Better Record at HW, Haye or Adamek?

The whole division is equally **** bar the title holders so its hard to make a choice on this one

 

the only way you have adamek ahead i if you rate chris areola

i mean who did he ever beat ........ever

 

IMO Haye's shaky ass chin would have been murdered in that fight. Haye's HW free ride is about to come to an abrupt end. He's been fighting a bunch of hasbeens.

 

wow, if you cant see everything thats wrong and hypocritical about this statement then i cant help you. and as far as having a **** chin, even if that were true since when was adamek a knockout artist?? because he knocked out a fat, shot to **** version of golota? who are you trying to convince here?

 

Adamek's career resume shits all over Haye's and he's doing everything in half the time its taking Haye to do it. Even their respective losses can't be compared, in terms of quality of the opponent and they way in which they lost. Deal with it.

 

so instead of explaining why you just insist on "thinking' adameks career is better? yea, a 10 year old covering his ears screaming "lalala im not listening" is more persausive than you. but lest elaborate shall we??

golota- fourty years old, grossly out of shape, knocked out everytime he stepped up in competition. as opposed to barrett, 38 years old and pretty much the same thing. so thats equal

estrada- light hitting, generally unknown b level bum who's fought and lost to absolute nobodies. as opposed to ruiz, all though a boring cagey veteran has beaten holyfield and has lost to top fighters. no brainer who's the better scalp between those two

arreola- fat, overrated hype job courtesey of HBO. the same guy who struggled with brian minto of all people, and has the most ugliest technique or lack their of then any HW today. second only to sam peter. as opposed to valuev, all though a paper champ and a don king protected bum, has held a linear strap while arreola has never come close to one.


both fighters have faced and beaten unimpressive fighters. but in terms of who has looked better overall:

haye looked good in 2/3 of his bouts, but redeemed himself in the 12 round making valuev do the chicken dance.

adamek looked like utter **** against arreola and estrada, and looked good against a shot to **** version of golota. honestly, why is this even a topic?

 

When David Haye lost, it was in his 11th or 12th pro fight to a quality veteran fighter who was also a former title holder. Haye was actually winning the fight until he gassed out and his corner threw in the towel. Adamek lost to a guy who didn't have any experience while Adamek had multiple title fights and several more fights in general. Chad Dawson beat the hell out of Adamek from beginning to end with the exception of the flash knockdown in the tenth. Adamek was the experienced fighter and got completely embarrassed. Haye lost do to inexperience and stamina issues, while the veteran Adamek was easily defeated by an inexperienced fighter from the opening bell.

 

I can guarantee you that at 175 Dawson would have dominated Haye more than he dominated Adamek. You will say that its not Haye's natural weight, neither it was Adamek's natural weight, still managed to win the title.

 

:-( Shrek would disagree. Again, Haye managed one of the worst title challanges seen on television in recent years. Then he went on to beat a guy who went life and death with Golota 8 fricken years ago. Yep, some accomplishments. Bottom line: Adamek has spent the last 6 months at HW being productive and taking his lumps while Haye has had a cherry picking free ride in this division. He has yet to be tested and nearly FAILED against Big FOOT. Even a shell, gatekeeper for clubfighters like Barrett managed to give Haye a scare. So let's have these two fight and see who the better man is.

 

Haye lost to an 40 year old who was stopped 10 years before the fight with Haye by an featherfisted alcoholic in his hometown. Adamek lost to a great boxer who is still undefeated..

 

I agree Arreolas opposition at HW has not been elite. But he has shown he is a tough, determined, and dangerous fighter. At this point I believe it is safe to say he is a better fighter and a much higher risk then past it Ruiz, who in his prime, wasnt that impressive. Ruiz does have a better resume, but the majority of those Ws were years ago when Johnny was a bigger risk.

I really would like to see Haye take more risks. He plays the role well verbally.

 

+1

 

and how is beating an even worse version of golota and looking terrible against a feather fisted nobody THAT much better???

 

Haye has never fought at light heavyweight while Adamek made most of his career there. To try and say that's not Adamek's natural weight when he spent most of his career there is stupid. Haye had problems making cruiserweight at times, but you're trying to say he could make light heavy? Dawson's better than Haye, but if they could fight, the fight would be closer than the Adamek fight. That was a terrible counter argument.

 

Haye had a world title after 3 fights, Adamek hasn't after 3 fights so regardless of opponents Haye has the better record.