Sky's Nov schedule

Sky are already building it up as if Haye is fighting some sort of fire-breathing bohemoth; funnily enough, they haven't yet mentioned any of Valuev's boxing credentials or his boxing ability. I expect the condescending coverage to continue in this fight's promotion as I'm sure many will buy it out of pure intrigue on the size match-up:roll:.

 

>Floyd Mayweather Jr v Juan Manuel Marquez
>Prizefighter - The Heavyweights
>Kell Brook v Michael Jennings
>Nikolai Valuev v David Haye
>Lovemore Ndou v Matthew Hatton
>Rendall Munroe v Simone Maladrottu

**** yeah, watchings all of these.Except maybe Haye and Valuev, I might watch that online if my dad doesn't want to watch it with me. I'm not going to pay like £15 to see a tree falling.

 

''David 'The Hayemaker' Haye, in his quest to emulate the great Evander Holyfield in becoming only the second cruiserweight champion to move up to heavyweight and conquer the world, faces the man, who ended Holyfield's career last December, the seven foot two, 'Beast From The East', Nikolai Valuev''

Cue some disparaging remarks from Glenn McCrory and Nicky Piper.....

:nut

 

That's actually a pretty good build up. Do you work for sky?

 

That's a decent line-up of fights. Especially glad I have a place to watch PBF-JMM without having to watch a shitty stream. Only tiny complaint is Haye vs Valuev being on PPV, but having said that I'd much rather pay £15 to watch Haye in a title fight than Khan vs some nobody that we usually get.

 

how can Haye have the audacity to call himself the HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION OF THE WORLD when he beats Valuev, not just Haye but all these fighters running around calling themselfs world champs when they haven't even beat the 5th best in that division let alone the number 1.

all this i'm a six time world champion in six different weights makes me sick

 

I made this point the other day in another thread, slip. Two 3 division world champs on paper: Alexis Arguello and Duke McKenzie. Now, I'm not hating on the Duke but it is a perfect example where the countless alphabet titles are really hurting the sport and tarnishing legacies in recent history and now:conf.

 

Rightfully or wrongfully they are bringing attention to and upon themselves with such statements and remarks.

Said statements/remarks = cash

Its a tough job.

If they were to sit there saying it after they have retired then thats between themselves ( belt winners ) to sort it out.

I know what you mean but fight fans know that belts mean nothing and its who you fought, not fought for.


Well thats my take on it.

 

Its not tarnished Arguellos legacy. Believe me!!

 

Don't get me wrong mind, Gaz, that's not the point I'm making. I'm saying that to a casual fan they might see like-for-like because of the amount of alphabets there are now rather than realising the magnitude of the achievement back in the day. The alphabets have diluted a casual fan's perspective, IMO, and it's the sort of thing that is hurting boxing. Case and point, I remember the Hatton-Lazcano fight being billed as an 'IBO Title' fight.

Another thread digressed on my part. Sorry.

 

edit

 

Promoters/ fighters latch 'world titles' onto fights to sell them and generate interest. In an ideal world it wouldn't happen but its been going on for years and will continue for the forseeable future.

IMHO its better just to look at the fights/ careers and forget about the dodgy titles, you'll drive yourselve mad otherwise!!

Hatton-Lazano was a bit strange, it was always going to massively popular but if I was promoting it I'd have dropped the IBO and billied it as for the Lineal/ Ring title. That carries WAY more importance in my book.

 

Likewise. I got a bit of stick for saying the same thing the other day but it's the best system out there by country miles, IMO.

Bodysnatcher: as long as Sky think they can sell the fight (same night as KP-PW as well remember) they won't have a problem putting it on PPV.

 

Most people who don't like the Ring rankings cite 2 main issues. The first is that any attempt to sort out the mess of titles shouldn't add yet another title to that mess. The second is that The Ring does not enforce mandatories and champions are free to fight weak oppostion or remain inactive.

I understand the logic in the first point although I disagree with it, if done right another belt/ title can be good for the sport if it keeps its titles lineal.

The second point ignores the fact that a main 'selling point' of the Ring titles is that they are lineal and as soon as the Ring enforce mandatories they also eventually have to start stripping champions for not meeting them. This means the titles are no longer lineal.

Although its less than ideal I think think its better to not enforce mandatories and retain the lineal nature of the titles where they are won and lost in the ring rather than end up stripping champs and ending up much like the WBC/WBA etc are now.

 

Especially when you consider that the nature of the process for crowning a champion tends to create long term vacancies anyway. 11 out of the 17 titles are currently vacant (and heavyweight should be, so should be 12 out of 17). If they stripped people for not fighting the number one challenger, Pavlik would have been stripped by now. And I don't think we'll be seeing the Marquez v Casamayor rematch or Pacquiao v Bradley anytime soon.