Haye Vs Ali

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

FTA69

Littlehorny wrote: »

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

Joe Louis?

terrymccarthy05

So a white coat for you

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.

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?

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.

walshb

Holyfield on his day was very complete.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

walshb

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

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.