quite close then seeing as Germany had lost the Battle of Britain and had their navy destroyed and had abandoned operation sealion as they were getting it handed to them by the Russians....sorry forgot...american version of ww2 is britain was 3 hours from defeat and the USA saved the day! yayyyy usa usa usa
Come on, I know you aren't that jaded? America was funding the war effort before direct involvement...you're honestly advocating that Britain was doing just fine? London was destroyed and if you check your history there were more American Troops landing on beaches during D-day than brittish... I'm not saying you were about to lose with out US involvement but you can't say things were just peachy....
erm.....where shall I start the lend-lease didnt start until 1941 the battle of britain and the destruction of the luftwaffe and germany navy took place in 1940. A year before lend-lease. yes britain was doing fine....london was destroyed because we had no war machine, we wernt making anything, we had no planes/tanks - germans had one in place for 10 years, by the time the battle of britain took place we were making 1/3 more planes per day than germany (churchill has just seized power), we were losing less men and less planes as well (partially thanks to us inventing radar). So no you werent funding us when the BOB took place. Yes you had a lot of people landing on D-DAY, if you didnt know....we were too busy whooping germany all over north africa thanks to montgomery and his men. By the way had it not been for the UK you wouldnt even have landed on normandy, your landing ships were made of wood while ours were made of metal and pretty much bullit proof. Thankfully we allowed you to remove the wooden front landing door and use one of our metal ones in its place, if you hadnt, you probably wouldnt have even made it ashore. I know american movies like to play the USA as the hero, saving the day at the last minute, hours before the UK collapsed, but if you actually read WW2 books you'll see thats just american movie bull**** (even american history books tell the truth, i know, ive read many, but americans take tv as their version of history). If you want some recommendations let me know...pearl harbour and red tails arnt the best movies for factual information.
The luftwaffe was destroyed in 1940? No Navy in 1940? maybe you should check your facts before we continue our discussion because both operated right up until the end of the war and also had some major victories in '41 and '42 The US also provided material (non-military) support for GB since 1936 and in 1939 they began providing military equipment (please see "cash and carry") however since Britain was pretty much out of currency the US passed legislation allowing continued aid without being paid in gold...you're welcome
This partiicular Brit thought Wlad clearly won the fight. However the cautious attitude of both particulary Haye meant it was a stinker.
The revisionism on here on all matters is reaching epidemic proprtions. The German air supremacy was destroyed and they couldn't have launched a succesfull landing without taking terrible casualties,as also the Royal Navy ruled the waves. Anyway I thought this was Wlad v Haye!
after reviewing it myself rather than having Wlad win every round minus the point docking which was BS and he won the round easily i decided Haye might have edged the first and so he can get anywhere from 2 to 3 points sure he moved and slipped but you dont get points because the guy missed, Wlad continued to stalk and jab and land while Haye didnt do much in return After the big right in the 5th round Haye looked less inclined to engage and was less cagey in the fight he landed a good 2 shots in the 12th but Wlad was not stunned or close to going down, Wlad won that round by landing solid right hands after that if the fight was fought like the 12th round the whole time it would have been a great but probably short fight as far as the snoozer, well both can be at fault, though haye's tactics were questionable Wlad could have made him pay for his missing by countering rather than just being content to get out of range
Again, I didn't say britain was about to lose the war, I said "end" the war no one is advocating that with out US involvement the Brits would have been overrun in a matter of days but by the same token they were no where near a position to invade the mainland let alone march on Germany...
Tim Witherspoon and Frank Maloney had it 120 - 108 for the Toebreaker. at where this thread is going...
I totally agree. Wlad won the fight but Haye made a good fight and was by far the most competitive opponent for Wlad in many years. I think he doesnt get respect he deserves because his big mouth before a fight.
Foreman was not with HBO for this fight. Foreman was in Germany for the fight as I recall and was probably asked by some German reporters what he thought. George likes to say controversial things, as we recall from some of his analyses in the old days at HBO. Wlad won pretty one sidedly points wise.
Pretty much all the rounds were close with Wlad doing about bit more work and controlling the ring better in most of the rounds. 10-2 9-3 sort of fight but it was competitive, Wlad's footwork seemed to be the main difference in the fight allowing him to avoid the majority of Haye's crude swinging hayemakers. Clear Wlad win but not the domination many on here like to make out it was.
Well I've been converted and convinced now after reading this thread. Haye didn't actually lose a shut out but instead won by about 4 rounds.