Comments Thread For: Haye: Fury Should Fight Price, Proves He's The Best!

[Ravens Fan]

David Price was originally signed under the Hayemaker umbrella when he turned pro. The two are really good friends and have been sparring forever almost. I don't think Haye has anything but goodwill towards the both of them (mostly Price), but he just feels they are at different levels and stages of their careers at the moment. Which they are.

David Haye has a career? Oh, wait does it have anything to do with reality TV?

[Ravens Fan]

By your logic can't say 'this fighter doesn't merit a fight because he hasn't done anything or beat anyone' when the exact same can be said of the majority of his recent opponents.

What did shot to shit Shannon Briggs do to 'merit' a shot against Vitali? Lose the WBO title in his first defence to Ibragimov? Between losing his title and fighting Vitali, Briggs fought 4 no name opponents with 40+ loses between them. One of these was even declared an NC because Shannon failed a drugs test. Let me guess, if Haye had spent the last year fighting against bums with 15+ losses he'd qualify for the fight?

Who did Manuel Charr beat to earn a 'merit' at the 'title'? What had he achieved? Obviously, I mean apart from being a fat man with little skill who was willing to fight for a pittance. Perhaps Haye should gain some flab, gel his hair and fight Vitali for £100k?

What did Chisora achieve in his 15 previous fights to merit a shot at the title? Who did he beat? Sam Sexton? Losing to Tyson Fury? Losing to one handed Helenius? Perhaps Haye needs to lose to a domestic level fighter to get his chance?

What did Sosnowski do that was so special that made him 'merit' a shot at Vitali that Haye hasn't surpassed?

What did Adamek do that's any different to Haye? Former CW champ, nothing special on the HW resume, except he didn't hold a title at HW.

Seems to me that Vitali's previous opponents haven't done all that much to 'merit' shot at his paper title, but you suddenly want to make out that Haye doesn't meet some high qualification criteria that clearly doesn't exist. Why not just say 'I don't want to see this fight because I don't like David Haye' instead of trying to make out it's something to do with not deserving the shot. Unless of course you can explain what these other fighters did to merit their shot?

There is one difference between Haye and all those that you mentioned. And that is regardless of the level of competition at least they have fought on a regular basis. And please point out any fighter in any division that has has had a long reign that hasn't had their share of silly mandatory fights or unworthy opponents? And you cannot add Adamek to your list because regardless if you like him or not he earned his fight with Vitali. And Haye also had his undeserved chance at Vitali and for what ever reason chose not to take it.

[LacedUp]

David Haye has a career? Oh, wait does it have anything to do with reality TV?

Not any more than Floyd Mayweather's.

[LacedUp]

There is one difference between Haye and all those that you mentioned. And that is regardless of the level of competition at least they have fought on a regular basis. And please point out any fighter in any division that has has had a long reign that hasn't had their share of silly mandatory fights or unworthy opponents? And you cannot add Adamek to your list because regardless if you like him or not he earned his fight with Vitali. And Haye also had his undeserved chance at Vitali and for what ever reason chose not to take it.

Floyd Mayweather.

[White_Knight]

Vitali shouldn't fight Haye because:

a) Haye has been an prick to the Klitschko brothers for years on end. Worse still, he tried to discredit Wladimir's victory with his stupid toe excuse. Vitali would be crazy to reward this abuse by providing Haye with a huge payday and the possibility of obtaining a degree of glory by being the 1st man to beat him in a decade.

b) Since he tried to discredit Wladimir's victory with the toe excuse, who is to say he won't attempt to discredit Vitali's victory the same way? After all, he also discredited Carl Thompson's victory by saying he didn't train properly. If he brings in another excuse - albeit, a seemingly more legitimate one than the toe thing - it may diminish the significance of a Vitali victory in the eyes of the public.

c) From a legacy perspective, Haye is not the best choice. Povetkin has achieved more at heavyweight than Haye has (beating Byrd, Chambers, and Chagaev). Haye won a heavyweight belt and lost it a couple of fights later. There is little doubt that someone like Tyson Fury, for instance, who is only 24, will have a more accomplished legacy at heavyweight than Haye does, and this will reflect back positively on Vitali should he win.

d) Vitali, quite understandably, wants to have his final fight in his home country. Haye is unwilling to fight there.

[damuttz112]

Let me put it straight, this is the biggest fight out there for the Heavyweight division. Ever since the Adamek fight RTL has been hyping this at every opportunity with post fight interviews and such. We 'the' fans are no idiots are neither is Bonte & Vitali.

