WBO Mandatory - Wlad vs Haye II on the cards?

First topic message reminder :

Provided that he can get past Mariusz Wach, there are rumours that a mandatory challenger for the WBO portion of Wlad's belt collection is on the verge of being announced.

The opponent will be one of the WBO top three ranked contenders, namely Denis Boytsov, Seth Mitchell or David Haye.

The idea of a Wlad vs Haye re-match frankly fills me with dread, the idea of all the name calling and posturing, followed by another risibly inept performance and excuses galore is definitely not an enticing prospect.

Mitchell and Boytsov are unbeaten, but also untested, and with neither troubling the 6'3" mark on the wallchart it seems more than likely that any problems they could pose the champion could be dealt with by the usual leaning and holding tactics.

Mitchell is due to fight long-time Klitschko sparring partner Jonathon Banks next month, so a win there would move him into prime position I would think, although UDAR's 3rd place finish may have finally squashed hopes of Haye vs Vitali, so the Hayemaker hype-machine may grind into action and press for the re-match that surely nobody wants to see.

This could all be irrelevant though, if 6'7 Pole Mariusz Wach has his way two weeks from now.

What say you, 606v2?

They worked hard for their art. Nowadays it seems people like to attain that high status without the graft ...Remind you of anyone?

I see the Haye haters are out in force...oozing with bitterness.

ShahenshahG wrote:Yeah but if Wlad had an iron chin he would have blasted haye out of there in 1 round. But If haye had a chin and unending stamina - he would beat Muhammad Ali but but but ....Meltdown imminent - meltdown imminent....code re.... false alarm .. false alarm its just rycoys brain scan.

haha very good! comedy gold!
wel next time someone starts a thread on a potential fight we should not discuss it so wlad beat haye thats it!!!!!!!

You aren't discussing it - you are finding excuses for Haye - He lost because he wasn't aggressive enough and wlad had him at the end of his jab all night. Not because Wlad had a magic forearm which paralyses his opponent rendering them unable to throw a punch or the referee favoured him.

ShahenshahG wrote:You aren't discussing it - you are finding excuses for Haye - He lost because he wasn't aggressive enough and wlad had him at the end of his jab all night. Not because Wlad had a magic forearm which paralyses his opponent rendering them unable to throw a punch or the referee favoured him.

What he said!

The genius of PBF wrote:I see the Haye haters are out in force...oozing with bitterness.

too true , its annoying how you can not discuss a fight without people letting their personal dislike for someone blind thier opinion!! i mean if haye actually beat wlad while commiting fouls through the fight im sure they would not ignore it!

Well if Hatton was not bigger than most other LWW, he wouldn't have been as effective. If Ali hadn't been as fast as he was he wouldn't have been as effective. Boxers use their physical advanteges and inly the best utilise them properly. Look at Tyson for example. He used his short stature to his advantage. Had he been taller perhaps he wouldn't have been as good or explosive.

ShahenshahG wrote:You aren't discussing it - you are finding excuses for Haye - He lost because he wasn't aggressive enough and wlad had him at the end of his jab all night. Not because Wlad had a magic forearm which paralyses his opponent rendering them unable to throw a punch or the referee favoured him.

not an excuse haye lost because wlad was better but im finding reasons why the fight could be different ! just like you saying haye was nt aggressive , that is true so is the fact that wlad holds leans and smashes hes forarm into hayes head any time he is close , if it was in england he would ent be able to do it , maybe wlad stil wins but who knows!

rycoys wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:I see the Haye haters are out in force...oozing with bitterness.

too true , its annoying how you can not discuss a fight without people letting their personal dislike for someone blind thier opinion!! i mean if haye actually beat wlad while commiting fouls through the fight im sure they would not ignore it!

I agree Ry, if only everyone could display the objectivity and impartiality when discussing Haye you always bring to the debate.

rowley wrote:

rycoys wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:I see the Haye haters are out in force...oozing with bitterness.

too true , its annoying how you can not discuss a fight without people letting their personal dislike for someone blind thier opinion!! i mean if haye actually beat wlad while commiting fouls through the fight im sure they would not ignore it!

