Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Haye Vs Ali

  • 29-12-2012 1:31am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,765 ✭✭✭


    How would you see this fight going?

    A pretty even contest with Haye possibly knicking it with his greater movement and harder punching..


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭MonkstownHoop


    jesus


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭Havermeyer


    :eek:

    Seriously?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,848 ✭✭✭✭Pudsy33


    Obvious troll is obvious


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,765 ✭✭✭sxt


    Pretty serious .Haye is alot more heavy hitting than Ali and has better movement and is less easy to tag


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭joepenguin


    Are we talking early 2013 or later in the year?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    Haye isn't heavier hitting than Ali, similar I would say-Ali's faster and has a better chin and better footwork

    Ali would win this match up but not as easy as people commenting would like to believe.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,905 ✭✭✭Chavways


    Well isnt Ali in a wheelchair so it'd be pretty one sided I think.:pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    Ali wins it 110 times out of 100. Haye's Achilles's toe would get in the way again.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,222 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    sxt wrote: »
    How would you see this fight going?

    A pretty even contest with Haye possibly knicking it with his greater movement and harder punching..

    Is this a joke?

    Both on their best night I cannot see 30 punches a rd Haye making this close. He could make it awkward for Ali, but he won't come all that close to winning.

    You seem obsessed with this view that the modern men are so superior than the men form years gone by. Haye wouldn't have beaten many heavies form the 70s. He just hadn't got the stamina needed to hang with some of them. Take Jerry Quarry as one. He would break Haye mid rds. Shavers would KO Haye. Frazier would demolish, Foreman would demolish, Norton would be too good.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    Haye isn't a super heavy like some now so doesn't have that advantage, really he's just a blown up cruiser who is scared to get hit!

    Most the 70's men named where proper heavies and would beat Haye who in reality is not 1 of the top men in heavyweight boxing.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,222 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Even still, Paul, Haye was 190-200 lbs at his lightest. Guys like Quarry and Norton and Frazier weren't that much bigger, (not taller anyway) if at all. Quarry would be smaller. Haye is skilled, slick, and can punch, but against real talented heavies who come to fight he will be found out. He isn't busy enough or fit enough to beat the names I mentioned. If Haye cannot KO them he will not beat them on points.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,765 ✭✭✭sxt


    Frazier was 5 11 and blind in one eye , if a 5 11 semi blind fighter ever becomes heavyweight champ again I will eat my guitar. Of course Fraizer was a phenomeon and will never be the likes again but Fraizer against Haye is again 50/50. One of them is going to get knocked out in spectacular fashion


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,354 ✭✭✭nocoverart


    sxt wrote: »
    How would you see this fight going?

    A pretty even contest with Haye possibly knicking it with his greater movement and harder punching..

    Surely you mean as they are now? pretty close I reckon


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,765 ✭✭✭sxt


    Haye is a small man in todays boxing. Back in the 70's he would have been considered massive . 6 3 , 220 ilbs of pure muscle, with the speed of a middleweight. The guys that were 220 ilbs back then were alot chubbier . His strength and conditioning would be light years ahead of the main men from the 70's. Look how flabby and out of shape Al looked and was in the 7o's. Lennox lewis said that Haye could have been the "Ali of this generation", in terms of creating a name for himself, and he could have been if hadn't of been for those pesky K Bros

    The legend and myth generated by the american media over the fighters from the 70's is out of this world .IF frazier was from poland, and Foreman from Iceland, and Ali was from Scotland and they were fighting in tiny venues,instread of 100,000 stadiums and billions of viewers, they would never have been talked about in the same light. Haye would have been a good match up for any guy back then


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,222 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Leaving the Klits out of it what exactly has Haye done?

    He would be a normal sized heavy in the 70s. I don't dispute that. But, his talent wouldn't cut it. What strength and conditioning advantage has Haye displayed vs. the likes of Norton and Frazier and Foreman and Ali and others from the 70s? 30 punches a rd and fearing a tear up?

    BTW, Ali could have been from Mars and he still would have been a global icon.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,765 ✭✭✭sxt


    walshb wrote: »
    Leaving the Klits out of it what exactly has Haye done?

