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?

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.

He got Knocked down 3 times by Samuel Peters in their first fight yet got back up of the floor 3 times to win the fight.

manos de piedra wrote: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.

If taking eras separately and judging dominance and winning record as a yard stick it must be said that Wlad is in an era were he has never had to face a great fighter. Jeffries has fought and beaten greats as has Johnson. For this reason and the losses in his prime to journeymen he had no business losing to Wlad will always be marked down. I personally think Vitali was a better fighter but Wlad was the chosen one in the family and was promoted as such.

Strongback wrote:

manos de piedra wrote: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.

If taking eras separately and judging dominance and winning record as a yard stick it must be said that Wlad is in an era were he has never had to face a great fighter. Jeffries has fought and beaten greats as has Johnson. For this reason and the losses in his prime to journeymen he had no business losing to Wlad will always be marked down. I personally think Vitali was a better fighter but Wlad was the chosen one in the family and was promoted as such.

I wouldn’t particular dispute Jeffries ranking above Wlad, but I don’t think he beat any great “heavyweights” either as would be recognised today. One can criticise Wlad for lack of opposition, but Jeffries opposition amounted mainly to guys who were not even cruiserweights by current standards. Would Wlad get any credit for beating a Hopkins or Jones if they weighed in at 175lbs or less? Having said that, Jeffries accomplishments in his own era should be judged on its merit and he cant really be faulted in that respect. However its often levelled at Wlad that he wouldn’t be champion in another era, his competition was weak, he only wins because he is big etc. I think the same can be levelled at Jeffries, the difference being that it doesn’t seem to affect his standing to the same extent. I find there is much more willingness to take Jeffries as he was in his own era, yet when it comes to Wlad I find the argument that if he were around in 1970s or 1980s he would just be an also ran is much more readily put forward. I think Jeffries is far more likely to be an also ran in the 1970s and 1980s than Wlad would be.

If I've been reading properly its been the same argument levelled at Wlad "take away his size" etc etc

No, because thats his attribute he uses to his advantage. Take away Ali's speed. Take away Foremans power, take away Holmes/Lewis' jab.

We can't just pick and choose what attributes make a fighter great, take them away and call them ordinary - thats just bull because you want to bash them.

Lets look at some facts behind Wlad/Haye and their standing - lets see you refute them.

You use Wlads opposition as a stick, well to be fair, who else could he have faced? His biggest challenge of the last 8 years while he's been dominant, came in the face of David Haye. He took the fight, and won. Haye was made to look slow in my eyes. Haye gets beaten for that performance, but it was an absolute masterclass from Wlad. We all say "oh Floyd is a nailed on top 10 ATG because he doesn't get hit" - we don't apply this logic to Wlad do we? He knows he has a glass chin, look at the fact he's been knocked down and gotten up. He's been knocked out by a journeyman and come back stronger. These are the qualities we say show championship qualities. He has effectively cleaned out the division besides his brother, who in my eyes is a different type of boxer. Wlad is boring, I can't hide from that fact, he makes me sleepy - but he is effective, he uses his size to his advantage in a way no other heavyweight does.

Look at the other heavyweights his size. Skelton gave Price fits initially and made him wary. You can't tell me Wlad would allow Skelton in his face. Fury has been floored by boxers far far below Corey Sanders (who had a ramrod of a left) Fury doesn't use his size to "bully" (honestly anyone who watches Fury box cannot ever claim he bullies anyone, ever - if you think he's a bully go and watch some Frazier/Norton)

Price has been exposed as having a weak constitution when getting hit - as was Wlad. Wlad came back against Samuel Peter (I'd say a much better boxer than Tony Thompson) and won. Did Price do that? So why are we assuming that someone who has held most of the titles for the last 8 years would get knocked out or lose against someone like that? I like Price, but christ - putting him in with Wlad now will just destroy any confidence he will need to build upon.

