good solid article about the Klitschkos

If you think that it´s a bad article, what statemens are wrong in it?

 

I personally believe CHEF with what he said about the contracts. From that point of view they did not look worse than the contracts he now has after the Valuev fight.

Would you rather see Haye fight both Klitschkos or Valuev, then Ruiz the Valuev again? :deal

 

In my line of work, we work very, very hard and frequently work unsociable hours in order to get the work done.

It is a very rewarding job, socially and morally. It, of course, comes with financial rewards.

Occasionally, I work 12+ hours a day and occasionally, I pop into the office on both a Saturday and Sunday.

Now, what I do helps other people and that's lovely to know but would I do what I do for virtually no money?

**** off, would I.

I would rather be worked like a ***** by my boss (which I am) and at least get the financial rewards for doing so than working out of the goodness of my heart.


If the Klitschkos aren't prepared to come to the table and negotiate the money then of course the Ruiz, Holyfield, Chagaev, Valuev ad infinitum merry-go-round is the better option.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/dec/09/david-haye-unification-fight-klitschko

Taken from the Brit forum

 

The only one coming up with the Ali and Holmes comparisons here is Johnson and he thinks of himself in that category.

It's circular logic to always write off a fighter who gets beaten by a Klitschko brother as an overrated hype job. The basic premise is that the Klitschkos aren't that good so if someone loses to them, they are bums. Dominating a division is never easy, in any era. The opposition of past greats didn't only consist of ATG's or of contenders who would beat today's contenders.

 

So you have proof that the Sauerland/King contract is much better money than fighting the Klitschkos? If you have please show it and I kiss your feet all the day and all of the night.

 

those pic were funny.