It is a damn shame that half of the nuthuggers on here saying Haye would win were not even born yet during Holmes Prime. When idiots are using the Tyson fight as a barometer I just have to shake my head.
I have disagreed with you in the past, but you couldn't be more spot on. I also agree that is demonstrates an alarming ignorance of boxing history to believe that an unproven heavyweight in a weak era could even compete with Holmes.
He genuinely lost to Spinks, twice. I doubt you've seen Holmes fight, you just know of his reputation as an ATG and you're getting carried away with your assessment of his skills.
Holmes got a gift against Butterbean. Enough said I think. Haye is a similar size like Fighting Weight says, and on that basis I would have it a draw if Holmes wasn't so technically woeful.
Okay so you want to point out that Haye was inexperienced but neglect to tell us that Holmes was out of his prime when went the distance with the fighters that Haye would apparently KO, meaning he would be able to beat Holmes :-( Does it make a difference, he still got caught, same as Haye got caught by Moremech legitimately. You should stop posting in this thread before you embarrass yourself anymore, Haye is not on Holmes level, resume speaks for itself. :roll:
Few fighters in boxing history hit like Shavers. I mentioned this a few days ago when we were discussing recuperative powers. Holmes was absolutely poleaxed by Shavers, I believe it was in the 7th round of the fight. I mean, he was hit so hard it actually hurt people in the audience. But Holmes got up, held, moves, and regained his sense. He then went on to knock out Shavers 3 rounds later. And for all those Haye lover who think people are just hating on Haye...Holmes would have beat both Klitschkos, IMHO, easily.
Everything you say here is true, and I am basing my opinion of Haye on what I think he could do against better opposition than he has faced to now. I think that is fair considering we are talking about a hypothetical match up here, and Holmes is retired while Haye may not be in his prime yet.
Actually, the second fight was a concencus robbery of which I agree with, and in either case, Holmes was 35-36 years of age in both of those outings. Holmes was not even within seeing distance of prime for his bouts with Michael Spinks, so frankly I don't understand the point in even using them as a gauge for a head to head comparison..
Haye isn't an incredible boxer either. Which fights have you been watching? And how many great "boxers" has Haye defeated? The answer is zero. Macormick was a durable slugger but no boxer, and he knocked Haye down and had him in trouble. Enzo Mac? Clearly one of the most overrated fighters of the past decade.
Uh, rocket scientist, I've watched all of Holmes champion fights, and watched them Live. You should get out of your parents' basement and go find a nice MMA forum to join. You haven't a clue about boxing.
Fair enough, but at age 29, stepping up in weight class, and only having fought once in a near two year period, I wouldn't expect that the man is going to get much better.
I agree. And furthermore, Holmes had had 48 fight and he was 48-0...challenging Marcian's record of 49-0 when he lost to Spinks. Haye has had what, 23 fights? ****. I don't know why I'm even debating this. This is beyond stupid. I'm done.