Fury is a joke, he's been calling out Cain Velasquez, David Haye - jeez anyone who has a pulse....thing is when faced with the prospect of actually fighting them, who does he choose? A cruiserweight. And he got put down. He's never been with anyone Wlads size or quality - so why are we (winchester) saying he'd get beaten by this kind of boxer?

We saw Haye vs Wlad, and toe aside he performed well below expectations...why? Because Wlad was supreme that night. It was boring but Wlad was superb. Every attack Haye launched, one backward step and he was out of range, making the smaller man lunge, meaning to get back into position Haye had to change his feet and Wlad would march forward and put the jab in his face. Its simple, effective and won him almost every round.

Winchester, calling any boxers "wimpy" is tantamount to insulting - if you fought Wlad, he would crush you to death with his "wimpy" style of boxing. Any boxer who steps between the ropes is worthy of respect, especially the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. I suggest you have a rethink about the way you address certain boxers mate, because you're going to make yourself look a bit silly with that kind of attitude.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

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.

He got Knocked down 3 times by Samuel Peters in their first fight yet got back up of the floor 3 times to win the fight.

Have you seen both fights? Almost blasphemous to compare Holmes' effort to Wlad's. Sam Peter. Dear me.

"Take away Ali's speed"

Didn't have any in the 70's and beat...Foreman, frazier, Norton, Quarry!!

But I'm being pedantic..

Problem with Wlad is we don't really know how good he is.........Yes he lost to Sanders years ago but he's never really fought a Sanders type since....

He is a great heavy for me as his longevity deems him worthy in relation to other greats........

However growing up watching the well schooled Witherspoon, Tubbs, Douglas.. Page etc I can see them giving him nightmares..

If they were motivated.

I suppose Truss, it depends greatly on the versions of those boxers we see in against Wlad though because Wlads greatest evolved asset over the years is he takes away what makes a fighter successful.

But the state of the opposition.. as in condition can be quite telling.........

Look at guys like Peter..........

I think Haye psyched himself out...........Thought and still do If he backed himself he could have took Wlad..

When you have been a champion for as long as Wlad...A Challenger see things that aren't there...Their mind is telling them he must be special to have reigned so long!!

Sub-consciously psyching themselves out of the fight..

Louis and Tyson had people beat too.......before the bell.

Tyson I agree with, not too sure about Lewis - I think very much it was the second they got hit or tried to hit him that they appreciated the magnitude of the challenge but with Tyson, it'd be very much the fact they were faced with the real life incarnation of the incredible hulk in their eyes.

Not too sure Haye psyched himself out, he's not the type to crap his pants I don't think - just think he was outclassed by a boxer who knew how to deal with him.

Louis..

Think to be honest with this being a British forum we tended to overstate the threat Haye posed. Spoke to an American fan in the run up to the fight who is a well respected expert and historian to get a gauge of how Haye’s chances over the pond were rated and he said that very much the consensus view was that Haye was another fairly run of the mill defence for Wlad and that Haye stood little to no chance of turning him over.

Think we can all get taken in by how people look against sub-par opposition.

Remember a guy called Engels Pedroza 20-0 (20) in California in the 80's....He looked a million dollars and then got slapped off the first test he had.....

Rowley wrote:Think to be honest with this being a British forum we tended to overstate the threat Haye posed. Spoke to an American fan in the run up to the fight who is a well respected expert and historian to get a gauge of how Haye’s chances over the pond were rated and he said that very much the consensus view was that Haye was another fairly run of the mill defence for Wlad and that Haye stood little to no chance of turning him over.

Still think Haye had Wladimir rattled when he let go with a few in the final rounds. If he'd done that in the first 3 rounds Wlad wouldn't have got in to a comfort zone. Every pundit I heard, particularly Roach, said that he had to throw bombs from the get go and this was the only way he could win. Strange that both Haye and Booth thought he could outpoint Wlad.

