was a drab game of tag with David Haye -- a blown up cruiserweight who hasn't achieved anything of note at heavyweight.

How anyone can imagine that he belongs above Holyfield is beyond me. Despite the HGH rumours (which make me ponder Holyfield's placing full stop), Holyfield beat Foreman, Bowe, Tyson, Holmes and Moorer. He pushed Lewis close and has a highlight reel of amazing "did you see that" moments.

Sorry but I just can't agree. Overmatched? Wlad has never been over matched. Corrie Sanders beat him fair and square, but history tells us a different picture of Corrie Sanders career as opposed to Wlads. How can you dominate a division for 8 years and not be a great? You're dissecting the career of heavyweight ATG still on the top of his game. Holyfield may be an ATG cruiser, but he boxed too long and his "prime" is filled with losses to Lewis and Bowe, the two other big names at the time. He was never the man in his division, and when he had an argument to be, Lewis came along and toppled him. Wlad hasn't had that for 8 years and this is his prime. Wlad will probably fall a few places if he loses - but you can't name me another modern heavyweight with 60 wins and an 8 year dominating streak. Eddie Chambers, Sam Peter, Chagaev, Haye, Byrd - all decent wins.

Not his fault he has a boring style in a weak era. Still a great I'm afraid.

I agree on the over matched bit.

I'm not sure where the 8 year thing comes from. Ring Magazine declared him the top man in 2009 after topping Chagaev but even that was a stretch with Vitali around. Look at the opposition he's faced, who couldn't dominate that lot?

Holyfield was "the man" at heavyweight between 1990-92 and 1993-94 while his reign from 96-99 is a little more tenuous. You're attempting to denigrate Holyfield for facing tough competition. Do you really imagine Wladimir would have survived the '99 version of Lewis, or the three versions of Riddick Bowe he went in with?

Wlad isn't regarded as a great heavyweight by any respected source that I've seen -- and rightly so.

Theres no way of knowing how Wlads effective style would measure up against other greats really. I think he should be judged on what he achieved in his own era first and foremost. He hasn’t enthralled, but he seldom loses rounds and knocks out most of his opponents. He has impressive consistency and longetivity and a long list of defences. Efficiency without excitement doesn’t tend to lend itself well to greatness, at least initially. Larry Holmes suffered for the same reason in the beginning. Other heavyweights, like Johnson, don’t seem to get an overly hard time for numerous lacklustre fights, some bordering on fixes and a generally poor title reign which avoided many of the top challengers. He still gets comfortably placed top ten. But I suspect if he reigned in a television time he would have been known as a ducker and for stinking places out. His greatest appeal was that people wanted to see him lose.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:They were celebrated as being prospects though, each with good records. Better than the current crop, sort of the start of the end as it were. I can't say that they were better than Tubbs, Tucker etc - but consider the sum of the parts.

Haye is the best heavyweight out there at the moment, and thats saying something because as Haz says, he's not done much at heavyweight, but what he has done outstrips any of the current crop besides the K bros.

Good records? Numerically perhaps but have a look at them. Full of rubbish largely.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:They were celebrated as being prospects though, each with good records. Better than the current crop, sort of the start of the end as it were. I can't say that they were better than Tubbs, Tucker etc - but consider the sum of the parts.

Haye is the best heavyweight out there at the moment, and thats saying something because as Haz says, he's not done much at heavyweight, but what he has done outstrips any of the current crop besides the K bros.

I just cant agree with that.

With the exception of Valuev, what has he achieved at heavy?

Barrett - guff
Harrison - guff
Chisora - proven to be a euro level fighter
Ruiz - hardly stellar
Charr - Who?
Wlad - ran away from him all night

His best win was against either Valuev who he put on a borefest with and only narrowly won, or Chisora who had already lost 3 in a row before booting up to face Haye.

I am not knocking Haye as a fighter (I dont like him though) but he hasnt done anything worthy to be considered the number 3 out there.

Tubbs beat Greg Page and BonecrusherSmith..........and copped a rough decision against Bowe ..............

Had a wonderful amateur career.............

Shouldn't denigrade him............Watch his jab and fast hands.......