Put aside all that 'brotherly pride' and bullshit, Vitali saw how much Wlad got from his 50% of the UK PPV money and he wanted a slice of the same pie. You know Haye, no way he fights unless there's £££ on the table.

Haye has stated Vitali named Germany as the likely place for the fight to take place. I can't wait, the Heavyweight division needs these type events, were getting embarrassed by the lower divisions. C'mon man!

[LacedUp]

Vitali shouldn't fight Haye because:

a) Haye has been an prick to the Klitschko brothers for years on end. Worse still, he tried to discredit Wladimir's victory with his stupid toe excuse. Vitali would be crazy to reward this abuse by providing Haye with a huge payday and the possibility of obtaining a degree of glory by being the 1st man to beat him in a decade.

b) Since he tried to discredit Wladimir's victory with the toe excuse, who is to say he won't attempt to discredit Vitali's victory the same way? After all, he also discredited Carl Thompson's victory by saying he didn't train properly. If he brings in another excuse - albeit, a seemingly more legitimate one than the toe thing - it may diminish the significance of a Vitali victory in the eyes of the public.


c) From a legacy perspective, Haye is not the best choice. Povetkin has achieved more at heavyweight than Haye has (beating Byrd, Chambers, and Chagaev). Haye won a heavyweight belt and lost it a couple of fights later. There is little doubt that someone like Tyson Fury, for instance, who is only 24, will have a more accomplished legacy at heavyweight than Haye does, and this will reflect back positively on Vitali should he win.


d) Vitali, quite understandably, wants to have his final fight in his home country. Haye is unwilling to fight there.

a) Who cares? This is a fighting sport. After the Chisora-Haye brawl he went over to Vitali and shook his hand and said hello. It's bvious it's a lot of show. He's not the first to mock the brothers, this stuff has been going on since Muhammad Ali was around.

So you admit he has a good chance to beat him?

b) He said on the night of the fight that Wladimir was too good for him and too big. He said that what hampered his own performance was agony in his broken toe. This has been blown way out of porportion. Has has stated on numerous times that even if his toe was fine, he would probably still had lost. But Wladimir didn't do what he promised either, let's not forget. He neither beat down Haye, KO'd him or even punished him at all.

c) That is simply not true at all. Povetkin has beaten these guys after the brothers had already taken them apart. Haye beat the giant Valuev and wobbled him and KO'd Ruiz violently for the first time in almost 20 years. With regards to Tyson Fury - you're just having a laugh now. His best win is a points decision over a fat, out of shape chisora who Haye beat down when Chisora was fit and at his best.

d) You don't know that for sure, and it is not understandable. He could have fought in the ukraine on any one time during his career but didn't. He needs a solid name on his resume, and though he was an absolute monster before he retired the first time, that name is still missing from his list.

[Ravens Fan]

Floyd Mayweather.

Are you defending Floyd or are you somehow trying to compare Haye's career to Floyd's? Or do you just blurt out Floyd's name when you can no longer legitimately defend Haye and simply have nothing else to say?

[LacedUp]

Are you defending Floyd or are you somehow trying to compare Haye's career to Floyd's? Or do you just blurt out Floyd's name when you can no longer legitimately defend Haye and simply have nothing else to say?

Did you even read the post? He asked who else in any other division who had a long reign without fighting mandatories. I assume he was defending the brothers for sometime fighting bums, and I said Floyd hasn't been doing that. It had nothing to do with David Haye. Which you could have understood if you had read the post before claiming this and that and sprouting out.

[Ravens Fan]

Did you even read the post? He asked who else in any other division who had a long reign without fighting mandatories. I assume he was defending the brothers for sometime fighting bums, and I said Floyd hasn't been doing that. It had nothing to do with David Haye. Which you could have understood if you had read the post before claiming this and that and sprouting out.

What are you talking about? The discussion was about Haye and I know this because I wrote it and mentioned his name in the first sentence. And this whole thread was about Haye so what, as you say, are you sprouting off about?

I also wasn't defending the brothers simply because I don't have to because it is fact. When fighters have long reigns they often fight their share of less than desirable opponents. Sometimes it is because the alphabet boys make them in order to keep their belt or they pick them themselves for an easy payday. And the Klit brothers are hardly the only ones that are guilty of it. I also won't even waste anyone's time making a list. Simply because everyone knows that it is true and if you don't than you haven't been paying much attention.

As far as Floyd is concerned he usually doesn't keep a belt long enough to even worry about a mandatory. And even if he did why would he care? He would most likely let them strip him, or vacate the title as he usually does. Because he will get the super fights regardless of what silly belt he may or may not hold. And why? Simply because he is Floyd.