The tactics were a little odd Sean, naïve in the extreme to think what worked against Valuev would enjoy similar success against Wlad because lets be honest in terms of ability they are not even in the same ball park. My own view was Haye tried to rattle Wlad in the run up to the fight in the hope Wlad would throw caution to the wind and walk onto a stupid shot and when he was too smart to do this there was not much in the way of a plan B.

One of Haye's first comments after the Wlad fight was 'I took some shots from his right hand without difficulty.' That to me said himself and Booth were very fearful of Wlad landing big once and ending the fight. Haye was almost surprised he was able to take some straight rights. I think if he had another opportunity to fight Wlad he would give it a go, he just showed no confidence in the first fight.

Of course Haye wouldn't win if he had a hundred goes at Wlad.

If Wlad did land with a really committed right hand, one of the most powerful punches in the history of boxing, few fighters could take it.

Or if Sanders let go a committed left..

No doubt Haye could have rattled Wlad if he got to his chin but he just wasn't/isn't good enough to do that.

Wlad does get a lot of stick for being knocked out three times. He has actually over turned one of those defeats in the ring and Corrie Sanderson didn't fight that much being beaten by big brother next time out. If Lewis gets credit for avenging defeats, so should Wlad to an obvious lesser extent.

bhb001 wrote:Wlad does get a lot of stick for being knocked out three times. He has actually over turned one of those defeats in the ring and Corrie Sanderson didn't fight that much being beaten by big brother next time out. If Lewis gets credit for avenging defeats, so should Wlad to an obvious lesser extent.

It doesn't count if your brother beats them up for you.

hazharrison wrote:

bhb001 wrote:Wlad does get a lot of stick for being knocked out three times. He has actually over turned one of those defeats in the ring and Corrie Sanderson didn't fight that much being beaten by big brother next time out. If Lewis gets credit for avenging defeats, so should Wlad to an obvious lesser extent.

It doesn't count if your brother beats them up for you.

Good response!!

Is the the same STRONGBACK giving a sane, reasoned and well balanced appraisal of Haye? My world has been shaken to it's very foundations.

Bruno didn't want to get "done in the first round" by Tyson in their first fight and that seemed to be his only concern...don't think Bruno thought he could win and considered not suffering a 1st round blow out as some kind of victory.

Likewise, Haye didn't want to get beaten in the early rounds after his pre-fight hype (understandable really, don't wanna end up like Hatton v Manny) so kept his distance. However, he then left himself with far too much to do and Wlad knew that Haye was going to struggle to claw back three rounds without a KD so stuck his jab out and maintained that distance.

I'd much prefer Haye to fight his way into contention for another crack at them and whilst I do believe he has the tools to beat both K Boys, he needs a better gameplan. If he loses, fair do's but I think he needs to do it knowing he gave it everything as opposed to waking up in the morning thinking "If only I'd done ABC...XYZ"

Think the dye has been cast where Wlad is concerned......Haye never calls him out... and was so humiliated that I think Wlad has the sign over him now.........

That fight would be just like the last........But he did have the tools to win..

Haye suspects Vitali being older and less of a puncher is more for the taking.

Having lost so widely (I'm loathe to say "convincingly" as it was two guys doing very little with one doing slightly less very little than the other) Haye is wise not to shout his mouth off. However, if he works his way into contention and becomes mandatory, he'll have no need to make any fuss.

As for Wlad having the sign over him, it's a test of Haye's character (always open to interpretation that one) as to whether or not he fancies the job again. Plenty of guys have slunk off with their tails between their legs never to be seen again but surely it's a sign of maturity that you can admit your mistakes and at least try and put them right.

If he does the job against Charr and gets himself an elimination fight off the back off it, I can't see their being too many reasons to be critical. Of course whoever he's pitted against in the eliminator, some will suggest Haye's cherry-picked him

JabMachineMK2 wrote:If I've been reading properly its been the same argument levelled at Wlad "take away his size" etc etc

No, because thats his attribute he uses to his advantage. Take away Ali's speed. Take away Foremans power, take away Holmes/Lewis' jab.

