Divided loyalties

I've watched plenty of fights like cleverley bellew where I wanted both fighters to lose. Far fewer where I wanted both guys to win for different reasons? I felt a bit that way with Saunders Eubank.

The most divided I've been was back in 1985 where commonwealth welter champion sylvester mittee met european champion Lloyd honeyghan. Mittee was charismatic and a really likeable guy. I'm not convinced even his mother liked honeyghan. At the same time it was clear that mittee had probably found his level, while there were hopes honey could go on to better things.

I decided I hoped honey would win, but that mittee would go the distance and give a creditable performance. As it happened honey won pretty conclusively inside the distance and I found it hard to watch. The following year he went on to beat don curry in a fight that broke truss' heart. I was a bit of a curry fan at the time, but didn't have the same dilemma for that one.

Any fights that have left you with divided loyalties?

Cotto v Martinez was a tricky one for me. I'm a fan of both and thought Cotto was going to cop a beating. I was happy enough that Cotto won but obviously sorry to see the way Sergio hobbled around the ring.

Generally I have pretty polar opinions on fighters and prefer upsets so have a tendency to go with a plucky underdog.

I was in a similar situation as Strongback for that fight. Cotto's always been my favourite fighter but I lived in Argentina and Martinez is a national hero there.

A few things swayed me towards Cotto at the last minute; Martinez coming out at the weigh in in a River Plate shirt (with me being a Boca Juniors supporter) and the partisan support for Cotto in New York that weekend was amazing. Stopped short of buying the Puerto Rican flag boxing gloves everyone had but I was definitely cheering for Cotto come that first bell.

I remember saying before it started that I just hoped Cotto would do himself justice and not get KOed by the bigger man. Well, we all know what happened next.

I actually felt that way for the Groves-Froch rematch. Obviously being from Nottingham I've always followed Froch and have shelled out plenty of times to attend his fights, way back to his British / Commonwealth title days. Also met him a couple of times and he's always come across as a good bloke, and he did some really nice stuff for my little brother a few years back too, who'd have only been about ten or eleven at the time. Froch-Bute was the best sporting event I've ever attended.

But I've always liked Groves since he started emerging as a real talent a few years back, and he endeared himself to me even more when he embarrassed Degale in the build up to their fight and then managed to nick that decision between the ropes! He just always impressed me with his attitude, I guess. For the first fight, I wasn't really giving him much of a chance and I was very much in full support for Carl - I just wanted Groves to give a good account of himself in defeat. Then of course he put in a brilliant performance and fell victim to what I still consider to be a terrible stoppage.

On the night Groves handled it with a lot of class, whereas Carl let himself down a wee bit in the aftermath, I felt. Nothing too bad and he gave Groves the credit he deserved further down the line, but still my sympathies went more towards Groves. Watching the first fight back, I felt that Groves was a lot better than I'd previously believed and that he could be Britain's best fighter for a good while in the wake of Carl eventually retiring - so for the rematch, I was a bit torn. Always a Froch fan and want to see local guys being successful, but at the same time I found myself thinking that perhaps Groves was due his glory this time after the controversy of the first fight, and that him winning would be better for British boxing overall, as it'd make it a passing of the torch fight and establish a new star.

I didn't have the heart to tell my sister (who I went to the Wembley fight with) that I was kind of neutral....Which was awkward as afterwards she was wanting to take pictures of me holding up eight fingers to signify "how many rounds it took Carl to bang out that stupid, whigny little **** Groves!"

I think 'passing of the torch' fights can be a bit like that Chris. I had similar  feelings for Eubank Calzaghe. You're hoping the new kid on the block might have what it takes... But have a soft spot for the old warhorse whose career you've followed.

Whilst on a completely different level to those already discussed (and with much less feeling involved I must add), I ultimately wanted Fury to win the second fight with Chisora. I never have been a big Chisora fan but if a Klitchko shot really does come to fruition then I would much rather see Fury get the chance purely because Chisora has well and truly found his level but there's still a little bit of the unknown with Fury. Yes he's a Grade A wazzack, but he'll certainly make the build up, and possibly the first three rounds, interesting.

I would say my feelings on Martínez Cotto are polar opposite to Dipper's. My hate for the chubby manlet only increased.

