It'll get a mention but Wlad has already done enough that it won't be considered a major ommision on his record unless Haye goes on to have an impressive reign as WBA champ (which he doesn't seem interested in doing). I think if you were writing an anti-Wlad peice then you could jump on the fact he did't fight Haye but I think in the full context of his career it would be very unfair. He's always fought the best (in a weak era), to say he dodged a guy who retired with a HW career of valuev, Ruiz, Harrison and A.N. Other would be a pretty onesided way of looking at it IMHO.
Then why not sign for the fight and go along with it? If Wlads camp think they can do it, then so be it. I guess it reflects on how tough they see the Chisora and Haye fights. If Wlad did pull out, then Haye is vindicated. But when was the last time Wlad looked like he needed a decent break after a fight? He doesn't get hit and hardly breaks a sweat in his boring defences.
This is kinda my point. I think people are missing out on the key story behind this article. This is Sky's only op-ed on the fight and its not going along with Haye. Are Sky sick of Haye's bull****? I mean maybe they wanted him to go along with the two-fight deal?
Forget who has fought who and who has the better cv and weak era's etc etc. The bottom line is both parties and all the networks know that this is the biggest heavyweight fight in monetary terms since Lewis-Tyson and potentially the greatest heavyweight fight since Holyfield-Bowe. And we have had months of negotiations that have resembled nothing more than a schoolgirl spat. They both stand to lose more than they will gain in fighting Chisora and Chagaev. I guarantee this Gaz that in 20 years time when the research is done correctly Wlad will be accused of backing out of the greatest threat ever to his heavyweight reign. Haye will be remembered as a fine cruiserweight and a heavyweight marketing machine.
I agree. Beating Haye at the moment would probably be looked on as well as beating Chagaev. More questions will be asked why Haye retired in his prime without fighting a Klit.
You can't sign an advanced contract in boxing without the third party (Haye) standing to gain something should the fight not happen. Which quite simply might be due to a cut laid on by Chisora which would delay the fight furthermore. Wlad and Bender wont sign any contract for a fight with Haye until Chisora is out the way.
Thats all true but, from a legacy point of view, Wlads heavyweight career can carry the omission, Hayes can't. Speculation mate, you can't guaurantee that. Who knows what has been going over the last 2 years? People are blaming different sides for the fight not happening on a daily basis every time theres another press release, let alone in 20 years. Nothing wrong with being remembered as the former ,and if Haye is happy with being remembered as the latter then good luck to him. I'm not blaming either side for the fight not happening but if it doesn't Hayes legacy will suffer a lot more than Wlads.
I disagree. Haye always has his cruiserweight reign. Wlad lost to some very poor opposition and, since he regained his titles, hasn't really posted a genuinely impressive win. It's been a catalogue of dull, uncompetitive fights against fairly weak opposition. And there's no way people will look back and suddenly think Chambers is a great heavyweight title challenger. Haye has the built-in excuse that he's a cruiser who came up to heavy and had some fights. He won a title, retired an old warhorse and tried to make a fight with Wlad. I think, historically, time will be kinder to Haye for taking on challenges. Wlad will just be seen as a dominant champion who never beat anyone particularly good.
I dont agree that Klitschko doesn't need Haye. No matter how untested you think Haye is, he's still regarded as Wlad's biggest challenge so far by a lot of people. Wlad's legacy will always be tarnished by his three awful losses and the fact he didn't fight Haye, his (arguably) biggest challenge. They both need each other. Also, McRory finds himself surrounded by some of the most knowledgeable people in British boxing. Why is he listening to a cabbie?!!
I think McCrory is right in that it's more important to Haye than it is to Wlad. Beating David Haye would add practically nothing to Wlad's record (although not his bank balance), whereas beating Wlad would make Haye as a HW fighter. If Haye really wanted the fight, he'd wait. People seem to talk about this 'Retiring at 30' like it's set in stone and there's nothing David can do about it. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they fought in November.