Who has the better resume: Wladimir Klitschko or David Haye??

[sparked_85]

Wlad = 54 fights.

Haye = 22 fights.

Thanks.

Thankyou and goodnight.

Chunk is here all week.

[WLAD_OWNS]

In 22 fights Haye's record was 21-1 (20 KO)
In 22 fights Klitschko's record was 22-0 (20 KO)

It took Haye 6 years to get 22 fights and 5 years to get a title belt.

It took Klitschko 2 years to get 22 fights and 4 years to get a title belt.



In 2 years Haye's record was 11-1 (11 KO)
In 2 years Klitschko's record was 24-1 (22 KO) - That's more fights, wins and KOs than Haye had in 6 years.

In 6 years Haye's record was 21-1 (20 KO)
In 6 years Klitschko's record was 40-1 (37 KO)

Who had the better resume after 2 years of fighting? After 6 years of fighting?



No, you're the one making the unfair comparison. You can't just cut Klitschko's current resume in half to compare it with Haye's current resume. I guess that's the only way you can argue that Haye's resume is better, by cutting Klitschko's resume in half.

Also, I can argue that a fighter's "point in his career" isn't based on the amount of fights he's had, it's based on the amount of time he's been fighting.

Currently, Klitschko has a much better resume than Haye, and it's just unfair to compare fighters' resumes based on the first 22 fights...

Great Post!

[Garo]

I guess what I'm saying is, comparing resume's based on equal number of fights and completely disregarding all other aspects is wrong. That's not the way resumes are compared.

For example, you're hiring someone for a job. Candidate A has 2 years of experience, candidate B has 8 years of experience. Overall, candidate B is more qualified for the job, but, candidate A had better experience in his overall 2 years than candidate B had in his first 2 years. Who would you hire?

[squealpiggy]

In 22 fights Haye's record was 21-1 (20 KO)
In 22 fights Klitschko's record was 22-0 (20 KO)

It took Haye 6 years to get 22 fights and 5 years to get a title belt.

It took Klitschko 2 years to get 22 fights and 4 years to get a title belt.



In 2 years Haye's record was 11-1 (11 KO)
In 2 years Klitschko's record was 24-1 (22 KO) - That's more fights, wins and KOs than Haye had in 6 years.

In 6 years Haye's record was 21-1 (20 KO)
In 6 years Klitschko's record was 40-1 (37 KO)

Who had the better resume after 2 years of fighting? After 6 years of fighting?



No, you're the one making the unfair comparison. You can't just cut Klitschko's current resume in half to compare it with Haye's current resume. I guess that's the only way you can argue that Haye's resume is better, by cutting Klitschko's resume in half.

Also, I can argue that a fighter's "point in his career" isn't based on the amount of fights he's had, it's based on the amount of time he's been fighting.

Currently, Klitschko has a much better resume than Haye, and it's just unfair to compare resume's based on the first 22 fights...

As I said if you compare Haye and Klitschko's current records head to head then Klitschko comes out on top. But this is because Wlad has been a professional for twice as long as Haye and has had well over double the fights.

In his first year Haye had basically a fight a month. Wlad continued like this for two years. Wlad waited until his 17th fight before he ever had a bout scheduled for more than eight rounds. Haye had a 10 rounder in his eighth fight, a 12 rounder in his 11th (which he lost) and by his 17th fight he was already defending his European title.

After two years Haye had won the BBBofC British title and the European title. After two years Wlad had won a vacant international strap.

And the combined win-loss record of the two after 22 fights was

Wlad: 368-210-20
Dave: 496-213-22

[squealpiggy]

I guess what I'm saying is, comparing resume's based on equal number of fights and completely disregarding all other aspects is wrong. That's not the way resumes are compared.

So you think that the number of fights is to be disregarded? You don't think that half the years and a third the fights is important when making a comparison>

For example, you're hiring someone for a job. Candidate A has 2 years of experience, candidate B has 8 years of experience. Overall, candidate B is more qualified for the job, but, candidate A had better experience in his overall 2 years than candidate B had in his first 2 years. Who would you hire?

Are you hiring Wlad or Haye to work for you? No? Then why is this analogy relevant to the discussion?

[P4P Opinion]

****** thread that has been done to death on many occasions by the author already.

[WhoreUs]

who had the better resume wlad or puritty? wlad or brewster? wlad or corrie?

wlad can pad his resume all he wants...... GAYE HAYE TKO3 OVER SAD WLAD!!!!!

[Garo]

Well that's the whole point. Wlad has been a professional longer, he has had more fights, more title defenses, more experience and more achievements. and THAT is why his resume is much better.

I guess the simple point I'm trying to make is when comparing resumes, you must compare current resumes because that is the "fair" way to compare them, you argued that comparing current resumes is unfair.

It's unfair to compare his resume with that of Wlad who had had some 32 additional fights in an additional six years as an active professional.

I disagree.

[Garo]

So you think that the number of fights is to be disregarded? You don't think that half the years and a third the fights is important when making a comparison>

You misunderstand, I never said that the number of fights should be disregarded, as a matter of fact, you're the one disregarded over half of Klitschko's latter fights when you made your comparison. What I actually said was; other aspects, such as the number of a years that a fighter has been fighting should also be taken into account, which you also disregarded besides your mention of Klitschko being a proffesional twice as long as Haye.

The only thing you took into account when comparing Haye and Klitschko was Haye's complete professional record of 22 fights and what Haye achieved in those 6 years and Klitschko's first 22 fights and what Klitschko had achieved in his first 2 years of boxing. That's it.

Are you hiring Wlad or Haye to work for you? No? Then why is this analogy relevant to the discussion?

It's a relevant example. You just fail to see the relevance.

[Derranged]

Of course Wladimir, but please stop using Mercer as a notable win. He was 41 years old and couldnt do anything else but jab.