We can't just pick and choose what attributes make a fighter great, take them away and call them ordinary - thats just bull because you want to bash them.

Lets look at some facts behind Wlad/Haye and their standing - lets see you refute them.

You use Wlads opposition as a stick, well to be fair, who else could he have faced? His biggest challenge of the last 8 years while he's been dominant, came in the face of David Haye. He took the fight, and won. Haye was made to look slow in my eyes. Haye gets beaten for that performance, but it was an absolute masterclass from Wlad. We all say "oh Floyd is a nailed on top 10 ATG because he doesn't get hit" - we don't apply this logic to Wlad do we? He knows he has a glass chin, look at the fact he's been knocked down and gotten up. He's been knocked out by a journeyman and come back stronger. These are the qualities we say show championship qualities. He has effectively cleaned out the division besides his brother, who in my eyes is a different type of boxer. Wlad is boring, I can't hide from that fact, he makes me sleepy - but he is effective, he uses his size to his advantage in a way no other heavyweight does.

Look at the other heavyweights his size. Skelton gave Price fits initially and made him wary. You can't tell me Wlad would allow Skelton in his face. Fury has been floored by boxers far far below Corey Sanders (who had a ramrod of a left) Fury doesn't use his size to "bully" (honestly anyone who watches Fury box cannot ever claim he bullies anyone, ever - if you think he's a bully go and watch some Frazier/Norton)

Price has been exposed as having a weak constitution when getting hit - as was Wlad. Wlad came back against Samuel Peter (I'd say a much better boxer than Tony Thompson) and won. Did Price do that? So why are we assuming that someone who has held most of the titles for the last 8 years would get knocked out or lose against someone like that? I like Price, but christ - putting him in with Wlad now will just destroy any confidence he will need to build upon.

Fury is a joke, he's been calling out Cain Velasquez, David Haye - jeez anyone who has a pulse....thing is when faced with the prospect of actually fighting them, who does he choose? A cruiserweight. And he got put down. He's never been with anyone Wlads size or quality - so why are we (winchester) saying he'd get beaten by this kind of boxer?

We saw Haye vs Wlad, and toe aside he performed well below expectations...why? Because Wlad was supreme that night. It was boring but Wlad was superb. Every attack Haye launched, one backward step and he was out of range, making the smaller man lunge, meaning to get back into position Haye had to change his feet and Wlad would march forward and put the jab in his face. Its simple, effective and won him almost every round.

Winchester, calling any boxers "wimpy" is tantamount to insulting - if you fought Wlad, he would crush you to death with his "wimpy" style of boxing. Any boxer who steps between the ropes is worthy of respect, especially the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. I suggest you have a rethink about the way you address certain boxers mate, because you're going to make yourself look a bit silly with that kind of attitude.

Wladimir Klitschko does fight like a wimp. Hes afraid to take a punch and he doesnt like confrontation. The fellow Chisora spat water into his face and he didnt do anything about it. Just stood there accepting it. Thats the sign of a man who doesnt like confrontation. Can you imagine a Tyson or a Liston reacting like that? They would have murdered the guy who did it to them.

Fury, Price and Wilder would bully Wlad. Hes too timid and they are too aggressive.

Wladimir Klitschko does fight like a wimp. Hes afraid to take a punch and he doesnt like confrontation. The fellow Chisora spat water into his face and he didnt do anything about it. Just stood there accepting it. Thats the sign of a man who doesnt like confrontation. Can you imagine a Tyson or a Liston reacting like that? They would have murdered the guy who did it to them.

Fury, Price and Wilder would bully Wlad. Hes too timid and they are too aggressive.

So does Floyd then. Hit and not get hit.

Not responding to the spitting incident could also be the sign of a true professional and not a nutter.

Price would get knocked as soon as the timekeeper hits the ring bell.

hazharrison wrote:

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.

