David Haye vs Mariusz Wach

:rofl:rofl:rofl

Dude, you have creativity for sure.

Regarding the poll, i think Haye would win at points, barely because of all of the tacticity for not being caught, Valuev- style.

 

Go watch Mariusz Wach vs Tye Fields, and you'll see he's definitely not that bad...

 

Haye isn't going to KO Wach he would win a boring UD. Wlad tee'd off on the guy and didn't stop him.

 

Dude, in every professional sport they use some kind od peds; and Haye is a bad fighter to take as an example, he seems more a body builder than a boxer, he's so ripped, whit a so low body fat percentage....
But at least he has the decency to not blame other fighters for using peds, because he knows well it's better to stay silent with a body like his own.

 

Haye would potshot Wach from outside, careful not to overpace himself. Haye knows his stamina is sub-par so he'd potshot and win round by round.

 

Now you're stretching it a bit.
He's got to be better than someone

 

Tye Fields...really?

 

Same with Valuev and Haye just barely eeked out a narrow SD.

 

Current Wach might be better than the version of Valuev Haye fought.... This fights would end in a UD for Haye.

 

Haye UD most likely.

 

I didn't say anything about Tye Field's level, it's just that he looks damn good and very dangerous in this and other fights.
It's just that the champion put on a dismantle show on him.

 

Wach has got to rank as one of the worst fighters to ever challenge for the heavyweight title. Haye wins a comfortable UD.

Hell you could put Wach in against almost any decent heavyweight and he's lose. I favour Wilder, Fury and even Price over Wach.

 

Not quite sure Price could beat Wach. That punch Wach landed on Wlad in the 5th round would KO Price.

 

Valuev was taller, bigger and even though he was massively limited, STILL more skilled than Wach

 

Just saw Valuev in a TV show named "The Cube". He lost all his lives trying (and failing) to catch two tennis balls. The man has a fantastic lack of reflexes and coordination.