Easy to be a expert after the fight

I went for Enzo by KO but maybe it was heart ruling head I don't know.

I still maintain he was capable of knocking out Haye and he definitely froze on the night like a rabbit in the headlights but it's all past now.

 

Dunno.

Can only speak for myself - it was obvious Haye would KO Enzo.

There are 'experts' in all sports, usually ex pros, who continually get things wrong or spout crap with their supposedly superior analysis.

Another example is Stoke City. I told everyone I knew that of the three clubs to stay up from the Championship, Stoke would be the ones due to Pulis' football style. From the start of the football season, Mark Lawrenson arrogantly and patronisingly stated Stoke would finish with less points than Watford. Most pundits said the three promoted clubs would all go down, due to this imaginary gulf between the two leagues.

Now these same pundits are explaining to fans the reason behind Stoke's success, when in reality they know the square root of jack ****. It really winds me up - there are clowns pretending to be experts in all walks of life. You have to be vigilant taking advice or listening to analysis from anyone in the media these days.

 

I had a bet on Haye to win in rounds 1-3. I know you'll think I'm bullshitting but it's the truth. Only a tenner mind. Everyone fell for this weight draining issue - Haye conned them all at Team Mac. Enzo is a good boxer who'll get his WBO back one day but Haye is frankly on another level.

Bottom line is a 100% Enzo, both physically and mentally will always lose to a 100% Haye. Enzo still makes far too many mistakes. He'll get his WBO strap back though.

 

IMO that was one of the easiest recent fights to predict.

I said before the fight that it wasn't a case of who landed first, as many were saying, it was a case of when Haye first landed.

My prediction was Haye by KO in whichever round he first landed a serious punch (initially I had predicted Haye KO1, but then began to sense in the last week before the fight that Macarinelli might come out very cautious).

So I can still pretend to be an expert, right?

 

[quote="TKO";4081376]I went for Haye inside six rounds and was proved right. Enzo was never on his level, didn't have the speed, the variety, the moves, the reflexes. I will give you that he had a puncher's chance simply due to Haye's dodgy chin, however, any sensible analysis of the fight would have had Haye a solid favourite.[/quote]

The main difference was that Enzo has a consistent record of fighting turkeys, whereas Haye has tested himself gradually against better and better opposition. Enzo's big KOs were coming against sub standard fighters, Haye's were against fighters on the British scene and on the periphery of the world belts.

In terms of style, Enzo continually left his chin exposed, had no reactions, no head movement, never fought anyone who could hit him hard back. Like Pac Hatton, his whole fight depended on an early KO - it was a recipe for disaster, that's the way I saw it.

That said, I got no idea how Haye - Klitschko will unfold, a true 50/50 fight.

 

Realistically its not 50/50 but Haye has a real chance.

 

It was easy to be an expert before the fight in this particular instance.

You only had to listen to the people presenting Enzo's case. "Haye is weight drained, Enzo has a big punch, and..erm...yeah"

 

I thought it would be competeitive, I thought Enzo was on a roll and much improved

I favoured haye but expected a good fight, I thought Enzo might crowd him and land some good body shots

However he totally **** himself, and in the fullness of time it's become clear to me that Haye is a class (or three) above

 

I chose Haye.

 

I had Haye in a late rounds stoppage - just because I felt Macca would taste that power and fight cautious for the first half of the fight. He'd then make the mistake that Haye was tiring, waltz on in and get blasted.

But, soon as Macca ran to the ring I knew he was going out early doors. He was petrified of what he'd gotten himself into and, even with Enzo C's bravado and arrogance, he could see the look in Joe C's eyes saying "YOU AREN'T ON HIS LEVEL, SON"

He just knew.

Anyway, in his last fight Haye had knocked out Mormeck after being put down himself. He knew he had the strength and heart to come back - Enzo hadn't fought a genuinely good, dangerous fighter since Hobson - and he wasn't that great in the first place.

 

Joe was interviewed alongside Adam Booth before the fight and, every time the interviewer asked Calzaghe who he was picking he was straight into how Haye was a strong fighter.

I can't remember him ever categorically stating Enzo would win.

 

Experts also got Lacy-Calzaghe horribly wrong.

The fight wasn't difficult to call, Haye hits harder, better technical skills, more capable of landing those big punches, had a mental edge and was/is an overall better fighter.

The 'experts' got caught up in the hype of it being a modern day Benn-Eubank which it was never going to be, and believed Enzo's apparent class and power.