Don't generally feel too emotionally attached to fights as a rule. Probably Martinez-Murray. I didn't rewlly want him to win, but I did hope Murray didn't cop a hiding of note. Which is more than I've ever hoped for a Martínez opponent.

Locally, I couldn't in a million years have chosen who I would have rather won in a fight between Joyi and Budler.In the end, I think a draw would have been the correct result, but I was quite happy for Budler.

Tyson v Lewis for me. Always liked both and as the result seemed obvious I just wanted Tyson to do the 12.

Wlad v Haye.....Not a fan of the arrogant Brit and who could dislike the class of Wlad ??...So part of me wanted Haye smashed..

However felt a mouthy, colorful Brit might breathe life back into the sport..

Holmes v Cooney...Larry was a fave back then..But we were all excited by Gerry and also the racist stuff made you side more with him..

Was only a kid back then....Huge fight !

Ha, Raf, we'll never see eye to eye on Cotto!

Agreed on the passing of the torch thing Chris. Generally speaking I always want the younger guy to win because he'll be the guy I'm watching in five years time and I don't want to be thinking 'he's the best but only the best of a bad bunch'. I wanted Groves to win just because what more can Froch give us as fans? I worry if Pac and Floyd never fight each other and both retire having beaten everyone else, what are we left with?

Always got to think of the future. Part of me was glad Cotto lost to Floyd and Pac because I felt him beating either would detail the mega fight. Obviously that fight never happened.

Derail*

88Chris05 wrote:I actually felt that way for the Groves-Froch rematch. Obviously being from Nottingham I've always followed Froch and have shelled out plenty of times to attend his fights, way back to his British / Commonwealth title days. Also met him a couple of times and he's always come across as a good bloke, and he did some really nice stuff for my little brother a few years back too, who'd have only been about ten or eleven at the time. Froch-Bute was the best sporting event I've ever attended.

But I've always liked Groves since he started emerging as a real talent a few years back, and he endeared himself to me even more when he embarrassed Degale in the build up to their fight and then managed to nick that decision between the ropes! He just always impressed me with his attitude, I guess. For the first fight, I wasn't really giving him much of a chance and I was very much in full support for Carl - I just wanted Groves to give a good account of himself in defeat. Then of course he put in a brilliant performance and fell victim to what I still consider to be a terrible stoppage.

On the night Groves handled it with a lot of class, whereas Carl let himself down a wee bit in the aftermath, I felt. Nothing too bad and he gave Groves the credit he deserved further down the line, but still my sympathies went more towards Groves. Watching the first fight back, I felt that Groves was a lot better than I'd previously believed and that he could be Britain's best fighter for a good while in the wake of Carl eventually retiring - so for the rematch, I was a bit torn. Always a Froch fan and want to see local guys being successful, but at the same time I found myself thinking that perhaps Groves was due his glory this time after the controversy of the first fight, and that him winning would be better for British boxing overall, as it'd make it a passing of the torch fight and establish a new star.

I didn't have the heart to tell my sister (who I went to the Wembley fight with) that I was kind of neutral....Which was awkward as afterwards she was wanting to take pictures of me holding up eight fingers to signify "how many rounds it took Carl to bang out that stupid, whigny little **** Groves!"

Completely concur with those emotions Chris. Although I'm not from Nottingham and I was a Calzaghe fan so for me it took a while to warm to Froch in the first place. Froch v Bute in Nottingham was an amazing event, a far better experience than Wembley. I went as a casual fan and left a hardcore one. Likewise though, some of the events afterwards left me finding Froch a bit annoying ( at least his media persona did ). By the time the second fight came around I wasn't really wholeheartedly cheering for either, I was just observing more than anything else. Definitely a fight where I was divided and these days I would say I'm glad they probably won't fight each other again.

Chis v Fury sums up my views on quite a few fights where I'm split for emotional v's logical reasons. If there's one fighter I dislike more than the other but I know they have a better chance at overall success in their career then I find myself in a 55/45 limbo. Chis would never have beaten Klit whilst Fury would always be interesting on paper... but Fury doesn't half act a prat at times. Saying that I am warming to him as he occasionally does an interview that makes me think he might actually have a sense of reality.

Morales vs Barerra. Usually you are a fan of one or the other but I loved both. At the time I probably liked Barerra more (probably due to him humbling Naseem) but in time I leaned to Morales but when they fought I wasn't too worried who won, just wanted to see a tear up.