I agree Ry, if only everyone could display the objectivity and impartiality when discussing Haye you always bring to the debate.

if only!! it may come accross pro haye but i do think i have a valid point,

Haye was more concerned about flinging himself to the floor premier league footballer style than being aggressive when Wlad got close to him.

It certainly comes across that way rycoys.

I actually thought that was quite a smart little plan that was clearly made up by Haye and Booth, whenever he starts the grabbing and leaning up close drop to the floor as though he's pushed you down, attempting to get Wlad into trouble, so it would stop him from doing it more in the future.

It worked initially and Wlad lost a point, but the ref got wise to it and basically then awarded a knock down against him when he kept doing it. I dont think too many refs will buy it if its overused.

i tell you what tho , if it did happen again it would certainly settle a few debates on this thread!!!

i tell you what tho , if it did happen again it would certainly settle a few debates on this thread!!!

manos de piedra wrote:It worked initially and Wlad lost a point, but the ref got wise to it and basically then awarded a knock down against him when he kept doing it. I dont think too many refs will buy it if its overused.

Oh yeah, it was actually when Manny Steward (RIP) went in the ring and shouted his Love sacks off at the referee, (Who really didn't seem to bright and folded under the pressure of Steward screaming at him) then he started penalising Haye after that.

rycoys wrote:

azania wrote:Wlad was better on the night because he is a better boxer. He is better on any night you care to name.

i am not doubting wlads ability am just saying if wlad was not so much bigger and taller then haye and was not allowed to foul by useing hes forearms the fight would be alot closer , meanig there is not a gulf in class in terms of boxing!!

Haye was hopelessly outclassed in that fight mate. He was tame, out thought and out punched. I thought haye showed decent footwork and very good head movement in the fight, but as well has the advantages his size brings him wlad put his punches together better, was the aggressor and a deserved comfortable winner. Haye spent too much time running, looking for one big punch, throwing himself on the floor and moaning when he should've been trying to lay some traps and let his hands fly.

kingraf wrote:Wasnt the cut Vitali got against Lewis originally caused by the strap of the glove? Not exactly a Titanic hit. .

Erm... no. The cut was caused by a left-right combination thrown by Lewis at the very beginning of rd 4 (I think? Maybe 5, been a while since I've seen it). You can see it clearly on the replay, the moment Lewis right hand strikes Vits eye it rips it open. Lewis focuses most of his punches on the cut until it the ref has no option but to stop it. A good job for Vitali he did too, firstly because he was starting to lose the fight, secondly because if the cut had got much worse it would've had a detrimental long term effect on his career.

SBS - it was a glancing blow that opened Vitali up.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

rycoys wrote:

azania wrote:Wlad was better on the night because he is a better boxer. He is better on any night you care to name.

i am not doubting wlads ability am just saying if wlad was not so much bigger and taller then haye and was not allowed to foul by useing hes forearms the fight would be alot closer , meanig there is not a gulf in class in terms of boxing!!

Haye was hopelessly outclassed in that fight mate. He was tame, out thought and out punched. I thought haye showed decent footwork and very good head movement in the fight, but as well has the advantages his size brings him wlad put his punches together better, was the aggressor and a deserved comfortable winner. Haye spent too much time running, looking for one big punch, throwing himself on the floor and moaning when he should've been trying to lay some traps and let his hands fly.

kingraf wrote:Wasnt the cut Vitali got against Lewis originally caused by the strap of the glove? Not exactly a Titanic hit. .

