noooooooooooo. He was a fair CW champion, but I am afraid he is too much of a pop celebrity with poster boy looks that the media can sell, to ever rise to ATG.
LOL, no. And being one of the "greatest" cruiserweights isn't saying much given the short history of the division. How many quality wins does he have there?
If you asked David Haye, he will himself admit he is no ATG. And he's fine with it. I don't quite understand why the TS felt the need to start this thread. No1 seriously believes hes an ATG p4p. Not even Haye. He is however an ATG cruiserweight, due to the fact that its a very shallow division historically. Yes it doesnt say much but the definition of an ATG cruiserweight is being one of the best cruiserweights ever. Which Haye is. Whether or not that ''says much'' is irrelevant. That doesnt change that fact. David Haye himself once said that the ONLY reason he stepped up to heavyweight in the first place is because of how crappy the division was.
I'm sure Jack was winding you up in some way ya window-licking smegma ridden fool... ... no Haye isn't an ATG, but you know that yourself don't ya.
I did say "Haye is an ATG" but followed that up by saying "in the cruiserweight division". That's the key part, which he conveniently forgets. It'd be like saying "Polish Pummler is a good poster" but following that up with "compared to a 6 year old spastic" or "Poland produces good boxers" and then "compared to Ethiopia". Unless you mention the key last part, what goes before it really means nothing. I don't rate Haye that highly and never have done. My post history confirms that. However, in the shallow cruiserweight division, he deserves to be ranked in top 10. In time, he'll get pushed out by superior fighters though because Haye was never truly exceptional.
Why are Britards getting angry over a simple question? Is it the fact that he is NO ATG and most people are confirming it?