    He would be a normal sized heavy in the 70s. I don't dispute that. But, his talent wouldn't cut it. What strength and conditioning advantage has Haye displayed vs. the likes of Norton and Frazier and Foreman and Ali and others from the 70s? 30 punches a rd and fearing a tear up?

    BTW, Ali could have been from Mars and he still would have been a global icon.
    Hes done as much as he can winning cruiserweight and heavy weight title, he was never going to beat Vladamir

    I don't think Haye would be as timid fighting guys that are smaller than him. He is more evenly matched against the guys from the 70's. If you are fighting athletic guys that are 6 foot 7 with 250 ilbs , thats a different story

    Ali in 1971 was 215 ilbs vs Fraizer , he conditioning is clearly not great , he is completely flat on his feet after 1 round



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,222 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    sxt wrote: »
    Ali in 1971 was 215 ilbs vs Fraizer , he conditioning is clearly not great , he is completely flat on his feet after 1 round


    Take any 4-5 rds in that fight and Ali was busier and fitter than a 12 rd Haye. Not sure what Ali's feet have to do with his conditioning. Did you not see what went on in that 1971 fight? Show me any Haye fight where he sustained any real level of intensity?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭Littlehorny


    Sports science, nutrition and understanding of everything sports related has gone to whole new level in the last 20 years, you only have to look at the massive increase in size of rugby players in the last 30 years to see this. If Haye was plying his trade in the 70s he would not be ripped like he is now, he would look like all the other heavies of similar size from the time. If Ali was only 30 years old today he probably would be carrying about 10lbs of extra muscle and looking more ripped than the physiques of the 70s.
    Hate comparing fighters from different eras because too many factors to be considered. But my two pence worth on the thread is anyone who thinks Haye stands a chance against the greatest heavyweight champ of all time is doting.
    Haye fights at a slow pace and has serious stamina issues, average chin and is not tough enough, where Ali is prob the most complete heavy ever to enter the ring.
    To summarise if Ali was fighting today he would be even better and if Haye was around in the 70s he would have been eaten up and spat out by anyone of the top ten heavys from the 70s.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭Scanlas The 2nd


    I think Haye would probably win, he is ripped and packed with muscle, compare that to Ali's body with not much muscle and a higher body fat percentage.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,222 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    I think Haye would probably win, he is ripped and packed with muscle, compare that to Ali's body with not much muscle and a higher body fat percentage.

    I'm assuming that is tongue in cheek.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    It's worth mentioning Haye has to try to be heavy, the boxers mentioned where real heavies and just trained to be fit-plus Haye has no pedigree at heavy, Ali would have finished valuev off of they fought.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,765 ✭✭✭sxt


    A speedster with skills and athlethic agility and heart and self belief and a serious pop in his fists could do well in the 70's .

    He could have ran circles around Foreman, frustrated him, and evaded his best shots for 12 rounds. It is not beyond the imagination to see this happening.A feather fisted Jimmy Young did a number on Foreman. Or Foreman could have got his opportunity and smashed haye to pieces. either /or

    He could have badly ko'd Fraizer and vice versa.

    Im not for a second saying that Haye is better than than those guys, he's not. But he has got some boxing ability

    Theres only one other heavyweight from that era that could move like this
    ib2jsIb3QvuOIH.gif


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭Halloween Jack


    Comparing the two is an insult to Ali. Haye's gutless acceptance of a wide defeat by wlad, and settling for remaining unscathed was shameful. Particularly given his baiting of the bros at every opportunity. Ali wound up Frazier no end, but when the bell went he was more than willing to trade with him.

    Ali had the one thing all great champions need and the thing David haye will never have.... Heart.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,222 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    sxt wrote: »
    A speedster with skills and athlethic agility and heart and self belief and a serious pop in his fists could do well in the 70's .

    He could have ran circles around Foreman, frustrated him, and evaded his best shots for 12 rounds. It is not beyond the imagination to see this happening.A feather fisted Jimmy Young did a number on Foreman. Or Foreman could have got his opportunity and smashed haye to pieces. either /or

    He could have badly ko'd Fraizer and vice versa.