Marquez vs Floyd.

Massive fan of JMM. My favourite ever boxer. Admire Floyd's ability and love his fights so was a tough one.

It's hurt a bit at how easily Floyd dealt with him...but was also a masterclass in boxing so was wonderful to see.

I'd also go with Cotto vs Pacman

Loved cotto and his fights. Pacman was a speedy bruiser on fire when they met....and he just absolutely ripped him to shreds like he was from another planet.

Was scary.

Probably one of the worst beatings I have seen in a while.

Fury vs Wilder would have me split as to who I'd want to see clubbed to the canvas more

mobilemaster8 wrote:Marquez vs Floyd.

Massive fan of JMM. My favourite ever boxer. Admire Floyd's ability and love his fights so was a tough one.

It's hurt a bit at how easily Floyd dealt with him...but was also a masterclass in boxing so was wonderful to see.

I'd also go with Cotto vs Pacman

Loved cotto and his fights. Pacman was a speedy bruiser on fire when they met....and he just absolutely ripped him to shreds like he was from another planet.

Was scary.

Probably one of the worst beatings I have seen in a while.

Massive Floyd fan but that version of Manny was something else. After a couple rounds were it looked tight, he put his foot on the gas and destroyed Cotto. Pacquiaos greatest victory in my opinion.

Given Cotto had already been smashed to pieces by Margarito and quit...the shine is somewhat taken off that victory for me

I thought the Diaz demolition was Pacquiao's best. Diaz wasn't Cotto or Marquez, or Morales. But Pacquiao had no right to discombobulate a very good fighter like that.

kingraf wrote:I thought the Diaz demolition was Pacquiao's best. Diaz wasn't Cotto or Marquez, or Morales. But Pacquiao had no right to discombobulate a very good fighter like that.

Heard it all today.... David Diaz, a "very good fighter"?!

Regarded as one of the turdiest "champions" of the last 10 years with very good reason!

Diaz was possibly his best performance because he just smashed a good fighter to pieces and Diaz was the bigger man.

I'm a Floyd fan would always back him to beat Manny but Pacquiao was sensational at times. Still a real good fighter but he was a whirlwind a few years back

Not disputing that Adam, but would mark Cotto down as his best performance for me. Face forward fighter like Diaz but about 10 levels above in terms of how effective it was. Question mark was how much Cotto was shot in the head of the Margarito beatdown, he looks near his best again now the mental scars are healed and would like to see how Many copes going up to 154lbs to face him like FMJ did.

He was a very good fighter. He was limited, yes, but he was still very good. He beat Morales FFS.

kingraf wrote:He was a very good fighter. He was limited, yes, but he was still very good. He beat Morales FFS.

I really hope you're joking....

Beat Morales, a version who had lost his previous 4 of his previous 5 fights and was quite clearly on the massive slide.

Previous results have found to be fraudulent due to taking PEDs so don't start down that road.

At the risk of this taking this down the Pac Floyd route (although all roads lead to that), I feel conflicted about Floyd. I don't like him and want him to lose every time he fights but he's been such a face of boxing for so long, I'd hope that the guy who finally took his 0 will be someone who can carry boxing forward into the next generation.

Part of me would have been disappointed to see him drop his undefeated record to Maidana for example.

It's like I was saying on another thread about Naz, it's a bittersweet thing when the guy you love to hate loses.

I wanted to see Fury KO'd more than I wanted Chisora to win last weekend, however when Chisora came out to Coldplay I found myself wishing for a horrifying double KO.

Froch Groves I had me conflicted. The guy I've liked for ages vs the guy who I've only really supported since his more recent emergence, however I think the way the world turned on poor old Carl in the aftermath made me side with him. He needed my arm around his shoulders.

Khan fights often leave me conflicted. I'd sometimes like to see him KO'd, but he's exciting and I'd like to see him in big fights! I think my desire for his unconsciousness comes from his style being the sort of one that's more boring the more dominant he is. Ideally for him, he should be like a quicker, more mobile, weaker Wlad Zzzzzz. So brawls tend to be more exciting, and his undoing.

Yep, there was nothing a man dating the gorgeous Rachel needed that night more than the loving of a man

Rachel's deinty arms are surely not long enough to provide ample support for his mighty shoulders.

mobilemaster8 wrote:Marquez vs Floyd.

