We'll have to agree to disagree then. You are going to judge Haye but the same harsh yardstick then then he's cleared up a very average crusierweight division before winning a paper title at HW and defending it against an average opponent and a very poor opponent.
If those loses are so bad that they can't be redeemed by Wlad defending his title as many times as he has then I can't understand how fighting David Haye could untarnish his awful career. Wlads record is what it is, the loses, the dominence in a poor era etc. people will (should!) meake their minds up on that basis. Not fighting David Haye won't be the major factor in Wlads career IMHO.
I don't rate Haye's HW tenure at all historically. I thought the wins over Valuev and Ruiz were solid, title or not. I think they're getting a little underrated, especially when I don't see anyone much better than them in Wlad's last five fights. I also take into account the relatively low number of fights Haye took to unify at CW. His resume is a bit thin, but there are some decent names (Fragommeni went on to do well). And he went and beat the best in the division in his own backyard. And now the fact Wlad seems unwilling to make any concession reflects badly on him. But I see your point too - we're in a decidedly average era over 168lbs. Neither man can really afford to be avoiding defining fights.
No it wont be the main factor. The main factor will be that he never beat any real top drawer fighters. That's the very same reason his later wins still don't quite make up for the losses.
Lewis lost to a decent fighter in Rahman and a very mediocre one in McCall. And he avenged both defeats. Plus his overall quality of opposition is a lot higher than Wlad's. Those two losses do count against Lennox historically, but the strength of his resume overall blots them out. And the fact he avenged both. He never got stopped by someone as poor as Purity.
For some guys, one loss tarnishes them forever But the manner Wlad lost in is a factor. And the lack of a top opponent since then may not be his fault, but it certainly counts against him.
Lewis went on to beat: Evander Holyfield Mike Tyson Vitali Klitschko David Tua Hasim Rahman (in his prime) Michael Grant and Andrew Golota among others Wlad went on to beat: Sam Peter Eddie Chambers Ruslan Chagaev Tony Thompson and Sultan Ibragimov I rest my case.
Fair enough. I don't particularly rate the guy myself mostly because of the era he's fought in, the level of opposition and those loses but my only point is that I don't see David Haye missing off his record as a major issue when his career is judged. Lets be honest, if he flattens Haye the people who don't rate him now arn't suddenly going to change their minds about him. Haye will be a cruiserweight, chinny, unproven at HW etc etc...you know how it works!!
If Wlad fought and beat Haye, no-one would say Haye was top-drawer either. He's only going to be remembered as Wlad's biggest challenge if they don't fight (or Haye wins). Besides, surely it'll be looked upon in years to come that Wlad arranged to fight Chisora, pulled out due to injuy, re-arranged and then Haye retired? Does not fitting in with Haye's retirement plans constitute a duck? I'm not sure, Wlad's has pretty much done everything he's going to do anyway.
Im certainly not calling him a bum but I think it is fair to say that a win over Haye will add more to his CV than a large percentage of his other opponents have.