HAYE CHISORA BRAWL

Henno30 wrote: »

The Klitschkos are 'boring' primarily because they're not from the english speaking world and because they're so dominant. They're not electrifying fighters by any means but a lot of the criticism is ridiculous. I'm sure they're perceived very differently in Germany and across Eastern Europe. There's a shift of power in boxing. When Mayweather retires you're potentially looking at Andre Ward being the only American fighter in the top 10 P4P list. It's a big change. And unless someone with real knockout power comes along, you're looking at the heavyweight championship being in the hands of 'boring' foreigners for some time to come.

It has very little to do with nationality. Both have good enough english and good personalities, while Pacquio showss it's very possible to crack America. As long as a fighter has an engaging style then he can succeed fantastically well.

Simple fact is the Klitschkos have been quantifiable boring because they've been able to fight, for the most part, lop-sided, safety first (especially in Vitali's case) fights because their opponent pool is so shallow and in-capable of seriously testing them. No one can be angry about them not getting enough 'respect' when the best opponent in the entire world Wlad can find is Derreck Chisora.

pacquiao wrote: »

you're missing the point.david haye is a snake. we alll know that.he is so clever, he disguised the punch by keeping the glass in his hand acting casual and then surprising chisora . he didn't put the glass down as that would have been telegraphing it.

But what is your point? Am I to infer from your post that you believe Haye did intend to strike Chisora with his fist AND the bottle?

All I said is that it looked unlikely that he intended to glass him, but, only he can know this, and doing what he did, I wouldn't be suprised if it was his intention, or if folks thought that it was his intention.

pacquiao wrote: »

That is exactly what he was thinking. He was smart enough to throw the first punch ,most people aren't. It's like the guy who walks towards you aggresively saying i don't want to fight with open arms and then he knocks you onto the ground and kicks you in the head. Seen it a million times. If on the other hand he said i don't want to fight and he was walking backwards using those open hand gestures then he isn't much of a threat. But when someone comes up to your face ,you either hit him, or you might be off to the hospital.

And, in saying this, Haye was not the man going forward and approaching. It was Chisora who did this, and after he had threatened to slap Haye. Haye was IMO well within his rights to act.

cowzerp wrote: »

How anyone can try knock them is beyond me

Why?

You have been very critical of Rocky, and base it on him lacking skill, and fighting bums and weak opposition. Well, many think that the likes of Chisora, Williams, 39 year old Briggs, Haye, Adamek, Kirk Johnson etc are weak opposition.

Also, both Klits, although very effective, mainly due to size and talent, could look very cumbersome and awkward. Vitali's footowork is pretty average. They are skilled, competent, but where is it so much more evident with them as opposed to Rocky? At least Rocky had an inside game. Very very good one too. The Klits were very very predictable. Jab, jab, jab, right cross, repeat! Effective? Yes. As skilled as Rocky's game? No.

Rocky to me throws far better varied punches than both.

And, Rocky came to kill all the time. Non stop wanting to kill, which to many, me included, is a far more appealing style than the Klits, who have been very cautious, reluctant and in safe mode. Not all the time, but plenty of times.

I brought in Rocky merley to point out that the Klits getting criticised, or not praised enough, does not surprise me.

If Rocky can get badly criticised, then so can the Klits.

Rockys opponents where poor! he had awful technique and had no outside game, he was technically crude in all areas and relied on big power or he would lose-I'm not discussing rocky here as I have put lots of facts up about him and his poor opposition, aswell as how he lost an amateur fight during his pro career and most people feel he lost as a pro but his opponent was robbed. Vitali has only lost by injuries and was ahead in both fights. Plus most everyone has conceded that if they where to fight Vitali would win, and before people mention size Vitali fighting back then with rocky was a perfectly legal fight.

tryingmybestt wrote: »

Marciano's legacy is much better than either of the klitschko's

Marciano's exciting reign as champion is much better than any of the Klitschko's

Marciano overcame many more obstacles than the Klitschkos' such as small, very short arms, cut very easily etc.

Marciao had amazing power and balance

Marciano also had great stamina and toughness

Many ppl rate these qualities highest when it comes to professional boxing

Some ppl can't see the wood from the trees and are trying to play the race card when it comes to ppl saying the Klitschkos are boring etc.

It's nothing to do with race, nationality etc.

It's all to do with personality, fighting style !

Of course Rocky was more exciting , and had a more exciting style! That was the style of that era!

The thing is if you post Rocky ( or any great from any past era) vs Vitali today on aboxing forum ( they are usually American forums) , say there is a 100 posters, 80% of posters will say Vitali gets ko'ed no matter who his opponent is , without any explanation about how that happens

Rocky is a legend , but you have to put things into perspective , he is not a heavyweight today, he only had a three year reign lets remember .The fights back then were way more exciting because it was a slug it out to the end fight

Rocky's last fight against an older Archie Moore is swinging left right left right left left right left right left right for a the whole eight rounds. It was all about giving punishment and receiving punishment at the same time , and see who could last longest. Rocky reigned supreme and all the credit to him

nacho libre wrote: »

I suspect if someone squared up to you on a night out, you then decided to punch them first, consequently they end up cracking their head off the pavement, your defense of being within your rights to act might not prove too successful in court. Fleeing might be viewed as a better act.

I know that walking away or even running away may be seen as wimpish(unmanly)by you, but i'd wager some people who have found themselves up in court on manslaughter charges, might have wished they or their victim had done just that.

That's about as extreme an outcome as you could have come up with, don't throw the first punch or you'll kill him.

By your skewed logic you could say by throwing the first punch he potentially could have saved his own life, because if he left the first punch to an animal like Chisora god knows what he may have done!