Massive fan of JMM. My favourite ever boxer. Admire Floyd's ability and love his fights so was a tough one.

It's hurt a bit at how easily Floyd dealt with him...but was also a masterclass in boxing so was wonderful to see.

.

The Marquez of today given his new strength and conditioning regime would have a shot given the levelling of the playing field. It wouldn't be such a one side walkover but a counterpuncher will always be manna from heaven for Floyd.

I didn't enjoy Barrera v Pacman. I liked both and hoped Barrera could put up a good fight but Manny was just too good. MAB just wanted to survive in the second fight. Was sad to see given what a warrior Barrera had been.

Don't think it would have made a difference strongy. Floyd was/is on another level and styles make fights.

Pacman will always struggle with a counter puncher.

Floyd will alwyas struggle with a pressure fighter.

The difference is that one makes it look easier than it should do.

Both great fighters ....but JMM is epic (on a side note.)

mobilemaster8 wrote:Don't think it would have made a difference strongy. Floyd was/is on another level and styles make fights.

Pacman will always struggle with a counter puncher.

Floyd will alwyas struggle with a pressure fighter.

The difference is that one makes it look easier than it should do.

Both great fighters ....but JMM is epic (on a side note.)

JMM was a fat little man for his first venture up towards welter against Floyd. In his last fight with Manny he was a fully fledged welter with rippling muscle to boot.

Still think Floyd always wins but I also think Marquez would be more competitive if they fought now.

I suspect it might be a bit more competitive now. Jmm has ahem grown into the weight, floyd has lost a step. However, it would still be comfortable for floyd. Marquez is made for him, and jmm can't make a fight. Just look how cack he looked in his prime against Chris john. Look at his record and see how few back foot fighters he's actually fought - his management team aren't stupid.

Galahad vs Dickens
Trinidad vs Vargas
Cotto vs Mosley

I thought I'd feel the same way towards Lewis vs Holyfield but very definitely sided with Lewis come the first bell.

Knew you were a Tito fan haz, didn't realise you were a Vargas fan. With those two, Oscar, quartey, Mosley, winky, it was a great time around welter/light middle.

Interesting, about being undecided until the first bell rings. I've been the same in a few fights, but usually when you see the ring walks it focuses the mind on where your loyalties are.

The most important for thing for me is that the fight is good. I would rather watch a boxer I dont like win a thriller than boxer I do like win a stinker.

Tyson v Bruno 1. Much as I liked Frank, I wanted Tyson to go on and become an ATG. Hoped Bruno would produce a respectable showing and he did.

milkyboy wrote:
but usually when you see the ring walks it focuses the mind on where your loyalties are.

Crikey Milky, it's just a boxing match, not a mob standoff.

milkyboy wrote:Knew you were a Tito fan haz, didn't realise you were a Vargas fan. With those two, Oscar, quartey, Mosley, winky, it was a great time around welter/light middle.

Interesting, about being undecided until the first bell rings. I've been the same in a few fights, but usually when you see the ring walks it focuses the mind on where your loyalties are.

I was into Vargas from when he turned pro (a pal started raving about David Reid and so we had a bit of a rivalry going on). There were some super fighters around back then.

Shame we didn't get Trinidad vs Quartey but everyone was jockeying for a crack at Oscar and there was such a fixation on titles and unbeaten records, it was too risky for those guys to meet before they got their pension fight!

Fernando ended up a steroid cheat - bloody shame the way he went out. The Trinidad fight came too soon - he took some severe licks in that fight (wasn't ever the same).

Speaking of divided loyalties and Trinidad, Tito does seem to be a fighter who divides opinion massively. Seems that most people were either mad on him and considered him one of their favourites, whereas the other half never liked him or his attitude at all and loved seeing him get taken apart by Hopkins. Likewise, to some he was one of the great historical punchers in or around his weight class and a wrecking machine of a fighter, whereas others view him as a bit of a flat track bully who got certain fighters at the right time and who was exposed whenever he fought someone who didn't stand and bang with him. Very hit and miss.

