I believe he did. He's a dreadful journalist overall. He really allows his own personal feelings to affect his reporting.
Rafael hates British fighters? Where do some of you get this BS from? I think Rafael was actually mostly fair and even positive regarding Calzaghe. He was ripping him for delaying a few fights due to injury but finally gave him huge huge credit for beating Lacy (who Rafael was favoring into the fight). Here's what Rafael said of Hatton: "Rafael's remark: Boxing could use 100 Ricky Hattons. He elicits such passion and excitement"
Rafael is a biased twat. In his chats he calls Margarito "Margacheato" and he's meant to be a proper journalist.
Rafael said he thought Kessler won a close decision over Froch. He had Froch winning a legit decision over Dirrell. http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/columns/story?columnist=rafael_dan&id=4575349 You guys are trying to paint Rafael as a anti-British biased US writer who simply rips every single British fighter. Simply not true, look at the facts. He was respectful of Calzaghe, he loved Hatton, he acknowledges Froch's work ethics and power. What's the difference though? Calzaghe, Hatton and Froch - unlike Haye - didn't spend two years making big promises about unification fights and fighting the reigning champs and then finding ways to derail the fights time and time again.
Em... Madballster... Calzaghe did. So did Hatton. Lots of noise, often little action. That's why Joe gets so much criticism.
...who is? No-one's said anything like that. It's been people saying either he doesn't like Haye, or that they think he's just a bad journalist. Nothing about him being 'anti-British'...? Have I missed something? Or has someone overdone the coffee this morning?
I dont give a **** about who wrote it, Dan Rafael or whoever, the piece on Haye is 100% spot on. I think it's sad that so many Brits here are still giving Haye the benefit of the doubt. There should be no doubt. Haye's "bitching out" is clear as ****ing day now.
Doesn't matter how emphatically you say it, doesn't make it true. That logic makes it look like they're BOTH ducking each other!
Haye pulled out of the signed and sealed fight two or three weeks prior, with an "injury". And apparently walked away from a finalised negotiated contract with Vitali at the last second and signed to fight with Valuev. In the lead up to the Valuev fight, it was implied by both Haye and Booth that they were seeking the path of least resistance. They all but acknowledged that Haye might not be truly ready for Klitschko. And apparently the WBA title would give Haye more bargaining leverage. Which they have failed miserably to utilize (whereas making a fight with Valuev -which included options - was easy for them). Wladimir, for his part, has faced about a dozen opponents who on paper and in actual fact are as highly regarded, as worthy, more proven and as able as David Haye. I dont see any evidence or motivation that he might be avoiding a fight with David Haye as of 2010. He was ready to rumble last year, and he was there on the night - fighting Chagaev. To make out there's some sort of parity in the ducking is lunacy. All the circumstantial evidence points to Haye being the one who ducked. From what I can tell Wladimir has conducted himself pretty much like Lennox Lewis would have. He fights everyone worthy, and told Haye he'd give him a chance when Haye earns it, and in fact attempted to give him a shot earlier. There's no evidence that Wladimir ducks fighters. If you had the same level of circumstantial evidence regarding Lewis and a fighter who runs of the mouth, pulls out of fights and manages to price himself out of offers and walk away from contracts, I know you'd be quick to take a reasonable objective stab at pointing the figure away from Lewis and towards the other one.