Does Haye intend to Avoid Vitali Klitschko?

First topic message reminder :

I have seen that David Haye has recently again reiterated his intention to retire in October regardless of the result of his fight with Wladimir.

If his intentions are true then this would most likely make a fight with Vitali Klitschko (who is scheduled to fight in September against Adamek) highly unlikely. I think this would be very unsatisfactory.

My question is do people think that Haye ever intended/intends to fight Vitali?

I have never fully seen the logic of Hayes rigid retirement date. I have always thought that fighters should view their retirement in terms of fights rather than dates and I cant really understand why Haye would jeopardise fully unifying the titles in order to retire on such a specific date? If the Vitali fight could be made in December then is really so much of a stretch for Haye to continue until then?

Personally I have always believed that Vitali is the more formidable of the two brothers and I have long felt that Hayes specific targetting of Wlad out of the two brothers is more than coincidental. I think Haye feels very strongly that Wlad is the more beatable of the two and offers him greater chance of success. As much as Haye appears to have faith in his power, anyone who has followed Vitalis career (especially the fights with Lewis or Sanders) will know that his chin would be enough to cause even the hardest hitting heavyweights to doubt their power.

Initially I thought that Haye fighting Wlad first made more sense as I think he has a better chance against him. But I always assumed that if he won then a winner takes all fight with Vitali for the undisputed title would naturally follow. But Hayes continued insistance on his retirement date has now raised some doubts with me if he really intends on fighting Vitali after. With Hayes intention to retire in October and Vitali scheduled to face Adamek in September then something will have to give if we are to see the fight for the undisputed championship come off.

What are peoples thoughts?

Truss, if you love the U S of A so much how is it you left as soon as you were an adult?

Because I was told to spread the word.....amen.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Because I was told to spread the word.....amen.

But we dislike Americans anyway, we dont need one in our country to establish that.

Thank goodness you didn't have that attitude in 1942 fraulein..

I know you're on a wind up Truss, can't let your banner waving go unchecked though.

They won't ban you - they won't have the bottle after news of your recent successful return to fisticuffs.

Without wanting to participate and put a spotless disciplinary record thus far on the line, not everyone would put their country before their own lives or those of their friends or family Truss. Have you never studied the crushing effects such an attitude has on individualism and one's personal values and morals? If not I'm sure some books at your local library could put it well into perspective. Personally I'd recommend the translated version of Tocqueville's American Democracy...

Complete and utter patriotism today stands in vain anyway, not when you see some clear examples of government corruption to it's full extent.

Anyways, Haye isn't ducking Vitali imo 8)

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Thank goodness you didn't have that attitude in 1942 fraulein..

I was -45 years old then.

I'm still struggling with "Roald Dahl's Charlie and the chocolate factory" Knowsit...

But your lecture is received with warm grace..

If only they saw me Sugar...I'd be 606 honorary president by a landslide.

goodnight lads..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just keep pulling for Vlad to win sweetie....

Some of us are proud of our Country..........

Those who aren't are just pathetic creatures with no worth...

you seem to be of the latter variety.......

I would disagree Truss.

For me I would personally hope that where I fell out of a vagina was less of a definition of me than the person I am.

Regarding Haye, I would like him to win, but then I don't hate him and admire his ability.

If Ian Huntley was fighting against Mayweather I would want Mayweather to win as Huntley is considerably worse a human being than Mayweather regardless of the fact he was born in the same country as me.

Wow. Have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread albeit from a sadistic point of view!

Personally I think all this talk and constant reiteration of retiring could be and, probably is a wind up. The lure of a massive unification fight and the huge purse it promises (coupled with the anger from Hayes apparently unpatriotic fans should he retire early!) may be enough to stir him into making the figh a reality.

Haye likes to talk, whether it's seen as a good or a bad thing, the fact is he divides peoples opinions, stirs up debate and generates interest in an otherwise boring division.

Sadly - if Haye means to retire in October (and I hope its just a publicity stunt) its better for boxing if Wlad wins.