I was only a kid when he was at his peak so couldn't really put him in to context, but highlight-reel knockouts and thrilling action is what gets you hyped up at that age. So when Sky would show his fights the week after and I saw him putting people down / away over and over again with that left hook, I thought he was fantastic, even though as an Oscar fan I had the hump over him getting the nod there (still not sure how he did, mind you). Seeing him getting beaten up by Hopkins wasn't a nice experience for me at the time! Over time Trinidad ended up sliding quite far down my list of favourties, but there's no denying that he was a bad, bad dude for a couple of years around the turn of the century. If you're unifying belts at 147, unifying again at 154 and then contesting another unification bout at 160 all within two years of each other, then you're on quite a tear.

As an aside, did Joppy fight the single most stupid fight of any Middleweight titlist in history when he faced Tito!?

No.... that was Howard Eastman when, coasting to victory against Joppy, he decided to get all "Howard Eastman" on us and threw the f*cking thing away at the death

Divided if it ever happens but apparently 2015 will see the return of David Haye. Boxing news suggest that he needs to fight Fury to jump up the ladder to a Wlad fight.


After all the bad press and vitriol he recieves I still like the guy and hope he does come back but not at the expense of Fury.

RanjitPatel wrote:Divided if it ever happens but apparently 2015 will see the return of David Haye. Boxing news suggest that he needs to fight Fury to jump up the ladder to a Wlad fight.


After all the bad press and vitriol he recieves I still like the guy and hope he does come back but not at the expense of Fury.

Ranjit is definitely not an alias of mine as I would love nothing more than to watch David Haye return to the ring and level that great lump Fury en route to another tilt at the HW title. In fact, such would be my delight at watching Fury fall over whilst the crowd shouts "Tiiiiimbbeeeerrrr!!!" that I'd even be happy to watch Haye put up another sub par performance in his HW title fight (I'm joking of course, I'd be livid at having spent 20 minutes finding an illegal stream only to be bored silly)

If Haye does come back in 2015 then considering his last fight would have been summer 2012 and he's had serious surgery on his main boxing attribute there's no guarantee he'll be any form of a force whatsoever... if he ever was at heavy?

88Chris05 wrote:Speaking of divided loyalties and Trinidad, Tito does seem to be a fighter who divides opinion massively. Seems that most people were either mad on him and considered him one of their favourites, whereas the other half never liked him or his attitude at all and loved seeing him get taken apart by Hopkins. Likewise, to some he was one of the great historical punchers in or around his weight class and a wrecking machine of a fighter, whereas others view him as a bit of a flat track bully who got certain fighters at the right time and who was exposed whenever he fought someone who didn't stand and bang with him. Very hit and miss.

I was only a kid when he was at his peak so couldn't really put him in to context, but highlight-reel knockouts and thrilling action is what gets you hyped up at that age. So when Sky would show his fights the week after and I saw him putting people down / away over and over again with that left hook, I thought he was fantastic, even though as an Oscar fan I had the hump over him getting the nod there (still not sure how he did, mind you). Seeing him getting beaten up by Hopkins wasn't a nice experience for me at the time! Over time Trinidad ended up sliding quite far down my list of favourties, but there's no denying that he was a bad, bad dude for a couple of years around the turn of the century. If you're unifying belts at 147, unifying again at 154 and then contesting another unification bout at 160 all within two years of each other, then you're on quite a tear.

As an aside, did Joppy fight the single most stupid fight of any Middleweight titlist in history when he faced Tito!?

Can't see anything to dislike in Trinidad. He's one of my all-time favourites. Bad intentions, exciting as hell, dynamite power and underrated boxing skills.

Perhaps too many people remember the way he went out - losing decisions to heavier men in Hopkins, Wright and Jones. Trinidad wasn't ever the same man after the Hopkins fight, where he took a steady drubbing. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the Vargas fight finished both of them off.

Trinidad, like Naz, had to repeatedly drag himself off the canvas to win. That takes it's toll on a fighter (pretty sure that somehwere down the line, fighters won't be permitted to continue after being wobbled - second concussion syndrome and all that).

Like you Chris was more of a De La Hoya fan and that decision stinks, he could have cruised the last five rounds and it was still in the bag such was his dominance for the first nine rounds. We were spoilt for exciting fighters at the turn of the century whether it was the Mexican pair, Hamed, Gatti, Mosley, Oscar, Vargas and Tito.

