David Haye

First topic message reminder :

What now for the absent boxer? Where does he go from here? From talking his way to a world title to ducking out of so many high profile fights leaving opponents out of pocket, promoters out of pocket and many fans out of pocket and peeved. If he fights again who will take the risk and promote his fight? Will other boxers sign up to be on the undercard thinking that it could be cancelled if his back, toes, wrist, c0ck gets hurt?

I'm a fan of his but frankly getting totally fracked off with a semi skilled part time boxer taking the pish out of the noble sport of boxing.

Say what you want about Fury but he is a true fighting man and respectful to his fans. He never lets them down.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Two identical situations, two totally opposite opinions from the same poster.

Flip-flop!

Ah ok. Thanks for explaining

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Rowley wrote:Was also on his little toe and so far easier to hide when it comes to a medical. Also a little toe is unlikely to start peeing blood all over his face when he gets punched in it, what with it not being on his face or a target for punches.

Does this highlight tht medical standards in boxing are not sufficient. David Haye had a broken toe that was very swollen and very easy to identify as broken upon a quick inspection. The fact the medics inspecting him missed he had a broken bone highlights that the safety standards are not up to scratch.

Yes it was just a broken toe but that broken toe restricted movement and could have resulted in Haye suffering serious injury during the fight.

The broken toe didnt stop him running like a thief all night.

Do you think he should have the stitches taken out before he fights, or not bother C_S? I dont even know if you are wumming or not anymore.

Im sure you would love to see Haye seriously injured C_S, hmmmmmm  

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:Im sure you would love to see Haye seriously injured C_S, hmmmmmm  

He's a plastic boxing fan Reborn. Just joins in because his new ''friends'' post on the boxing forum. Has no clue about boxing, not a real fan.

He would not have been allowed fight with a cut like that. It wouldnt even be a option.

catchweight wrote:He would not have been allowed fight with a cut like that. It wouldnt even be a option.

Mayweather could box with a cut like that because he won't get hit.

You would not be allowed to simple as that.

Apparently the cut happened whilst Haye was sparring Filip Hrgovic, a 21 year old Croation novice, without head-gear. Very silly of Haye if true, and highly embarrassing.

If C_S was being serious then he cant have seen a single boxing match where a cut was opened up around the eye. Probably wumming, like when he pretended not to know the difference between SD and MD.

What is the source saying without headgear? If he was sparring without head gear he is a joke but I just cant comprehend anyone doing that.

I think the idea was to get Haye back used to fighting without head-gear against an easy sparring partner. Incredibly risky, doubt you'd see any experienced trainer letting that happen.

Haye went in without protection and has been caught out. He needs to accept his responsibilities now. This is what happens when you dont wear protection when going in the ring with a 21 year old Croation

Ive yet to see a shred of evidence that Haye doesnt wear protection. Dont really want to see any if Im honest.

Where is reported he wasnt wearing headgear though? If thats the case then he deserves all the stick he gets for taking that risk. Even light sparring without headgear could still result in a straw elbow or clash of heads. I cant believe he would 1. be stupid enough to take that risk and 2. if he did let it get released to the public.

I have heard that Adam Booth is the only person Haye wears protection for

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Rowley wrote:Neither bottled it, they both had a potentially better offer on the table and took it. Think the point top hat is making is anyone who defended Fury for doing so at the time can not now criticise Haye for doing the same. Not really too difficult to understand I would have thought.

haye should fight with a cut.

He fought Audley last time out didn't he? Oh you said cut.............sorry.

Steffan wrote:I have heard that Adam Booth is the only person Haye wears protection for

Nice work - got a laugh out of me anyway.

If Haye wasn't wearing 'protection' in this sparring session, he could probably turn it into a commercial/advertising/public face of Durex opportunity...

Or should we not give him ideas like that?

: 

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:Apparently the cut happened whilst Haye was sparring Filip Hrgovic, a 21 year old Croation novice, without head-gear. Very silly of Haye if true, and highly embarrassing.