That's a fact. He an hold the title - beat some more bums before the next great challenger comes along.

Haye would be world HW champ and then retire without a defence. Not ideal.

oxring wrote:Sadly - if Haye means to retire in October (and I hope its just a publicity stunt) its better for boxing if Wlad wins.

That's a fact. He an hold the title - beat some more bums before the next great challenger comes along.

Haye would be world HW champ and then retire without a defence. Not ideal.

Disagree

Wlad needs to be beaten, it would give the whole division a shot in the arm and create news across every sporting site in the world. If Haye loses the whole interest will peak at "another Wlad victory, sigh".

Dominance in any division is never a good thing, interest in the heavies is at a low and i don't see what positive a Wlad victory has for the division unless it's a barnstormer of a fight.

Everyone's tired of their reign, a Haye win would boost the divisions profile massively and although it'd be nice for him to defend against Vitali (and i believe he would because of the money) i think the interest levels will remain (with the likes of Adamek etc) without him.

coxy0001 wrote:

oxring wrote:Sadly - if Haye means to retire in October (and I hope its just a publicity stunt) its better for boxing if Wlad wins.

That's a fact. He an hold the title - beat some more bums before the next great challenger comes along.

Haye would be world HW champ and then retire without a defence. Not ideal.

Disagree

Wlad needs to be beaten, it would give the whole division a shot in the arm and create news across every sporting site in the world. If Haye loses the whole interest will peak at "another Wlad victory, sigh".

Dominance in any division is never a good thing, interest in the heavies is at a low and i don't see what positive a Wlad victory has for the division unless it's a barnstormer of a fight.

Everyone's tired of their reign, a Haye win would boost the divisions profile massively and although it'd be nice for him to defend against Vitali (and i believe he would because of the money) i think the interest levels will remain (with the likes of Adamek etc) without him.

Fair - but what happens when Haye retires? Wlad wins the title back most likely. Then spends the next 5 years calling Haye out for a rematch. That sounds a lot like the last 5 years of dross and misery. I'd like to get behind Adamek - but much as I rate him, I don't see it. Not as the next "champ" at any rate. After that we're down to 10 and 11 fight novices.

Initially I didn't think Haye would retire when he stated and was using that as a spur to get the K's to sign up to big money fights. I thought he'd attempt to unify the titles then retire and, once they were fragmented again (which is undoubtedly what would have happened), Haye might possibly come out of retirement to unify the belts a second time. However, given the delays and shenanigans on both sides, it's thrown a spanner in Haye's plans to secure these big money fights in double quick tme.

However, given the timescales involved I think there's every possibility Haye will retire (or more accurately, "retire") in October and then see whether or not the interest is still there for a fight with Vitali and thus be enticed out of retirement for one last hurrah. Of course this all depends on whether or not he can beat Wlad.

Let's not forget, Haye suckered Frank Warren into paying over the odds for the unification fight with Enzo citing his difficulty in getting back down to CW. haye wanted the fight up at HW but once it became known that haye would consider a CW clash if the money was right, Warren leapt at the chance and was left with egg on his face.

Don't know what the problem is with the retirement issue really, Mayweather's been doing it on and off for the past few years.

oxring wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

oxring wrote:Sadly - if Haye means to retire in October (and I hope its just a publicity stunt) its better for boxing if Wlad wins.

That's a fact. He an hold the title - beat some more bums before the next great challenger comes along.

Haye would be world HW champ and then retire without a defence. Not ideal.

Disagree

Wlad needs to be beaten, it would give the whole division a shot in the arm and create news across every sporting site in the world. If Haye loses the whole interest will peak at "another Wlad victory, sigh".

Dominance in any division is never a good thing, interest in the heavies is at a low and i don't see what positive a Wlad victory has for the division unless it's a barnstormer of a fight.

Everyone's tired of their reign, a Haye win would boost the divisions profile massively and although it'd be nice for him to defend against Vitali (and i believe he would because of the money) i think the interest levels will remain (with the likes of Adamek etc) without him.

