Bruce Woodcock v David Haye

[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.

[lora]

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.

Other than perhaps power for a cruiser, i saw none of those things when watching Haye.

the man was a ponderous unskilled labourer with telegraphed looping right hand and a sloppy easily penetrable reflexive defense.


Woodcock wasn't a good fighter either though, so who knows who would win.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by choklab

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.

We still don't produce as many men (of any size) as America.
They have a population over 5 times as large as us.

I think historically we made a far bigger impact at middleweight.

[Unforgiven]

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.

Bullshit.
He throws A LOT of sloppy wild reckless punches that would make Luis Firpo jealous.

[TheGreatA]

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.

I know you're just wanting to defend one of Wladimir Klitschko's better wins but in reality the man just wasn't that good. He blew away some usual suspects of the Euro scene and nearly embarrassed himself against the big circus act that was Nikolai Valuev with an output of 2 punches a round. If not for Valuev having fallen out of favours and having ran his course, he probably would have been jobbed like the rest, putting him in the same category as ancient Larry Donald and Holyfield.

The only reason he might get a win here, is because Woodcock himself wasn't much of a fighter. He could still hit and that's why I wouldn't lay any money on Haye to win, a guy that was on the floor against a middleweight.

[thistle1]

Woodcock was much better than some here are thinking, look at a couple of the ealier posts!

I understand SuzieQ, I like Haye and had faith in him, I really thought he could pull off an upset against Klit (because the Klits aren't great either), still believe he could.

But that No Show he gave is only beaten in pathetic performance by the last 5-6 years of Hopkins!

Woodcock's period was simply better, the times demanded it, even though the British and Euro HWs weren't great, some of them were good enough. Woodcock being one of them!

[Unforgiven]

Someone did a pretty good All-Time top 10 British Heavyweights list here :

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

It's a decent list. I approached the top 3 with trepidation and was pleasantly surprised.

[Conteh]

Originally Posted by choklab

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.

Pretty much agree with most of what you've written on this thread. Woodcock pre Joe Baski gives Haye a Carl Thomspn type of fight.

Baski ruined ( that , that hadn't already been ruined by their respective mangers and promoters ) both Woodcock and Freddie Mills . All but blinded Woodcock permanently - and Mills told his corner that Baski was too big, too strong and simply quit there and then.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by Conteh

Pretty much agree with most of what you've written on this thread. Woodcock pre Joe Baski gives Haye a Carl Thomspn type of fight.

Baski ruined ( that , that hadn't already been ruined by their respective mangers and promoters ) both Woodcock and Freddie Mills . All but blinded Woodcock permanently - and Mills told his corner that Baski was too big, too strong and simply quit there and then.

yes the public and jack solomons were thirsty for making up for lost time after the war. Fights were made in a hurry, solomons wanted to strike while the iron was hot and deliver what the public wanted ASAP. It wasnt good on the careers of mills and woodcock, though woodcock and baksi posibly earned just as well as genuine champions.

[Conteh]

Originally Posted by choklab

yes the public and jack solomons were thirsty for making up for lost time after the war. Fights were made in a hurry, solomons wanted to strike while the iron was hot and deliver what the public wanted ASAP. It wasnt good on the careers of mills and woodcock, though woodcock and baksi posibly earned just as well as genuine champions.

Yeah, Mills and Woodcock were pUshed from pillar to post and division to division to satisfy Solomons ( Eve of Derby shows ) and Broadcribb ( The Broadcribb and Farr fisaco after the Louis fight make good reading ) .

Mills did well , not so sure that Woodcock did though - turned his back completely on Boxing.

[El Bujia]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Bullshit.
He throws A LOT of sloppy wild reckless punches that would make Luis Firpo jealous.

And this is the truth. The guy is a terribly sloppy finisher. Just an overrated hack in general, really.

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by Conteh

Pretty much agree with most of what you've written on this thread. Woodcock pre Joe Baski gives Haye a Carl Thomspn type of fight.

Baski ruined ( that , that hadn't already been ruined by their respective mangers and promoters ) both Woodcock and Freddie Mills . All but blinded Woodcock permanently - and Mills told his corner that Baski was too big, too strong and simply quit there and then.

Yes C, I used to see big Joe Baksi at MSG, and at Stillman's gym training and joking around aftervtraining. A BIG,muscular product of the coal mines who reminded me of Joe Palooka of the comic strips.. was kod by Ezzard Charles in 1948. Ezzard too fast, for the burley Baksi...

[TheGreatA]

Baksi was very much the Chuvalo of his era, except with a tendency to cut which led to his TKO loss to Charles. He was once to challenge Joe Louis but decided to take a tune-up in Sweden against Olle Tandberg before the heavyweight title match, and got robbed. One of the all-time dumbest moves in heavyweight history, surely.

[thistle1]

then he thought about a trip back home to Poland, like the world would wait for him!

_uck fighters with more too offer in all divisions never got a sniff of a title shot, he's in line and he casually goes on holidays - now that's a real Pollock joke.

No malice intendented, just pure irony!

[choklab]

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Baksi was very much the Chuvalo of his era, except with a tendency to cut which led to his TKO loss to Charles. He was once to challenge Joe Louis but decided to take a tune-up in Sweden against Olle Tandberg before the heavyweight title match, and got robbed. One of the all-time dumbest moves in heavyweight history, surely.

jack solomons always hinted that baksi cost him a fortune because baksi did not really fancy a louis fight. joe baksi made big money in europe, solomons even got the american a private plane so baksi could visit his family in prague from london while he was under contract. a big deal for a coal miner those days.