Bruce Woodcock v David Haye

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by janitor

Haye would be too much for Woodcock.

David Haye vs Tommy Farr would be a more interesting fight.

I think Haye v Woodcock would be more interesting.

Tommy Farr was much better than both.
He would have to chase Haye all night in a stinker.

[thistle1]

I would say Farr over Woodcock as well, in durability and boxing. But Woodcock hit harder and was a good basic upright boxer too. These two are arguably Britain's best HWs.

people can and will argue for Cooper or Bugner or Wells or Cockell (a L-HW), or in this case Peterson, or Lewis, who I think Canada deserves credit for and these Lewis's breed are no longer Hws anyway but S-HW.

But Haye would have a hard time with some of these boys, quite simply they fought in a more competetive era. Someone also made the mistake of refering to 'domestic' level. There was no such thing back then, they were world classed or they weren't and the British title was second only to the world title.

completely different world of boxing then, completely!

[choklab]

Originally Posted by thistle1

But Haye would have a hard time with some of these boys, quite simply they fought in a more competetive era. Someone also made the mistake of refering to 'domestic' level. There was no such thing back then, they were world classed or they weren't and the British title was second only to the world title.

completely different world of boxing then, completely!

I think you make a good point but I still think in the weights over middle the fighters of the day needed international opponets to gage themselves as world class. In the lower weights there was enough competition to develop world class fighters without testing them against americans -ted kid lewis, jack kid berg, freddie welsh, jock mcvoy etc etc in those classes a british champ was as good as a world champ- he just had not been to newyork.

I just dont think there was quite the competition above middleweight. Fighters like farr and harvey grew through the weights from boys and carried that development with them into the weight class but a lot of british and euro career heavyweights (rare as they were) could simply be big oafs without a traditional boxing background. Boxing is a working class sport, before WW2 the working classes simply did not produce anywhere near the percantage of HW sized men as their american cousins.

[Unforgiven]

The British HWs of the 1930s and 1940s were as good, or better, relative to 'world standard', as almost any time before or after.

In truth, Brits have never had a particularly strong HW crop ever.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by thistle1

But Haye would have a hard time with some of these boys, quite simply they fought in a more competetive era.

True.
There's no way Haye would have been ranked world #1 contender in the 30s or 40s, as a Brit having to prove himself against the best of Europe and America.
He would have fallen short, same as Woodcock.
There were no way for Brits to navigate around that. And in those days to win a British or European title you usually had to beat the best fighter in Britain and Europe.
Nowadays someone like Audley gets to be European champion, while there are at least 20 better men in the region.

[MagnaNasakki]

Haye has too much artillery here.

He wins, early.

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

How would this battle between British heavyweights go ?

U, the name Bruce Woodcock brings memories to me. I saw Bruce Woodcock ko'd by one of my boyhood favorites Tami Mauriello at MSG in
1946.i think it was the only time Woodcock fought in America. Woodcock was a small HW who could hit hard for his size. After his ko loss to the
tough punching Mauriello, Woodcock later on kod Gus Lesnevich [most impressive win],was kod by the big coal miner Joe Baksi,and beat the clever Lee Oma and Lee Savold...How Woodcock would fare against David Haye today.? Couldn't say, but I think the bigger and faster Haye would be the favorite,against Woodcock, but not against a Tami Mauriello or Joe Baksi...Cheers.

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

I think Haye v Woodcock would be more interesting.

Tommy Farr was much better than both.
He would have to chase Haye all night in a stinker.

U, No way David Hayes beats the tough, sturdy and dead-game Tommy Farr. The way Farr almost whipped a prime Joe Louis shows me Farr would
beat David Haye. Aside from a Lenox Lewis, Tommy Farr was the best big man Britain ever produced.A tough SOB was brave Tommy....

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by burt bienstock

U, No way David Hayes beats the tough, sturdy and dead-game Tommy Farr. The way Farr almost whipped a prime Joe Louis shows me Farr would
beat David Haye. Aside from a Lenox Lewis, Tommy Farr was the best big man Britain ever produced.A tough SOB was brave Tommy....

I agree.
Haye wouldn't even put up a proper fight. He'd make it boring by being so negative and defensive. Farr would win a landslide decision.