    Im not for a second saying that Haye is better than than those guys, he's not. But he has got some boxing ability

    Theres only one other heavyweight from that era that could move like this
    ib2jsIb3QvuOIH.gif

    When you post a clip of Haye's best bits with the worst excuse for a HW champion ever, Ruiz, then it is clear that desperation is setting in. And, that is a past it Ruiz. Deplorable.

    Ok, Haye has speed, good power and is no dummy. I get that. He could well pose problems for many 70s HWs, but I don't see Foreman and Frazier having any real issues getting him out of there withing 4-5 rds. Ali may need longer, but no way is Haye beating him. He loses a clear decision to Ali.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 105 ✭✭Mick990


    Ah lads this thread has to be started by a troll but seen as i've nothing else to be doing I'll throw in my bit. Ali would destroy Haye. Most of the 70s heavyweights would.

    I feel it all comes down to courage, if you look at how Haye fought against Wlad never took a risk then went onto blame his toe at the end it was just a disgrace . Now if you look at the other side at how Ali still fought on against Ken Norton with a broken jaw , or the beating he took against Foreman in Zaire to set up the amazing victory or even the courage shown by both fighters in the Thrilla in Manilla . Haye would never last in that era . Imagine Frazier caught him with one of those awesome hooks ?? He would no way get back up . Imagine even he tried to punk out Sonny Liston ?? What excuses would he be coming up with then ?

    I know its a little off topic but the fight i would love to have seen would have been Ali Vs Teofilo Stevenson


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭Littlehorny


    Would love to know why anyone would have any confidence in Haye beating a good heavyweight never mind a great heavyweight. Just looked up his resume and he has only fought 6 times at heavy, here is his list.
    1 Monte Barret- 37 yr old never was been, poor fighter.
    2. Valuez- 7ft tall freak show, slow as a wet week with fup all power, 46 year old Holyfield was robbed of a decision against this moving staue.
    3. John Ruiz- 38 yr old slow heavy with minimum power, lost to super middle champ Roy Jones when he was 31, was very slow even in his prime.
    4.Harrison- please!!!
    5. Klitchko- his chance to walk the walk and he bottled it, if he couldnt lay a glove on Wlad, what chance against Ali?
    6. Chisora- not in his best shape but even at that another poor heavy.
    Where is this faith in Haye coming from?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,222 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Mick990 wrote: »
    ?

    I know its a little off topic but the fight i would love to have seen would have been Ali Vs Teofilo Stevenson

    Over 3 rds or more Ali wins. Teo basically boxed as a pro over 3 rds. No headgear a lot of the time and 3x3 mins. He would cause problems but Ali at his best beats him.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,765 ✭✭✭sxt


    Would love to know why anyone would have any confidence in Haye beating a good heavyweight never mind a great heavyweight. Just looked up his resume and he has only fought 6 times at heavy, here is his list.
    1 Monte Barret- 37 yr old never was been, poor fighter.
    2. Valuez- 7ft tall freak show, slow as a wet week with fup all power, 46 year old Holyfield was robbed of a decision against this moving staue.
    3. John Ruiz- 38 yr old slow heavy with minimum power, lost to super middle champ Roy Jones when he was 31, was very slow even in his prime.
    4.Harrison- please!!!
    5. Klitchko- his chance to walk the walk and he bottled it, if he couldnt lay a glove on Wlad, what chance against Ali?
    6. Chisora- not in his best shape but even at that another poor heavy.
    Where is this faith in Haye coming from?

    He has got the skills and the speed and power to be troublesome. He did all he could do in the heavyweight division. He has an impressive Cruiserweight career.. which I think would have made him a heavyweight back in the 70's ..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,222 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    sxt wrote: »
    He has got the skills and the speed and power to be troublesome. He did all he could do in the heavyweight division. He has an impressive Cruiserweight career.. which I think would have made him a heavyweight back in the 70's ..