Erm... no. The cut was caused by a left-right combination thrown by Lewis at the very beginning of rd 4 (I think? Maybe 5, been a while since I've seen it). You can see it clearly on the replay, the moment Lewis right hand strikes Vits eye it rips it open. Lewis focuses most of his punches on the cut until it the ref has no option but to stop it. A good job for Vitali he did too, firstly because he was starting to lose the fight, secondly because if the cut had got much worse it would've had a detrimental long term effect on his career.

vitali was dominating that fight and this forum has had enough of the vitali v lewis debate. vitali landed the most punches including jabs and power punches not just in the whole fight but in EVERY SINGLE round. Vitali was winning on all 3 judges score cards by 2 rounds and was ahead by a mile on the punch stats. The last round vitali landed the most punches including jabs and power punches. People say lewis would have won but we will never know. all we do know is that vitali was winning the fight and landed the most punches in every single round including the last round where he landed more jabs and power punches.

victorgarco wrote:

vitali was dominating that fight and this forum has had enough of the vitali v lewis debate.

With the greatest of respect not really sure that is for you to decide.

Lewis W TKO6.

Everything else is minor detail.

victorgarco wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

rycoys wrote:

azania wrote:Wlad was better on the night because he is a better boxer. He is better on any night you care to name.

i am not doubting wlads ability am just saying if wlad was not so much bigger and taller then haye and was not allowed to foul by useing hes forearms the fight would be alot closer , meanig there is not a gulf in class in terms of boxing!!

Haye was hopelessly outclassed in that fight mate. He was tame, out thought and out punched. I thought haye showed decent footwork and very good head movement in the fight, but as well has the advantages his size brings him wlad put his punches together better, was the aggressor and a deserved comfortable winner. Haye spent too much time running, looking for one big punch, throwing himself on the floor and moaning when he should've been trying to lay some traps and let his hands fly.

kingraf wrote:Wasnt the cut Vitali got against Lewis originally caused by the strap of the glove? Not exactly a Titanic hit. .

Erm... no. The cut was caused by a left-right combination thrown by Lewis at the very beginning of rd 4 (I think? Maybe 5, been a while since I've seen it). You can see it clearly on the replay, the moment Lewis right hand strikes Vits eye it rips it open. Lewis focuses most of his punches on the cut until it the ref has no option but to stop it. A good job for Vitali he did too, firstly because he was starting to lose the fight, secondly because if the cut had got much worse it would've had a detrimental long term effect on his career.

vitali was dominating that fight and this forum has had enough of the vitali v lewis debate. vitali landed the most punches including jabs and power punches not just in the whole fight but in EVERY SINGLE round. Vitali was winning on all 3 judges score cards by 2 rounds and was ahead by a mile on the punch stats. The last round vitali landed the most punches including jabs and power punches. People say lewis would have won but we will never know. all we do know is that vitali was winning the fight and landed the most punches in every single round including the last round where he landed more jabs and power punches.

Waingro's brother?

rowley wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

vitali was dominating that fight and this forum has had enough of the vitali v lewis debate.

With the greatest of respect not really sure that is for you to decide.

I quite clearly put punch and round statistics to back it up

Was referring to the second part of the sentence.

victorgarco wrote:

rowley wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

vitali was dominating that fight and this forum has had enough of the vitali v lewis debate.

With the greatest of respect not really sure that is for you to decide.

I quite clearly put punch and round statistics to back it up

Whilst I agree that Vit was dominating the fight, others have a very different opinion as to the direction the fight was going seeing as Lewis was getting more into the fight. The point above is that it is not for you or anyone else to decide what the board has had enough of....regardless of punch stats.

Can you post the round by round analysis please Victorgarco - plus the judges scorecards (I'm aware Vitali was ahead)

Then I'll engage you in a debate.

azania wrote:SBS - it was a glancing blow that opened Vitali up.

Wasn't a power punch, wouldn't go as far as to say a glancing blow - that almost makes it sound inoccuous. It was a slicing punch, travelling upwards at the point of contact - not intentional from Lewis, blows that cause cuts rarely are as they're usually slicing motions that tear the skin as opposed to full contact blows. Did the job though.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

azania wrote:SBS - it was a glancing blow that opened Vitali up.

Wasn't a power punch, wouldn't go as far as to say a glancing blow - that almost makes it sound inoccuous. It was a slicing punch, travelling upwards at the point of contact - not intentional from Lewis, blows that cause cuts rarely are as they're usually slicing motions that tear the skin as opposed to full contact blows. Did the job though.