Anyway, Haye is the product of a different era. He could afford to avoid young HW contenders and still get his shot at the real champion, and pick up his own "heavyweight championship of the world" in the meantime. In Farr's day, he would have had to fight a few more young tigers just to get a 100th of the column space and coverage he's been gifted in today's world.

[TheGreatA]

Woodcock created his reputation mainly based on wins over light heavyweights. He did have a fair punch so I would by no means count him out against the fragile Haye. He was certainly better than Maccarinelli or Harrison and whatever Lolenga Mock and Carl Thompson did, he could do as well. We need to get over Haye who built up a career based on his trash-talk and a good physique.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh6jYFQqxw0[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jhp0qOlpmVg[/ame]

[thistle1]

here's why we can't win these Boxing "Past vs Present discssions...

over on the General forum this: where would joe louis figure in todays heavyweight division ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think most would agree that the k bros would be too big for joe.haye is too fast and powerful imo but he is better than the rest

that was the first response, and there pages of it... used to be people wanted to learn about life and that meant looking at history and determining accuracies and truth!

now you just can't tell people anything, they can never learn what they don't want to except - Haye better than Louis.

Dear God have mercy!

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by thistle1

here's why we can't win these Boxing "Past vs Present discssions...

over on the General forum this: where would joe louis figure in todays heavyweight division ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think most would agree that the k bros would be too big for joe.haye is too fast and powerful imo but he is better than the rest

that was the first response, and there pages of it... used to be people wanted to learn about life and that meant looking at history and determining accuracies and truth!

now you just can't tell people anything, they can never learn what they don't want to except - Haye better than Louis.

Dear God have mercy!

It's bad, but I've learned to expect in The General Forum.
What's sad is that views that are almost as ill-informed are taking hold on the Classic Forum too.

I'm all for plurality of views and differing opinions, but when people start calling Haye "the complete package puncher" or making Frank Bruno a favourite over an animal like Dempsey or whatever, it stretches my tolerance levels to the limit.

Its funny as hell though.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

The British HWs of the 1930s and 1940s were as good, or better, relative to 'world standard', as almost any time before or after.

In truth, Brits have never had a particularly strong HW crop ever.

I agree to an extent. I think the 1955-1966 crop of british heavyweights were also world class and beat good international opponents as well as each other. They were genuine rated contenders on par with the american based crop IMO. excluding champions the rated brits were as good as anyone.

Cooper, richardson, erskine and London colectivly beat the likes of folley, roy harris, radmacher, ezzard charles, bob baker, chuvalo, miteff, bethea, willie pastrano, hubert hilton and roger rischer who were all rated contenders when beaten by the british crop.

The 1930s british champs were an under rated lot also.

Until about 1980 the UK suffered from the working classes not producing enough heavyweight sized men as their american cousins. BY then it suffered from a lack of competition.

[SuzieQ49]

Use your own two eyes. Watch David Haye on film. A terrific puncher. Blazing handpeed, athleticism, Timing, Raw Power for a cruiserweight. Watching Woodcock on film, he is more stiff than a robot, he's a muscle head. Haye would blow woodcock away with his speed and athleticism alone...add power into the mix woodcock can't take Haye's best punches. Haye would throw a 1-2-3 combination and Woodcock would be flat on his back.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Use your own two eyes. Watch David Haye on film. A terrific puncher. Blazing handpeed, athleticism, Timing, Raw Power for a cruiserweight. Watching Woodcock on film, he is more stiff than a robot, he's a muscle head. Haye would blow woodcock away with his speed and athleticism alone...add power into the mix woodcock can't take Haye's best punches. Haye would throw a 1-2-3 combination and Woodcock would be flat on his back.

How can you be so sure? what fighter did haye beat who was as good as lesnevich?
I like haye, watched his whole career but he made less impression on the british public than woodcock did in the British post war years. why wasn’t david as mainstream in his own country? could it be that they saw more of him than you did?
Haye has tools and assets and hopefully his career is not over. for much of his career David relied far too much on beating a fighter to the draw and his stamina was bad. He never showed he had the pace or the ability to win an exchange without going down. I really cant see how you can put as much faith in an unfinished article.