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:

azania wrote:Sigh. Look at his history.  Ducked Charr to fight Fury. Pi$$ed all over k2 and blamed his pinky for an abject performance against Wlad. The man is a crook.

Presumably you apply the exact same logic to Fury re Pulev then, Az??

You used that logic mate. I'm using your argument.

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:Sigh. Look at his history.  Ducked Charr to fight Fury. Pi$$ed all over k2 and blamed his pinky for an abject performance against Wlad. The man is a crook.

Just like Fury ducked to fight Haye. You didn't have a problem with that.

Deliberately altering words to get past the swear filter is against to rules. Maybe I should report you like you have done to me. Then again maybe not, I'm not a wimp.

You will find that I didn't report you Mr HardMan.

Yeah yeah, we all believe you.

Rowley wrote:Tend to agree Top Hat. The defining characteristic of Haye's heavyweight career thus far has been taking whatever fight offers the most money for the minimal risk, is why Valuev was chosen over a Klitschko, was why Audley got his shot and was why Chisora was taken when a Vitali fight was on the table. Fury fits the bill perfectly, massive payday and minimal ability to actually beat Haye. Completely illogical to suggest Haye is pulling a stroke to get out of this fight. At worst he has been somewhat cavalier about when he stops sparring in the build up, nothing more.

I agree with Jeff and Tophat. Haye is more of a conman than a crook.

We? Multiple personality or speaking for the whole board?

For me they are one and the same. Conman/crook; semantics.

azania wrote:The type of sparring LJ. If you can't understand that please move your lips when reading.

If Fury got injured he would be taken to task and his heritage brought up. You would join in also.

Many many professional fighters spar hard the week before a fight. It is not an issue. If you had ever set foot in a boxing gym you would understand that it happens with a lot of fighters.

Lets not bring his race into it. I know you enjoy stirring But this has nothing to do with the argument.

azania wrote:The type of sparring LJ. If you can't understand that please move your lips when reading.

If Fury got injured he would be taken to task and his heritage brought up. You would join in also.

#issues

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:Sigh. Look at his history.  Ducked Charr to fight Fury. Pi$$ed all over k2 and blamed his pinky for an abject performance against Wlad. The man is a crook.

Presumably you apply the exact same logic to Fury re Pulev then, Az??

You used that logic mate. I'm using your argument.

So you're saying I was right then?

Because when I used that argument you kicked up an epic fuss over it, classic Az hissy fit.

By the beard of the prophet man learn to read. I am not or have ever questioned his sparring. My point is the type of sparring he was most likely doing. Light session would not cause such a cut or very unlikely.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:Sigh. Look at his history.  Ducked Charr to fight Fury. Pi$$ed all over k2 and blamed his pinky for an abject performance against Wlad. The man is a crook.

Presumably you apply the exact same logic to Fury re Pulev then, Az??

You used that logic mate. I'm using your argument.

So you're saying I was right then?

Because when I used that argument you kicked up an epic fuss over it, classic Az hissy fit.

If the logic applies to fury it should apply to Haye. Correct?

Strongback wrote:

Rowley wrote:Tend to agree Top Hat. The defining characteristic of Haye's heavyweight career thus far has been taking whatever fight offers the most money for the minimal risk, is why Valuev was chosen over a Klitschko, was why Audley got his shot and was why Chisora was taken when a Vitali fight was on the table. Fury fits the bill perfectly, massive payday and minimal ability to actually beat Haye. Completely illogical to suggest Haye is pulling a stroke to get out of this fight. At worst he has been somewhat cavalier about when he stops sparring in the build up, nothing more.

I agree with Jeff and Tophat.  Haye is more of a conman than a crook.

I agree with Strongy, Jeff and Tophat. Haye is a nincompoop.

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:Sigh. Look at his history.  Ducked Charr to fight Fury. Pi$$ed all over k2 and blamed his pinky for an abject performance against Wlad. The man is a crook.

Presumably you apply the exact same logic to Fury re Pulev then, Az??

You used that logic mate. I'm using your argument.

So you're saying I was right then?

Because when I used that argument you kicked up an epic fuss over it, classic Az hissy fit.

If the logic applies to fury it should apply to Haye.  Correct?

Yes, they are both duckers. Glad you have seen sense.

Anyone going to mention Wlad's withdrawl fro the Chisora fight with a rib injury only to be seen playing golf a short while later/ Thought not.

Seems a lot of people need to get that inspirational dvd "How to be less like you and more like me, a Warrior that fights in the trenches, arenas, battlefields, drawing lines in the sand and taking it to the limit cos that's what I do cos I'm a warrior" by Bradley Pryce Carl Froch

Tyson Fury said that even if he had two broken hands he would still have gone ahead with the fight.

Personally I think that would be foolish.

What has it got to do with Wlad?

STC wrote:Tyson Fury said that even if he had two broken hands he would still have gone ahead with the fight.

Personally I think that would be foolish.

Slightly foolish

azania wrote:What has it got to do with Wlad?

Just seems there's a lot of criticism for Haye given his previous for pulling out of fights with spurious injuries and yet Wlad himself did exactly the same thing in order to take on Haye with Chisora being gifted a shot at Vitali as a reward for stepping aside.

Just thought I'd mention Haye's not the first fighter to do this and nor will he be the last however, the fact that people are getting their knickers ina twist over this fight being cancelled does tend to suggest that there a few people (you know who you are) who could do with getting a bloody grip.

Anyone criticsing Gareth Bale for doing strenuous warm-ups so close to the start of Madrid's match this weekend?

