The "Haye is to small and not a natural HW" excuse that is starting to gather pace

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Manning, Jul 2, 2011.


  1. Arran

    Arran Boxing Junkie banned

    9,773
    3
    Jan 21, 2008
    you are creating fantasy match ups, im providing facts.
     
  2. PowerHoock

    PowerHoock Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,084
    3
    Jan 18, 2011
    he's 6'3, 210 pounds. that's a natural heavy in any era. 80s and back, it's even considered big. Big George was 6'3, 215 in his prime. Ali was 6'3, 200 in his prime. Haye is a natural HW no doubt
     
  3. Vidic

    Vidic Rest in Peace Manny Full Member

    13,207
    11
    Nov 23, 2010
    Haye has never looked tall, against anyone
     
  4. horst

    horst Guest

    Except guys that were smaller than him.
     
  5. Manning

    Manning Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,448
    1,029
    Mar 6, 2011
    Forget the fantasy match up then. Haye when compared to the greatest heavyweights of all time is massively bigger than the vast majority of them and is roughly the same size as 'enormous monster' ATG's like Ali and Foreman. There is a fact for you.
     
  6. HAYEDAJOKE

    HAYEDAJOKE Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,115
    0
    Jan 11, 2011
    Fraizer was fighitng around 210 end of thread
     
  7. Vidic

    Vidic Rest in Peace Manny Full Member

    13,207
    11
    Nov 23, 2010
    Even then, he never really looks tall. Muhammad Ali for instance who was billed as 6'3, always looked tall in the ring, when he did interviews, pressers and had public training he was always head and shoulders above everyone in the room, even when he fought 6'5 guys he didn't look small, it was just obvious they were even taller.

    Haye doesn't have that. It could be because of his build, but then Foreman who was heavier always looked big.

    He just seems small to me. I suppose everyone else feels that way too.
     
  8. horst

    horst Guest

    Unless he's much taller than them.
     
  9. lion

    lion Active Member Full Member

    1,489
    2
    Mar 24, 2007
    you are right on this one, if haye loses its not because hes too small.. this "too small", "not real heavyweight" is getting ridiculous.. by that logic wlad nor vitaly should never have a chance against valuev who would overtower him and outweight him massively
     
  10. wooz

    wooz Active Member Full Member

    885
    4
    May 4, 2008
    Only reason why Haye could lose is the size difference. Haye is clearly the superior fighter but I fear that Wlad is just too big..
     
  11. Boxed Ears

    Boxed Ears this my daddy's account (RIP daddy) Full Member

    58,338
    13,422
    Jul 28, 2009
    :lol: He and Fragomeni looked about the same size, really. :blood
     
  12. Bubby

    Bubby Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,564
    3
    Sep 14, 2010
    Yas, Haye is bigger than most of the past ATG's who the haters said would knockout both Klitschkos on the same night.:think
     
  13. BeaverDan

    BeaverDan Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,834
    108
    Jul 23, 2007
    Haye is not saying he is too small.

    It's other people saying it, including Vitali and Mike Tyson.

    As long as Haye isn't saying it, what's your problem?
     
  14. horst

    horst Guest

    WTF?!

    Haye was only 1 inch smaller than SNV FFS!!

    This content is protected


    :deal
     
  15. Big Red

    Big Red Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,283
    583
    Apr 29, 2011

    People have short memories, or are just a little to yong to have seen how good smaller heavyweights have done in the past. the last 30 years there have been 3 real good heavyweights closer to Hayes size then Wladimirs, Holmes, Holyfield, Tyson. The last 15 years is actually an abnormality, there have been very few heavyweights in history Wladimir's size that have been dominent when in their prime.