Watch it again. It was an inoccuous blow. Even the commentators said so. But as you say, it doesn't matter. Winning on cuts is part and parcel of the sport. Great win for Lewis and looks better in hindsight.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Can you post the round by round analysis please Victorgarco - plus the judges scorecards (I'm aware Vitali was ahead)

Then I'll engage you in a debate.

Have you never heard of google?

Lewis Klitsc
Landed 102 156
Power 50 79
jabs 52 77

Klitschko landed OVER 50% more punches than Lewis in that fight

victorgarco wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Can you post the round by round analysis please Victorgarco - plus the judges scorecards (I'm aware Vitali was ahead)

Then I'll engage you in a debate.

Have you never heard of google?

Lewis Klitsc
Landed 102 156
Power 50 79
jabs 52 77

Klitschko landed OVER 50% more punches than Lewis in that fight

It'd be interesting to see how many were thrown, you know - connect percentage, round by round. Round by round you have the fact Lewis through 4 and 5 and 6 was starting to connect more, hit Klitschko more often - I totally concede round 1, 2 and 3 were all Vitali.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DgAvar2NTE

Look at the stats at the start of that video - Lewis was 23 landed from 43 thrown, thats 54% connecting.

Vitali was 27 from 70 thrown - 39%

Lewis' punches were starting to hurt Vitali. Badly.

Shows me Lewis was starting to assert dominance.

Vitali threw more than twice as many jabs as Lewis and connected with....11% less.

Its not always about who throws and lands, its who won, and Lewis was starting to rock Vitali.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Can you post the round by round analysis please Victorgarco - plus the judges scorecards (I'm aware Vitali was ahead)

Then I'll engage you in a debate.

Have you never heard of google?

Lewis Klitsc
Landed 102 156
Power 50 79
jabs 52 77

Klitschko landed OVER 50% more punches than Lewis in that fight

It'd be interesting to see how many were thrown, you know - connect percentage, round by round. Round by round you have the fact Lewis through 4 and 5 and 6 was starting to connect more, hit Klitschko more often - I totally concede round 1, 2 and 3 were all Vitali.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DgAvar2NTE

Look at the stats at the start of that video - Lewis was 23 landed from 43 thrown, thats 54% connecting.

Vitali was 27 from 70 thrown - 39%

Lewis' punches were starting to hurt Vitali. Badly.

Shows me Lewis was starting to assert dominance.

Vitali threw more than twice as many jabs as Lewis and connected with....11% less.

Its not always about who throws and lands, its who won, and Lewis was starting to rock Vitali.

If I throw 100 punches and land 50 and you thow 35 and land 20 who is doing better?

Depends how hurtful the punches are. Its not cut and dry.

Listen, you don't like Lewis, I get that, but he won - end of. If the fight would have continued, I genuinely believe that Vitali would have been all over the place in rounds 8 and 9 and probably over in round 10.

i dont care , haye would beat both of them with one arm tied behiend hes back while smocking a cigar !!! he would need all hes toes tho !!

Haye beats Lewis?

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Depends how hurtful the punches are. Its not cut and dry.

Listen, you don't like Lewis, I get that, but he won - end of. If the fight would have continued, I genuinely believe that Vitali would have been all over the place in rounds 8 and 9 and probably over in round 10.

I do like lewis he was a great boxer. But he was losing the fight to Klitschko and you believe he would have knocked klitsko out but rounds 8 and 9 never happened we can only judge the fight on the 6 rounds that did and in those 6 rounds klitschko dominated it but lost due to a cut

victorgarco wrote:

I do like lewis he was a great boxer. But he was losing the fight to Klitschko and you believe he would have knocked klitsko out but rounds 8 and 9 never happened we can only judge the fight on the 6 rounds that did

We coud also choose to judge the fight on the official result if we wanted to.

The genius of PBF wrote:Haye beats Lewis?

just playing up to me being so pro haye mate !!!!!!!!

rowley wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

I do like lewis he was a great boxer. But he was losing the fight to Klitschko and you believe he would have knocked klitsko out but rounds 8 and 9 never happened we can only judge the fight on the 6 rounds that did

We coud also choose to judge the fight on the official result if we wanted to.

