Obviously, Haye's legacy is going to be largely remember for this Saturday just past, and perhaps for his flattering-to-deceive resume at heavyweight, but we shouldn't let that blind us to the fact that he was a decent fighter and an excellent cruiserweight. One issue when debating his resume and his "legacy", is that he has had a very short career in terms of number of fights, and this includes a couple of losses. His resume clearly doesn't have the depth of other British World Champions, so how about comparing him to other fighters with so few fights. Where does Haye stand with fighters with less than 30 fights? (Presuming he doesn't reach that amount...)
Sorry, i meant of all time - should of articulated that better in the original post. Any further advances for all time as opposed to current? (presuming froch does at least fight a couple of times more?)
There's been some very good fighters with under 30 fights like Paul Hodkinson, Terry Marsh, Robbie Regan etc. Michael Watson also only had 30 fights. But Haye is the best for me.
can't wait when froch get slumped in october somehow i doubt i'll see similar rants against him compared to if haye and khan lose.. they'l probably be threads calling him a warrior and he did us proud the way people jumped on haye has sickened me to my core.. even dermot murnhgahn on sky couldnt resist a dig at the end of the interview this morning i wonder why eh
Afgoon - biggest tosser on the forum? I realise that that is a bold statement, but he must be in the running...
Froch is miles ahead of Haye in terms of legacy. Taylor, Pascal, Abraham and Johnson are all better than Valuev, Enzo and Mormeck.