Agree that Tucker are better than the likes that we have today, but it doesn't change the opinion that that reigned in a poor era, the same claim is made of Marciano, Wlad, Holmes. It's not their fault, but that's life.
With regard to the Douglas fight, Tyson didn't really change tactics, he just carried on doing what he was doing, but landed a good punch, and the fact is , he lost, so it remains true that he never came back from adversity.
It's a while since I watched it, but I remember having Douglas comfortably ahead, Tyson receiving a steady beating, and ending up with his face a mess, being counted out, apart from the knockdown, it was pretty one sided IMO.
good fights, yes, but not on the level of say Bowe v Holy or Ali vFrazier.
As I said rate him as high as four or five and you wouldn't hear me criticise you, but I think that the arguments I have made are probably those that people that have him outside the top ten would use.

Rowley wrote:Think to be honest with this being a British forum we tended to overstate the threat Haye posed. Spoke to an American fan in the run up to the fight who is a well respected expert and historian to get a gauge of how Haye’s chances over the pond were rated and he said that very much the consensus view was that Haye was another fairly run of the mill defence for Wlad and that Haye stood little to no chance of turning him over.

I agree.
Whenever a British boxer loses a major fight, we tend to over-analyze the reasons for the loss. Klitschko-Haye was just the same as Ward-Froch or Mayweather-Hatton. The favourite proving their superiority over the over-matched underdog.
The reason Haye lost was because he was kept at a distance by an excellent jab and therefore was unable to get into range to land his own shots - the same reason Ibragimov, Chagaev, Thompson etc lost to Wlad. It had nothing to do with a poor gameplan given that there was nothing wrong with Haye's gameplan.

Too simplistic.........

Haye lost because he lacked the bottle to get inside......

Wlad prods he doesn't jab...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Too simplistic.........

Haye lost because he lacked the bottle to get inside......

Wlad prods he doesn't jab...

Thats the thing. Haye isnt an inside fighter. He never has been. His style is to stay on the outside, than ambush in with heavy hooks.
Its got nothing to do with lacking bottle - if he lacked bottle than he wouldnt have become a boxer in the first place.

Yeah Wlad beat Haye because he is a better boxer. Haye would always have a punchers chance because he has power, but he didnt show anything in his 12 rounds to really make me think he had come close to figuring Wlad out. I think alot of the analysis of the reasons why he lost is more wishful thinking than objective analysis.

winchester wrote:Wladimir Klitschko does fight like a wimp. Hes afraid to take a punch and he doesnt like confrontation. The fellow Chisora spat water into his face and he didnt do anything about it. Just stood there accepting it. Thats the sign of a man who doesnt like confrontation. Can you imagine a Tyson or a Liston reacting like that? They would have murdered the guy who did it to them.

Fury, Price and Wilder would bully Wlad. Hes too timid and they are too aggressive.

Sorry, but I just can't understand anything you said. Fights like a wimp? You've clearly never boxed. Nobody fights like a wimp, plus the guy has 51 knockouts. Or are you blind and don't see?

I thought he acted admirably when Chisora spat water at him. What was the alternative? Tear him apart limb from limb there and then, putting his brothers fight in jeopardy? Getting him disqualified or there being an NC meaning all the fans would have wasted their time and such? He acted like a true professional. Tyson and Liston would have torn him apart yes, but i don't think Wlad would go to prison for being a r***ist so lets not compare the two.

Fury doesn't bully, and never has so I'm not sure where that analysis comes from - neither does Price. Its not their style and they have shown no inclination of being that kind of boxer, so you're pulling things from mid air. Wilder swings windmills and hasn't been anywhere near a boxer the size and skill of Wlad, so I'm not sure why you think he'd "bully" Wlad either.

This all points towards the fact you don't like the Klitschkos - which is fine, but please, argue with a little more dignity instead of saying things that sound so utterly stupid.