Lewis did win I am not debating that as that is a matter if fact. But the debate was about who was winning before the ref stopped the fight due to a cut.

The judges had him ahead by the end. Vit was winning.

Vit has won the opening 3/4 rounds.

Lewis was starting to get going. He was hitting Vitali harder, and more often. So instead of judging it on the scorecard that wasn't required, why don't we go by the official result, or speculate? If you think Vitali would have stopped Lewis, I assume you spent round 5 and 6 with your eyes closed.

Whoever was winning is only relevant if the fight goes to the scorecards though, if there is a stoppage the scorecards mean nothing.

This is not Khan vs Mcclosky we are talking about. We are talking about someones face hanging off by, caused by scoring shots.

Anyway,

Lewis was winning a couple of HIS fights before he got sparked, he was winning but he lost, a loss is a loss.

KO, cuts and points are all legitimate ways of winning fight's. What you are doing by cutting someone up (say target an old injury) or KOing a person is nullifying the cards.

I'm not saying Lewis' employed the cut strategy, but what I am saying is; points don't mean diddly when there's other ways of winning.

Didn't read your post Union, sorry

TheMackemMawler wrote:Didn't read your post Union, sorry

No problem brother, I'm quite used to that.

The result is never questioned. What causes the debate I think is the how the action unfolded and is interpreted.

For instance if you were contemplating how a potential rematch might go then the action in the first fight is more relevant than the result.

I think there should have been a rematch and had Lewis not been happy to retire then the circumstances of the first fight would almost certainly lead to a rematch in normal circumstances. It wasnt a particularly satisfying ending. However strangely, I think it worked out well for both fighters. Lewis got the W over half of the next dominating duopoly (the better half at the time), while Vitali in many ways won the moral result and showed he could give a great heavyweight big problems.

Had Vitali actually won the fight either on points or by KO then I think bizzarely he would get less credit because people would just say Lewis was past it or something (I dont think he was at all). The way it ended meant both fighters came out of it with credit. Vitali credit for the performance, Lewis credit for the win.

I may be wrong, but wasn't Vitali a replacement for Lewis' original contender? A contender who wasn't much cop. A person Lewis was supposed to annihilate? Because of this wasn't Lewis under prepared for the Vit challenge?

Lewis would tailor a fight strategy to that of the opposition. He was very versatile. Whereas Vitali only has one way of fighting. In a rematch Vit would have fought the exactly same. However, had Lewis known, from the beginning, that Vit would be in the opposing corner, then he may well have fought a different fight.

These facts make it difficult to predict the winner of a rematch, though I'd sway toward Lewis. I think at 38yo he didn't fancy the toughest fight of his career.

TheMackemMawler wrote:I may be wrong, but wasn't Vitali a replacement for Lewis' original contender? A contender who wasn't much cop. A person Lewis was supposed to annihilate? Because of this wasn't Lewis under prepared for the Vit challenge?

Lewis would tailor a fight strategy to that of the opposition. He was very versatile. Whereas Vitali only has one way of fighting. In a rematch Vit would have fought the exactly same. However, had Lewis known, from the beginning, that Vit would be in the opposing corner, then he may well have fought a different fight.

These facts make it difficult to predict the winner of a rematch, though I'd sway toward Lewis. I think at 38yo he didn't fancy the toughest fight of his career.

They both had to change opponents. Vit was supposed to be on the undercard. Like a true pro he trained like he was fighting for the world title. Lewis was supposed to fight Kirk Johnson and like the fool that he can be, he didn't train as hard as he should have.

The deal was for Vitali to fight Lewis in the next match. I wasn't surprised Lewis retired after. I reckon Vitali would have knocked him out.

Haye's apparently in the next series of that celebrity jungle nonsense...

Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake wrote:Haye's apparently in the next series of that celebrity jungle nonsense...

Good God no. How low can he go?