updated 2011 - Wladimir Klitschko v. David Haye - Dwyer

He's a gambling advisor, it's not his job to make rigid predictions and if you watch his videos with any regularity, you'd know that he will always favour the straddle.

And in this fight, the straddle he suggests is the only sensible one. I would probably have gone for a Wlad UD / Haye Stoppage straddle but his makes more sense, if Haye gasses around the 8-9th, then it's likely Wlad pushes a TKO stoppage.

 

Im pretty sure that most folks know that Wlad cant be hit. Im also sure Haye knows this. But can Haye, take the punches himself to get that inside game going and get to Wlads chin consistently enough to break Wlads will?

I say no. Haye is highly inactive, usually looking to potshot and get out, throwing that Hayemaker only when the other fighter is inactive.

Wlad is NEVER inactive and constantly pumping the jab. That jab IMO beats the Hayemaker all day. It harder than Hayes best shot, and Hayes chin is weaker than any fighter Wlad has fought previously.

I look for Wlad to land a 1/2 around the 3rd and end Hayes career. EARLY!

 

Its best to straddle a haye ko with a wlad ko or decision, i dont see it going anyway and that is a brilliant way to make some money for real

 

Which was what I was saying. by you saying " it's the only sensible outcome", you essentially agree with me that it's obvious... I Also said it was the only good part from the vid, which means I agree with him

 

Let me summarize the ramblings from the video: Haye has a puncher's chance, if he does not do something inside of 4 rounds he will most likely lose the fight.

Well, duh...

 

No, he didn't say that at all.

 

That was 14 minutes I'll never get back.

 

That's exactly what he said. He said Haye could not win a decision. He said that Haye won't even try to outpoint Wlad. He said that if Wlad lands jab consistently in the first 4 then he will win the fight. He does not believe Haye can outbox Wlad and will rely on landing one big one = puncher's chance. He just believes that Haye has better than average puncher's chance that's all.

 

No, he's stating the most likely outcome and the reasons for it. He makes a prediction with analysis for almost all major fights with a very high percentage of success.

He is spot on with his analysis of this match-up without all the homo-erotic worship of Wlad the you get from the Klit Huggers. What part was it that offended you so much?

When he pointed out that Wlad is not an accomplished in-fighter, that he has a vulnerable chin, that he is very stiff and robotic, that he doesn't adjust to suit his opponents during the round and merely follows Mannys instruction or that Haye will know exactly what Wlad Klitschko will do for the first 4 rounds?

 

No, he said that the first 4 rounds will be the most interesting in all of 2011. He did not say that Haye couldn't catch Wlad after 4 rounds, that's only what you wanted to hear.

He said that if Wlad has success with the jab in the first 4 rounds then the fight will most likely pan out as a one sided victory for Klitschko, the fact that Haye can't win on points has nothing to do with Haye having to knock Wlad out in 4 rounds.

 

Not for nothing but Wlad's chin is alright. More so then Haye's. Sanders hit's hard as ****, and he was up each of the three knockdowns. Peter rabbit punched and Wlad got up. This is the heavyweight division and most everybody will have the power to knock you out or at least down. And for those who can take more punches then others, try to have a conversation with them where you can understand them. And the stiff and robotic stuff has come after his loses and under his new trainer. Look at his older fights he let go much more often, and usually is the case vs. softer opponents. Also since his "stiff and robotic" style has been termed. How many times has he lost using it? And at 6'6 240lbs it's very rare that he will have to be the one to adjust to his opponents rather then vice verse . Where are you gonna get somebody his size, skill, speed, power, and experience to train with??

 

well some of what you said of the past champions is simply wrong.. Ali was pretty much done in 76' against young, and didn't have problems leading anyway. He led fine against bugner, Terrell, and Williams.

Tyson's weakness so to speak was that he couldnt fight backwards rather then getting exposed on the inside... Tyson was not very good by 96' and lacked the speed and combos he did before. also the headmovement was gone.

Louis may have had slow feet but that's partially because he usually loaded up on every shot he threw. He always had good leverage. I'd say he was as flashy or mobile as Tunney, Ali, or Holmes then that would be different.

What you said about Holmes is just bull. Holmes may have been knocked down, but most great champions are knocked down in their primes. I don't see how you can say Holmes almost lost it. Holmes was winning every previous round and came back to STOP shavers. Same with snipes. neither could finish Holmes. And Holmes was KNOWN for his great chin. don't know where you're going with that idea. And Holmes was one of the most mobile heavyweight champions ever. I don't get that at all. Except for Tunney and Ali he is the 3rd fastest HW on his feet. his footspeed certainly handicap him.

Besides those, good vid. Your analysis on Wlad-Haye is spot on. I'm afraid haye is going to try to pull a valuev.

 

Best point on this thread

 

Easy. Haye gets KO'd

 

Think its you doing the exact opposite.