Don't be ignorant...

manos de piedra wrote:Theres no way of knowing how Wlads effective style would measure up against other greats really. I think he should be judged on what he achieved in his own era first and foremost. He hasn’t enthralled, but he seldom loses rounds and knocks out most of his opponents. He has impressive consistency and longetivity and a long list of defences. Efficiency without excitement doesn’t tend to lend itself well to greatness, at least initially. Larry Holmes suffered for the same reason in the beginning. Other heavyweights, like Johnson, don’t seem to get an overly hard time for numerous lacklustre fights, some bordering on fixes and a generally poor title reign which avoided many of the top challengers. He still gets comfortably placed top ten. But I suspect if he reigned in a television time he would have been known as a ducker and for stinking places out. His greatest appeal was that people wanted to see him lose.

I think it's safe to say that if they had chinned him he'd have gone. And great heavyweights have a tremendous knack for chinning other heavyweights.

Holmes may have fought poor opposition at times but look at how he recovered against Shavers and Snipes -- how he warred with Norton to eke out a win in the 15th round. Wladimir hasn't shown that sort of resolve or tenacity. He's just bullied a load of rubbish in the main.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tubbs beat Greg Page and BonecrusherSmith..........and copped a rough decision against Bowe ..............

Had a wonderful amateur career.............

Shouldn't denigrade him............Watch his jab and fast hands.......

Don't be ignorant...

Who? I meant Wlad's opposition.

Wasn't aimed at you..

hazharrison wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Theres no way of knowing how Wlads effective style would measure up against other greats really. I think he should be judged on what he achieved in his own era first and foremost. He hasn’t enthralled, but he seldom loses rounds and knocks out most of his opponents. He has impressive consistency and longetivity and a long list of defences. Efficiency without excitement doesn’t tend to lend itself well to greatness, at least initially. Larry Holmes suffered for the same reason in the beginning. Other heavyweights, like Johnson, don’t seem to get an overly hard time for numerous lacklustre fights, some bordering on fixes and a generally poor title reign which avoided many of the top challengers. He still gets comfortably placed top ten. But I suspect if he reigned in a television time he would have been known as a ducker and for stinking places out. His greatest appeal was that people wanted to see him lose.

I think it's safe to say that if they had chinned him he'd have gone. And great heavyweights have a tremendous knack for chinning other heavyweights.

Holmes may have fought poor opposition at times but look at how he recovered against Shavers and Snipes -- how he warred with Norton to eke out a win in the 15th round. Wladimir hasn't shown that sort of resolve or tenacity. He's just bullied a load of rubbish in the main.

I think hes shown plenty of resove in rebuilding his career. When hes been knocked down, hes got back up. I wouldnt have him anywhere close to Holmes on my list but Hes been on top for close to decade and its not his fault there arent better fights out there for him. I also think hes quite skilled and effective at what he does. Im not sold that every other great barrels right through him. Id give him a good shot of beating some of the fighters that tend to rank above him. I also dont think alot of the other heavyweight eras were all that strong either so he isnt alone in that regard.

He's been regarded as the number one at heavyweight for about 5 years.

He's an excellent technician but a dire performer. Vitali's presence muddies the waters, also.

Id say hes been regarded as the number 1 for closer to ten years, although its probably only since the Haye fight that hes put some clear distance between himself and Vitali.Before then he was rated 1 but many would have still picked Vitali as better.

I dont think hes a dire performer, hes just not exciting. And hes through a combination of nature and design he isnt a finisher.

There are arguments that can be made against him. But the same goes for many of the heavyweights that rank above. I dont think he deserves to be as far behind some of the nailed on greats as might first appear. But it depends heavily on what balance of criteria people use to rank.

The problem with deciding whether he is #1 and for how long, is that his big brother has always been a big cloud over the choice. Because, for much of those 10 yrs, most people would back Vit to win. Iron chinned and fearless and unable to be pushed around, he has the power to seriously trouble little bro and, as good as Wlad's footwork and movement is for such a big guy, he won't be able to avoid Vit all night like a small fleet-footed opponent like Haye would.

Therefore I'd join the Ring in only having him #1 since 2009ish.

As Manos has alluded to many of the raps or black marks against Wlad can be readily applied to other greats who do not have it held against them and the same is true of the factor that Vitali is around. Could reasonably argued Dempsey’s claim to be number one could be questioned for as long as Wills was on the scene and not dealt with. Similar things could have been said of Fitz and Corbett for as long as Jackson wasn’t dealt with.

Obviously the colour line is a little more complex an issue than all that and muddies the waters and calls into question how much this should count against them but let’s be honest it is no more or less a valid reason than not wanting to punch your brother in the face.

