If Haye beats Wlad and Vitali back to back is he a top15 HW?

Not for me, if he retires immediatly afterwards. To me it would be more like a top 25 or 30 slot...kinda like Tunney, just not enough depth in the HW resume to warrant that kind of placement. But I guess he would become a hypothetical H2H legend overnight!

 

Not Top15 I think. I´d rank him above Tunney, Bowe and Vitali. Behind Wlad, Dempsey, Wills and such though. Top25 I guess would be fair.

Right now I have Wlad Top15 and Vitali Top25 so those wins would be big but he wouldn´t have the depth to be up there. Yeah, Ruiz is a good name to have but he was nearly 40 and his last fight, same for Valuev, same would be for Vitali. This all diminishes his achievements somewhat. Would be still very imrpessive.

If Haye wouldn´t have this annoying personality - I really don´t like him - I´d root for him. I like Wlad but Haye winning would mean that smaller hws have a chance of slaughtering the giants and thus it could revive the hw division a bit. But since Haye is that annoying I can´t root for him. I root for the nice guy which in this case is Wlad.

Anyway, can´t see the fight on saturday. :|

 

You must like big names over depth. I'd probably have him over Bowe-Schemling but I'm not sure he has enough depth or achievements to outdo the other names, but there's an argument.

I can't say he'd rank above Frazier and Foreman under any circumstances other than like a 1st round KO of either man or something freakish. Even though... I don't think so. Frazier not only has the Ali win, which can easily be argued as being superior to a Wlad-Vitali win, but has much more depth and names to his record, and an Olympic Gold Medal to boot. Foreman has Frazier and Norton, and then was the oldest HW champ of all time by beating Moorer (A fighter that I think abilities get underrated because of how his career turned out), a competent and skilled fighter. His achievements, and even depth which has been described as being paper thin would still make him leagues ahead. Not only that... but his dominance is on another factor. You can't just factor a win as a win and a loss as a loss. Haye arguably lost to the worst HW belt-holder in the history of the division. That says something...

Dempsey is a legend in his own right. I have to say his dominance, depth, and title reign, although lacking and sporadic would still put him ahead of Haye. Then again, it may depend on how Haye beats Wlad & Vitali to answer questions. He has a place somewhere between 15-20 but not beyond that hard top 14 imho.

 

For me, if he beats Wladimir tomorrow, beating Vitali won't add an awful lot to his legacy.
Really, Wlad is 35 and probably at least on the cusp of declining - I mean, his peak isn't going to last much beyond that.
Vitali is OLD (40) and is past his best, and, imo, overrrated in comparisons with his younger brother.

I disagree with this.
Wlad's more or less dominated against all-comers, top 3 fighters among them, for his last five years, ten fights. He's been a top contender for ten years. Even if he loses to Haye (at 35), he's arguably had a worthy solid reign over a generation of heavyweights (some of whom may be looked upon more fondly a few years from now) that needs a bit more work from Haye or whoever to surpass or prove superiority. They'd be an argument both ways, but nothing "clearly", IMO.

Haye's wins so far at heavyweight have been over pathetic opposition aged 36 - 39. He's nothing. He'll go down as a very good heavyweight who mopped up some old fighters in a so-so era if he beats the Klitschkos, with the Wladimir win being by far his crowining achievement.
Not top 15 stuff, in my opinion.

I'll be eating my hat if he beats Wlad anyway. Seriously, we're even hyping him up now on the classic forum. Haye's hype is the most phenomenal I've witnessed, relative to his actual ability/accomplishments. (although some will correct me and offer up Dempsey, )

 

Both the Klits are nice guys ,and conduct themselves like gentlemen,with class and courtesy,Haye comes of as brash , boorish , and cocky,I don't know how much of that is an act, but it sure has worked for him.
I agree Haye's heavyweight credentials are extremely thin,[otherwise I would not be getting 20/1].Hype over substance.
If Haye beat both Klit's, I think he would be just outside the top 15 no higher, they are both getting on and I don't have Vitali in the top 15 ,maybe Wlad squeeks in?
Roll on Saturday night.:good

 

If he beats them both and defends his title a few times then yeah, maybe he would be.

 

Yeah. Head-to-head, one-on-one. I guess so.
But is he better overall at heavyweight, against the field, over the last 8 years ? I think not.
So, the question of "best heavyweight since Lewis" wouldn't be clear to me. That's my take, anyway.
I do rate Baer higher than Schmeling though, granted.

He'd be about 10 times better than I think he is now, If he beats Wlad. In the unlikely event that something so mind-bending happens I might even be hailing Haye as some sort of ATG, or most likely calling the fight a fix.

 

Laing is better than Duran?

 

At this stage of their respective careers yes.
If Haye were to ko Wlad easily two things will be said.
1 ,Wlad was overated and feasted on a poor heavyweight era.
2. He was past his best.
And both could be true.:think

 

Nah, it would be like when Spinks beat Holmes twice or maybe Tunney/Desmpey. He would be thought of very highly in a P4P sense but hasn't done enough in the division itself to warrant an upper tier ranking.

 

No way. The only reason he is ranked so high now is because he has dominated a high profile division for over 5 years. Haye is really the only true contender he's faced outside of Peter and he went to hell and back in that fight. Losing to Haye pushes him out of the top 20 IMO.

 

Yeah, Byrd, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Chambers were all not real contenders. :nut

 

I agree, that's pretty much the core of my criteria for ranking Holyfield above Tyson in "Heavyweight Greatness".