Link?

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:Im sure you would love to see Haye seriously injured C_S, hmmmmmm  

He's a plastic boxing fan Reborn. Just joins in because his new ''friends'' post on the boxing forum. Has no clue about boxing, not a real fan.

you are my best friend on here you are my bff  

Steffan wrote:I have heard that Adam Booth is the only person Haye wears protection for

     

joeyjojo618 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Rowley wrote:Was also on his little toe and so far easier to hide when it comes to a medical. Also a little toe is unlikely to start peeing blood all over his face when he gets punched in it, what with it not being on his face or a target for punches.

Does this highlight tht medical standards in boxing are not sufficient. David Haye had a broken toe that was very swollen and very easy to identify as broken upon a quick inspection. The fact the medics inspecting him missed he had a broken bone highlights that the safety standards are not up to scratch.

Yes it was just a broken toe but that broken toe restricted movement and could have resulted in Haye suffering serious injury during the fight.

The broken toe didnt stop him running like a thief all night.

Do you think he should have the stitches taken out before he fights, or not bother C_S? I dont even know if you are wumming or not anymore.

It's not exactly without precedence. Still, the bue & greens are apparently happy to let it fly so we should just all move on.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

Rowley wrote:Neither bottled it, they both had a potentially better offer on the table and took it. Think the point top hat is making is anyone who defended Fury for doing so at the time can not now criticise Haye for doing the same. Not really too difficult to understand I would have thought.

At the time the issue cropped up toppy was creaming himself about fury ducking Haye.  Naturally he will deny it but I simply used his terminology and he seems to be throwing a wobbly. He is a nice chap but tends to go gaga whenever Fury is mentioned. He was so adamant that fury ducked pulev.

But I'm not one to stick the boot in when a nice chap is down. It's that British spirit of fair play which  I seem to have adopted. Time to go home for detox.

Prove it. Quote me.

You can't because I didn't.
>
>
>
>
Hang on, now you're saying Fury didn't duck Pulev, but Haye did duck Char?? Flip-flop, flip-flop.  This is what I'm talking about.

Rowley seems to understand it. It is quite simple after all.

The situations are identical.  You're the only one failing to treat them so and getting in a hissy fit about things.

Prove what? That you said Fury ducked Pulev to fight Haye? When I said the reverse you went into a tailspin.

Bottom line is that this is a logical fight for both of them and the biggest domestic fight in a decade. Fury can retire the part time boxer with luck.

Genuine question, Az.  I'm assuming that you accept that Haye is genuinely cut and that it was accidental (regardless of the circumstances that led to the accident occurring)?  

If so, what the hell does that have to do with his previous "dubious" pull outs?  You might not like what he did previously but it has nothing to do with this, other than give you an opportunity to pretend that you're some kind of sage and make out that Haye is the boy that cried wolf.  Hardly the greatest crime in boxing.  

It's an unfortunate pull out, but not half as unfortunate as the failure of YDKSAB's dad to pull out.

Steffan wrote:I have heard that Adam Booth is the only person Haye wears protection for

superflyweight wrote:It's an unfortunate pull out, but not half as unfortunate as the failure of YDKSAB's dad to pull out.

 

Hahahaha!

Some good stuff on this thread.

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

Rowley wrote:Neither bottled it, they both had a potentially better offer on the table and took it. Think the point top hat is making is anyone who defended Fury for doing so at the time can not now criticise Haye for doing the same. Not really too difficult to understand I would have thought.

At the time the issue cropped up toppy was creaming himself about fury ducking Haye.  Naturally he will deny it but I simply used his terminology and he seems to be throwing a wobbly. He is a nice chap but tends to go gaga whenever Fury is mentioned. He was so adamant that fury ducked pulev.

But I'm not one to stick the boot in when a nice chap is down. It's that British spirit of fair play which  I seem to have adopted. Time to go home for detox.

Prove it. Quote me.