Reading the last 20 odd posts in this thread the question on my mind is:

Is this the worst heavyweight era in history?


If it is its champions will be marked down by posterity.

I think Marcianos is probably the worst era, but for some faded names giving it credence, it was probably quite a bit worse than this one

Marciano beat Ali in the computer fight.

The dynamics of the division have changed so much I think it makes it hard to equate what the worst era. The average size is large now compared to many past era's. The likes of Haye, Cunningham, Adamek etc are considered "small". In most other eras they would be large. It has the effect of making jumps from light heavyweight extremelly rare or successful where is if you went back to the pre war period the line between heavyweight and light heavyweight wasnt all that big. I find it difficult to imagine many of the small challengers of past era's being able to challenge the top superheavyweights. The likes of Fitzsimmons, Conn, Carpentier, Gibbons etc count as credible wins for other heavyweights but I dont really think they would under modern conditions.

The Louis bum of the month period, the Johnson reign, the Jeffries era and the Dempsey era, The Patterson era are also fairly weak.

I actually dont think the Marciano period is as bad as the above ones. Marcianos reign is better than Johnsons, Jeffries or Dempseys for me.

RJJ knocked out george foreman in fight night round 4.

manos de piedra wrote:The dynamics of the division have changed so much I think it makes it hard to equate what the worst era. The average size is large now compared to many past era's. The likes of Haye, Cunningham, Adamek etc are considered "small". In most other eras they would be large. It has the effect of making jumps from light heavyweight extremelly rare or successful where is if you went back to the pre war period the line between heavyweight and light heavyweight wasnt all that big. I find it difficult to imagine many of the small challengers of past era's being able to challenge the top superheavyweights. The likes of Fitzsimmons, Conn, Carpentier, Gibbons etc count as credible wins for other heavyweights but I dont really think they would under modern conditions.

The Louis bum of the month period, the Johnson reign, the Jeffries era and the Dempsey era, The Patterson era are also fairly weak.

I actually dont think the Marciano period is as bad as the above ones. Marcianos reign is better than Johnsons, Jeffries or Dempseys for me.

I think Johnson's name is built on who he beat before becoming champ as much as for what he did in his reign, Johnson has wins against greats on his record which Wlad doesn't. Jerreries beat some great names in Fitz, Corbett and then throw in Sharkey, Choynski and Ruhlin especially the epic fights with Sharkey and I don't see the turn of the century as being as weak a period as the current one. Dempsey was a phenomenon who transcends paper records, some see it some don't.

Wlad's defeats stand against him and then the lack of opposition. I don't think he would have faired too well against Lewis or Bowe and some of the big men from the 80's.

And do you think Johnson would have faired well against Lewis, Bowe or Tyson?

If he was on the same gear some of them were on why not.

I think Wlad handily beats the Jeffries, Corbetts, Fitzsimmons Sharkeys etc but outside of Jeffries, they would all be so small he would get no credit for it. Jeffries was a big man around where most of his rivals would probably be able to make modern smw and lh divisions but he still struggled at times with them and seemed to rely on his size and durablity to outlast or break them more than anything else. I think Wlad would be more skilled and with his enormous size advantage be able to easily beat them. Im not sure Fitzsimmons, Sharkey or Corbett would be big enough to compete in the modern heavyweight division.

Johnson faced his black counterparts when they were relative novices and by his own admission avoided them when he become champion (and they were much more credible opponents. There is a huge amount of criticism that could be levelled at his reign, but it doesnt seem to affect his standing which I partially suspect is down to the historical nature and circumstances of the era, much like Corbetts "pioneering" merit seems to outweight his actual record over any of his rivals and his title reign.

Different standards are applied to modern heavyweights, and the division has changed substantially. Lewis and Bowe (in shape) probably beat Wlad but then I think they would (and did) beat many of the guys that tend to place above Wlad.

Its because of these differances I tend to judge a heavyweight largely what he accomplished in his own era first and foremost rather than what might have been had they existed in one of the handful of golden eras in the divisions history.

Tyson is sooo hard to compare with anyone at the time he unified but he also done it like no other he was amazing and feird by everyone but he was mentally unstable and destroyed what could've been a great legacy I think he is underated by many and overated by few! Bit like Lewis who is over rated by more

Strongback wrote:If he was on the same gear some of them were on why not.