    Yes, he was big enough. Most definitely. But look at his style. I don't see him being fit enough or tough enough to withstand the kind of pace and attacks that some of ther 70s men bring. I also don't see enough skills to decision them. Imagine him vs. Quarry. So, he connects and Quarry is still there, which is very likely. Quarry took a helluva shot. Quarry had far more stamina and variety and overall toughness. He could bang enough to really hurt Haye. I cannot see Haye lasting 12 rds vs. a Quarry, let alone a Foreman or Frazier. Haye could beat a Jimmy Young. He won't beat the elite 70s heavies. No way! Shavers wasn't elite, and Shavers I would back to KO Haye!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,765 ✭✭✭sxt


    Mick990 wrote: »
    Imagine even he tried to punk out Sonny Liston ?? What excuses would he be coming up with then ?

    I know its a little off topic but the fight i would love to have seen would have been Ali Vs Teofilo Stevenson

    He wouldn't be coming up with any excuse against Sonny Liston because he would beat Sonny Liston. Haye might have been scared of Foreman, but not Liston!

    The Myth of Liston is just that ,myth of epic proportions. Sure he could look good beating up blown up middleweights. The Myth was debunked when he fought Eddie Machen , a 196 ilbs guy( who used only his left hand for the entire fight)and was still able to bully , knock him back yards with punches , wrestle him across the length of the ring repeatedly , hit him at will etc .Look how slow Liston is!




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,459 ✭✭✭Felexicon


    Jesus wept!!!!!!!!
    OP come on man really? David Haye? Against the greatest heavyweights of all time?

    David Haye is a fine cruiserweight but under no circumstances is he in the top tier of heavyweights. I'm not saying all of the previously mentioned fighters would destroy him, but at the same time it'd be hard to be confident backing him against any of them


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    where Ali is prob the most complete heavy ever to enter the ring.

    Joe Louis?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 258 ✭✭terrymccarthy05


    So a white coat for you


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,024 ✭✭✭Big Ears


    FTA69 wrote: »
    Joe Louis?

    Not even close. If you were judging him against anything pre 1950 then ya sure, but boxing has evolved quite a bit since Louis' time.

    Louis fought very square on, and very upright normally with his hands quite low. He was brilliant at parrying shots, he'd parry a jab all night but he was susceptible to left hooks and also overhand rights. His footwork was also clumsy and disjointed. He utilised uppercuts from both hands very effectively though, fighting exceptionally well inside and was obviously famed for his left hook. That's from a technical perspective.
    Physically he was quite tall with a long reach for his time period, he was very fast, and really heavy handed. His punch resistance was pretty damn good but he could be hurt and dropped.

    Physically a more impressive heavyweight didn't come along till Marciano (although obviously lacking Joe's talent and speed), technically you could argue better fighters before this but Floyd Patterson stands out as the fighter who was far more developed than Louis and fighters of his time. Even fighters like Liston more fluid and less rigid and straight up than Louis, but he had other flaws which you could make a case for him being less technically gifted overall.

    Anyway Louis most complete Heavyweight ever ? (maybe if you took him and compared him to the era he was in) but overall, not even close, he's not even top 100.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Well to be fair all boxers (and athletes in general) have to be taken at their time, for instance could you see Joe Frazier at under six foot making serious waves in today's heavyweight division? You're spot on in what you say but I suppose my query would be around Ali as the "most complete" heavyweight ever. He was a rangy outfighter who hated being pressurised, had a good chin but not a lot of power compared to other heavies. Would he be more complete than Larry Holmes for instance?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,222 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    FTA69 wrote: »
    Well to be fair all boxers (and athletes in general) have to be taken at their time, for instance could you see Joe Frazier at under six foot making serious waves in today's heavyweight division? You're spot on in what you say but I suppose my query would be around Ali as the "most complete" heavyweight ever. He was a rangy outfighter who hated being pressurised, had a good chin but not a lot of power compared to other heavies. Would he be more complete than Larry Holmes for instance?