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:Sigh. Look at his history.  Ducked Charr to fight Fury. Pi$$ed all over k2 and blamed his pinky for an abject performance against Wlad. The man is a crook.

Presumably you apply the exact same logic to Fury re Pulev then, Az??

You used that logic mate. I'm using your argument.

So you're saying I was right then?

Because when I used that argument you kicked up an epic fuss over it, classic Az hissy fit.

If the logic applies to fury it should apply to Haye.  Correct?

I'm perfectly happy with that. It's you that's flip-flopping between whatever stance suits your opinion of the moment.

An awful load of B******s being written on these threads about Haye and this injury.
The timing has got nothing to do this- it wouldn'thave matter whether we were three weeks or one week from the fight- a cut that bad delays the fight for 6 weeks-or are people suggestung that sparring stops 6 weeks before the fight to ensure it's not at risk of delay through injury. Would everyone be less angry if this happened two weeks ago?
Second point, there's lots of speculation but little fact about how this cut happened, whether a head guard wwas being worn etc- could have been caught with an elbow, whilst wearing a headguard- accidents happen.
Haye had obviously spent a fortune getting ready for this fight - you think that those sparring partners come cheap?- I imagine that he's more disapppointed than anyone else about it being delayed.
There no good reason, economic or otherwise, to suggest that Haye didn't want this fight to go ahead.

HH

Get it off your chest why don't you. The problem is that no one is saying sparring stops. The question I am asking is why have a hard spar session so close to the fight? It would be perfectly understandable had it happened weeks before the fight. But a week? It is carelessness at best.

Pity you didn't apply it then toppy? Who is flip flopping now?

azania wrote:Pity you didn't apply it then toppy? Who is flip flopping now?

Eh?

That makes no sense.

Who/what are you responding to, Mr Flip-flop??

It makes perfect sense if you get your brain in gear. I have been super consistent all the way not blowing in the wind whenever the latest wum bandwagon rides by. But I give you credit. You are a persistent bugger.

An accidental elbow to the brow against the giants he was sparring can cause a cut without it being hard sparring.

Incident happens, it's a shame, they might reschedule. These things happen. Ward was cut before facing Froch, Foreman before Ali. Both of them were confident of victory and both wanted the payday. Neither wanted to get injured and neither were at fault, it just happens sometimes.

It would be a crazy bit of common sense but why don't boxers negotiate clauses for injuries sustained prior to a fight? ie further dates depending on the extent of the injury?

azania wrote:It makes perfect sense if you get your brain in gear. I have been super consistent all the way not blowing in the wind whenever the latest wum bandwagon rides by. But I give you credit.  You are a persistent bugger.

Phahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

So, going from full on mental hissy fit because people said that Fury ducked out of the Pulev fight for the more financially rewarding Haye fight to criticising Haye for 'ducking' the Wach fight for the more lucrative Fury fight is your idea of 'super consistent'??????????????????

Phahahaha, you don't half make yourself look a complete and utter twit sometimes.

You're slipping Az, it used to be a lot harder to show you up than this. You're making novice errors now.

David Haye,
Tyson Fury should make him pay,
To go to the fight was less than 8 day,
Pulling out...thats pretty gay,
Wouldnt ya say?

David Haye,
Apparently sent by the greats of yesterday,
Yet wanted to give Audley a big pay,
Nothing more to say,
Except...go away David Haye!


Regards

Haye probably had a bareknuckle bust-up with Groves, who then promptly left, leaving the cut as a gift. There's a conspiracy theory for you.

You're funny toppy. Are saying Fury ducked Pulev to fight Haye but Haye 'ducked' Charr to fight Fury. It could be semantics but I would like to know why you used 'ducked' with Haye? To me it seems like you're suggesting Fury bottled it with Pulev but not Haye with Charr.

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.

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 would not be allowed on the off chance that was a serious suggestion.

azania wrote:You're funny toppy. Are saying Fury ducked Pulev to fight Haye but Haye 'ducked' Charr to fight Fury. It could be semantics but I would like to know why you used 'ducked' with Haye?  To me it seems like you're suggesting Fury bottled it with Pulev but not Haye with Charr.

The ' ' was to highlight your sudden use of the word having previously voiced such abject consternation for its use in identical situations. To me the situations are identical and I've always treated them as such.

Run along now, flip-flop.

Haye should retire

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.

 

Rowley wrote:He would not be allowed on the off chance that was a serious suggestion.

He faced wladimir klitschko with a broken bone which is far worse than a cut.

Be helpful if you could put a smiley when you're making a joke, C_S.

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.

Poe's law.

Also, now many little toe breakages have caused fights to be stopped?

Compare that to how many cuts have stopped fights.

And you have your answer (if C_S was actually being serious).

What if David Haye never fought again?

Strongback wrote:What if David Haye never fought again?

I'd cope.

I love how all David Haye conversations/debates seem to be over anything other than his boxing ability. Just goes to show how much trouble he is worth really

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.

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.

A quick question...what the hell is all this 'Flip-flop' business about?

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.

Steffan wrote:A quick question...what the hell is all this 'Flip-flop' business about?

Someone used the phrase re Truss and I liked it.

It refers to someone, typically an Az type, routinely switches their opinion/stance to suit their current argument as appropriate.

So in this instance:

When Fury chose the more lucrative Haye fight over Pulez it was a disgrace to call that ducking and anyone who did so was clearly just an ignorant Fury hating racist.

However now, when mention is made of Haye chosing the more lucractive Fury over Charr, that's apparently ducking and should be chastised as such.

Two identical situations, two totally opposite opinions from the same poster.

Flip-flop!

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.

Are you a doctor as well as lawyer now....??

Are you Frank Abagnale???