You can't because I didn't.
>
>
>
>
Hang on, now you're saying Fury didn't duck Pulev, but Haye did duck Char?? Flip-flop, flip-flop.  This is what I'm talking about.

Rowley seems to understand it. It is quite simple after all.

The situations are identical.  You're the only one failing to treat them so and getting in a hissy fit about things.

Prove what? That you said Fury ducked Pulev to fight Haye? When I said the reverse you went into a tailspin.

Bottom line is that this is a logical fight for both of them and the biggest domestic fight in a decade. Fury can retire the part time boxer with luck.

The only person to have gone into a tailspin is you. You went into a tailspin when Fury pulled out of Pulev to fight Haye and got in a right hissy fit over the use of the word 'ducking' and now you've gone into a tailspin when confronted by your own hypocrisy on this thread.

Revisionism at its finest.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

As I said, to a man everyone on here has treated the two identically. It is you that is flip flopping and kicking up a fuss.

I said on that thread they were identical. You claimed fury ducked pulev. When I said Haye ducked charr you went ape. You let your dislike cloud your unsound judgement. Not for the first time I have to say.

No.

I said Fury ducked Pulev - but not as a criticism, and was vey clear it was the sensible smart thing to do.

You went ape, said it was a disgrace to call it ducking.

You then came on here and said Haye ducked Charr.

The exact same situation and now you consider 'ducking' acceptable terminology. I pointed out your (typical) hypocrisy.

#Flip-flop #issues

azania wrote:I said on that thread they were identical.  You claimed fury ducked pulev. When I said Haye ducked charr you went ape. You let your dislike cloud your unsound judgement.  Not for the first time I have to say.

Question: If they're both identical, then did they both 'duck' or did neither 'duck'?

Because I am using your words you blithering muppet. Why are you getting into such a tizz when the word duck is levelled at Haye but not fury?

azania wrote:Because I am using your words you blithering muppet. Why are you getting into such a tizz when the word duck is levelled at Haye but not fury?

Flip flop, flip flop.

YOU were the one getting in a tizz when the word was used about Fury.

I have no problem with it being used. No problem at all. They both ducked out of fights for more financially rewarding alternatives. Smart business, not a jot of a problem.

Now, answer my question, are they both 'duckers' or neither 'duckers'?

HNT: whichever answer you give, you'll end up looking a boobie. Which is why I presume you're refusing to answer.

You must know I never get into a tizz. Now you're losing the plot mate. You're starting to sound like coxy on acid.

Pahaha, so that's a no then? You can't/won't answer my question??

Can someone check William Hill for odds on who gets banned first.

I will put a bet on a draw.

I would have to say on my card TopHat has won a clear decision here, Az your last response was weak when it needed to be a Knockout blow to rescue you, i would say have been schooled as you call it mate.

Like Nelson-DeLeon, I don't care about the decision, as long as it's over.

Ease up Adam. It's just banter. Top boy gives and takes it like a good pro.

Top boy neither ducked. They got a bettet offer and took it. It's a fan friendly decision also. You're just too damn quick to apply the duck term to fury. Now chill.

Neither ducked? Ok, fine by me. Just looking for some consistency and an admission you were wrong to use the phrase now when castigating Haye.

I copied your initial use of the phrase when applied to fury.

But from what I see it is fine to use it when applied to fury but not to all others in the same circumstance.

Going round in circles again..........

You're the only one not consistent in your use of the word. I'm happy either way, as long as there's consistency.......

TopHat24/7 wrote:Going round in circles again..........

You're the only one not consistent in your use of the word.  I'm happy either way, as long as there's consistency.......

Such a pity you weren't on that thread.

:ERM: Ermmmmmmmmm, I was! Again, you are the ONLY person not being consistent.

I'm always consistent.

I'm consistent and so is my wife........

Hibbz wrote:I'm consistent and so is my wife........

I know   

azania wrote:I'm always consistent.

only in your inconsistency.....

Haye was just on channel 4 giving a live interview for the American football and he had no cut on his face whatsoever. strange!