    Who likes being pressurised? Well, some fighters feast on it I guess. But, Ali still dealt with the pressure to prevail. Ali had very little inside game, I will say that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,222 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Holyfield on his day was very complete.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    walshb wrote: »
    Who likes being pressurised? Well, some fighters feast on it I guess. But, Ali still dealt with the pressure to prevail. Ali had very little inside game, I will say that.

    Some people can deal bery well with being pressurised, Mayweather for one. Lack of ability to fight on the inside was what I was referring to.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,222 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Big Ears wrote: »
    Anyway Louis most complete Heavyweight ever ? (maybe if you took him and compared him to the era he was in) but overall, not even close, he's not even top 100.

    Top 100 heavy or top 100 boxer? I assume the latter.

    As regards punching (speed, technique, delivery, variation, power) he was one of the most complete ever at any weight.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 257 ✭✭Ghost.


    walshb wrote: »
    Top 100 heavy or top 100 boxer? I assume the latter.

    As regards punching (speed, technique, delivery, variation, power) he was one of the most complete ever at any weight.

    Can you imagine if he was around in this era with all the advances in sports science, nutrition & training that he never had how he would have developed as a fighter. He would have been awsome. The same goes for any of the old great fighters, although they were great they never reached their full potential.

    Sure if you put the like of Haye today against the Joe louis of his era in a fight Haye would probably win but if any of the old greats were in the game today being trained and developed right I can see very few current fighters being able to cope with them at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,222 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Ghost. wrote: »
    Can you imagine if he was around in this era with all the advances in sports science, nutrition & training that he never had how he would have developed as a fighter. He would have been awsome. The same goes for any of the old great fighters, although they were great they never reached their full potential.

    Sure if you put the like of Haye today against the Joe louis of his era in a fight Haye would probably win but if any of the old greats were in the game today being trained and developed right I can see very few current fighters being able to cope with them at all.

    This debate always rages. There were fighers from years gone by that I feel beat ones around today. Boxing is a lot more difficult to measure over time.

    Probably the most difficult of all the sports to show that the modern athletes/sports stars are superior. Much easier to see it in so many other sports.

    I love Louis's style and delivery and technique, but I feel that against big men with power and speed that Joe could be hurt, dropped and stopped. I would never lay my money on Louis with confidence.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,222 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    I would give Haye a much better chance vs. Louis as opposed to vs. Ali. Louis was smaller, there to be hit, and didn't have the chin or recovery powers of Ali. If Billy Conn can stun Louis badly then Haye can take him clean out. But, one mistake from Haye and Louis can take him out.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 257 ✭✭Ghost.


    walshb wrote: »
    I love Louis's style and delivery and technique, but I feel that against big men with power and speed that Joe could be hurt, dropped and stopped. I would never lay my money on Louis with confidence.

    Im a big Joe Louis fan myself and I agree with you on that. Its hard to compare like with like because had he been around now Im sure he would have been a much better fighter and had Haye been around then he would have been nowhere near what he is today. Mostly due to the different training and nutrition available now and then.

    But Ali is a different animal altogether, a large part of what makes him great is that so much of what he done would get another fighter killed. But he made it work for him and that makes him exceptional. But the differences in training now would make less of a difference to Ali than it would to the like of Louis.

    Its much easier to gauge the outcome of Ali v Haye which I think Ali would win hands down.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,222 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    I am not sure Louis' feet or defense or chin would be so much improved had he availed of today's knowledge and diet and technology etc. There are fighters today who aren't as good as men from years gone by.

    The main difference in my view is in the heavyweights. Size and weight being the major factor as opposed to skills and training methods. Below HW I think a strong case can be made in many eras for all boxers.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭Scanlas The 2nd


    If it wasn't so easily objective to call Usain Bolt the fastest sprinter I reckon you'd get plenty with rose tinted glasses dismiss missing him as the greatest.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,222 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    If it wasn't so easily objective to call Usain Bolt the fastest sprinter I reckon you'd get plenty with rose tinted glasses dismiss missing him as the greatest.

    And that is a sport that truly benefitted from diet, technology, professionalism/money and track surfaces/equipment. And it's measurable too.


Advertisement