Agree with Haz that Tito gets an unfair grilling for his higher weight exploits but he was never afraid of a challenge.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Like you Chris was more of a De La Hoya fan and that decision stinks, he could have cruised the last five rounds and it was still in the bag such was his dominance for the first nine rounds. We were spoilt for exciting fighters at the turn of the century whether it was the Mexican pair, Hamed, Gatti, Mosley, Oscar, Vargas and Tito.

Agree with Haz that Tito gets an unfair grilling for his higher weight exploits but he was never afraid of a challenge.

Except he couldn't as he'd fought tight in the first quarter and so tired.

I think it was a close fight - far closer than some would have you believe - and I can see it for Tito by a round (perhaps a draw would have been a fair result).

I don't really disagree with too much of what you've said, Haz, because Trinidad's record whichever way you slice it shows that he was a superb fighter and as you say he was more or less always great value for money; his wars with Campas and Vargas were brilliant and in fairness the fights against Oscar and Vargas were pretty close to 'mega fight' status, the kind of ballsy fights we're not seeing enough guys willing to take at the moment.

The down side, which probably still rankles with people, is that he was elevated in to the pound for pound race (to some people he was even briefly number one) largely on the back of the De la Hoya verdict, which very few think he was good value for. Getting Camacho and Whitaker at an opportune time when they were over the hill, as well as the fact that he built up a mean demeanour by permanently taking something away from young budding stars such as Reid and Vargas, helped make him a bit of a pantomime villain to a lot of people as well, I guess.

Odd thing about Tito was that, for five years between 1993 and 1998, he was seen as a bit of a protected fighter who was being carefully steered by King to milk his IBF belt for as long as possible - and even then he had plenty of shaky moments. All of a sudden, when King finally let his fighters appear on HBO again and let Tito off the leash a bit against Whitaker, he was seldom out of a risky match up rather than seldom in one which had been the case beforehand.

Agree with Hammersmith about how exciting those times were between 147 and 154. For about two or three years there was a phenomenal amount of talent crammed in to those weight classes. I mean, Winky versus Vargas was a brilliant fight, but there were so many highlight moments and big fights / fighters there at the time that it hardly gets a mention.

Personally I can't see a case for Tito in the Oscar fight, Haz. Sure, it could certainly be made in to a close one - in fact it was close using the ten point must system. But I think it's just impossible to give Trinidad any more than two of the first nine rounds. He was the only guy fighting in rounds ten to twelve, fair enough, but it should have been mathematically impossible for him to have won by that stage without a 10-8 round chucked in - which he didn't get.

Maybe, just maybe, if you gave Trinidad the benefit of the doubt here and there you could make it a draw - but that still would have been kinder to Trinidad than De la Hoya, I feel. Just can't see how Trinidad won it outright, though.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot less sympathy for De la Hoya than I normally would, because he helped bring it on himself with that terrible showing in the last three rounds. But if you win seven rounds and don't get knocked down or nearly stopped in any others, you should get the nod regardless of that.

DuransHorse wrote:If Haye does come back in 2015 then considering his last fight would have been summer 2012 and he's had serious surgery on his main boxing attribute there's no guarantee he'll be any form of a force whatsoever... if he ever was at heavy?

Still more than enough to deal with a chump like Fury

DAVE667 wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:If Haye does come back in 2015 then considering his last fight would have been summer 2012 and he's had serious surgery on his main boxing attribute there's no guarantee he'll be any form of a force whatsoever... if he ever was at heavy?

Still more than enough to deal with a chump like Fury

You probably have a point but I wonder how Haye would deal with that jab/flicky slap for 12 rounds? Divided loyalty for me as would like Haye to knock him out but would rather see Fury v Wlad than Haye v Wlad 2 any day!!!

DuransHorse wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:If Haye does come back in 2015 then considering his last fight would have been summer 2012 and he's had serious surgery on his main boxing attribute there's no guarantee he'll be any form of a force whatsoever... if he ever was at heavy?

Still more than enough to deal with a chump like Fury

You probably have a point but I wonder how Haye would deal with that jab/flicky slap for 12 rounds?  Divided loyalty for me as would like Haye to knock him out but would rather see Fury v Wlad than Haye v Wlad 2 any day!!!

If Fury tries to do it whilst pretending to be a southpaw, he gets taken out inside four rounds....if he tries it as an orthodox fighter, Haye beats him by round seven