Fair - but what happens when Haye retires? Wlad wins the title back most likely. Then spends the next 5 years calling Haye out for a rematch. That sounds a lot like the last 5 years of dross and misery. I'd like to get behind Adamek - but much as I rate him, I don't see it. Not as the next "champ" at any rate. After that we're down to 10 and 11 fight novices.

Would hopefully retire! We can all dream though

Would rather see the likes of Adamek, Arreola, Povetkin, Dimitrenko, Boytsov and co all scrapping between themselves as they're all on roughly the same level. The KBros are a level above and they're the most boring of fighters to watch.

Let around 8 guys all squabble over and swap the belts around each fight rather than monotonous jab jab hook defences with two guys who can't be touched.

Would you rather he beat Wlad and retired - and then waited to see if Vitali would pay him enough - or would you prefer he beat Wlad, then Vit, then Adamek - then one of Boytsov/Povetkin/Arreola/Chambers etc.

That way he'd have beaten the top 5 - there'd be no-one really left for him to face - and he could have it done in 1 year. Beat Wlad in July, Vit in December, Adamek in April - and then one of the rest in October. Therefore retiring just 1 year later than he'd planned.

We normally agree (or I thought we did, Dave) that Mayweather's on and off love affair with the sport has been bad for boxing - surely the same goes for Haye?

Coxy - the picture you set out isn't that unappealing actually. Like you say - 8 guys roughly on the same level would be more exciting than watching the K-bros batter them all - but I'm not convinced Wlad retires if he loses.

wow_junky wrote:Not the worst Truss, but top 10 worst if he loses to Wlad.

Valuev, Barrett, Ruiz, Harrison - doesn't get much worse than that.

Incidently, Valuev is the youngest heavyweight that Haye has faced to date, aged 37

Not true. Tomasz Bonin was 33 when he fought Haye in 2007.

Ox, I think Mayweather's pi55-balling about over the Manny fight has been bad for boxing. Couldn't care too much about him quitting and coming back over and over... I just think he should get the Manny fight arranged asap. It's the only fight out there and the endless prevarication makes be want to run through shopping malls with an automatic rifle serving up firey leaden punishment.

I'd be dismayed if Haye retired without facing Vitali but, as I'm sure many are already aware, I doubt Haye cares too much if it upsets us or not.

Benelio wrote:

wow_junky wrote:Not the worst Truss, but top 10 worst if he loses to Wlad.

Valuev, Barrett, Ruiz, Harrison - doesn't get much worse than that.

Incidently, Valuev is the youngest heavyweight that Haye has faced to date, aged 37

Not true. Tomasz Bonin was 33 when he fought Haye in 2007.

Never forget Bonin. A guy who's career highlight to that date was an 8th round KO loss to Fraudley.

The 1st fight had rematch clauses in - If Haye won he had to fight Wlad and his brother.

Am I to take it that there are no such rematch clauses this time around? I know the Haye camp made alot of noise about all the conditions they had to agree to to get this fight but don't recall anything about a rematch.

If there is a rematch clause and Haye wins then he won't be retiring.

If he relinquishes the titles then the K's can't force him to fight them

Imperial Ghosty wrote:If he relinquishes the titles then the K's can't force him to fight them

As you said Ghosty. You can't force a retired man to fight Rob, however much you might like to. If Haye came back to fight someone else - he'd be in lots of trouble - but assuming he retires and goes into "the movies" like he's threatened - its over.

oxring wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:If he relinquishes the titles then the K's can't force him to fight them

As you said Ghosty. You can't force a retired man to fight Rob, however much you might like to. If Haye came back to fight someone else - he'd be in lots of trouble - but assuming he retires and goes into "the movies" like he's threatened - its over.

Yeah, makes alot of sense. Maybe was why Haye and Booth kept mentioning this retirement date, so that Wlad didn't insist on a rematch clause, as it would be pretty useless.

If Haye wins and doesn't retire and there is no rematch clause - it will have turned out to be a shrewd move.