I cant believe some of the crap the posters on this thread have been writing on this thread. First off David Haye is out in front by a long way, he has unified the cruiserweight division, winning his first world title in the champions backyard against a very good fighter in that division. He then moved up to heavyweight and won a world title against a fighter 11" and 7 stones heavier in germany where it is notoriously hard to get decisions. Next it would have to be froch, he has earned a world title shot in his division by beating some half decent fighters. He then beat a very good fighter in Pascal to win the world title. He then defended it in america by ko'ing taylor in the last round. In his next fight he beat(just) a very awkward fighter in Dirrell. Khan falls well below these to as his only meaningful victory is against a very average fighter in kotelnik, in a title shot he did not deserve. His other victorys have come against past it veterans or feather fisted fighters who usually fight in a lower division. Rant over
Its a shame we cant do away with Froch and split his chin between Haye and Khan, put him to some use.
Haye is a two weight world champ at cruiser and heavyweight. That blows Froch out of the water. He's also looked a lot better doing it, Froch looked awful for most of the Taylor and Dirrell fights and his run is coming to an end.
The :nut was directed at myself since I voted Froch. I agree with most of what you said. Haye will probably have greater longevity (unless the Klitches take him out) because he is more talented and Khan because he is a Warren fighter. I really like and admire Froch for getting where he is on limited talent but bags of heart and determination. I admire his desire to test himself against the best. To me that is better than him being a Floyd Mayweather type. Huge ability but scared of his own shadow. I'm with Froch to the end of the road. Doesn't stop me being a big Haye fan though. As for Khan......I'm finding myself liking him less and less.
I like them all the same. Well..Khan a bit less. But Froch and Haye I'd root for against anybody (except against Kessler). How can Khan be better than Froch too? He might 'appear' better aesthetically but he hasn't done as much as Froch, the gap between Haye and then Froch down to Khan is large. It's just obvious on achievements: Lineal cruiserweight champ WBA heavyweight beltholder Valuev, Mormeck, Fragomeni, Maccarinelli WBC supermiddle beltholder Taylor, Pascal, Dirrell WBA beltholder Kotelnik...uhm, St Clair?
haye/froch khan going from recent fights,valuev is no where near as good as taylor or dirrel ,but the win is on par if not more important, and neither is koltinic or ***an:rofl,aint even counting the joke that was barrera:good
:nono The OP used the word "best", now that could be viewed in different ways...I took it to mean talented, therefore I picked Khan over Haye, as I believe he is naturally more talented than Haye...whether he achieves as much is open to debate