Resume, career, accomplishments: Adamek vs Haye, you decide...

[WladIsTheChamp]

Where did I say he was more relevant? You stated all his opponents went on to do nothing, I merely mentioned that wasn't strictly the case.

And let's be honest here, the only guy Adamek has fought at HW who's even remotely likely to be relevant is Arreola. Which says a lot.

In a way you are saying that knocking down an old Tua is some kind of proof that Barrett was still good when Haye faced him. Arreola is still more relevant than Barrett. Haye has yet to even face a puncher at HW and someone who is not at least 8 years older than him. Adamek went in as a LHW against a dangerous puncher like Arreola with no problem. Arreola BTW called out Haye awhile back before the Vitaly loss and Haye turned him down, that's where the "vagina" nickname comes from, Arreola said that "Haye is a vagina", you can find videos of it on YT.

[jrosales13]

Now we all know that comparing Haye vs either of the Klitschkos is laughable by any measure, unless of course you are from Cypress or East London, but what about Adamek and Haye? Who has the better resume and career accomplishments as of now?

Multi-Division Champs

Both Haye and Adamek have won belts into separate divisions. Adamek was a LHW champ and CW champ. Haye was a CW champ and "won" the HW WBA title. However Haye's champion status at HW is tainted by the fact that the only reason why he even holds the WBA belt was because the corrupt sanctioning body stripped the legitimate WBA champ of it and simply gave the belt back to Valuev without a fight. The true WBA champ was Chagaev who lost to Wladimir while he was still the WBA champ, so in effect, it is Wlad that hold the WBA belt.

Another factor is the way they won those belts. Even if you think that Valuev was the WBA title holder at the time Haye "beat" him, Haye ran for 12 rounds and barely threw 5 punches a round, hardly a decisive victory. Whereas Adamek got his belts in a decisive and without controversy.

Edge: Adamek

Number of Defenses

Adamek defended his LHW WBC title twice and his CW IBF title twice. Haye defended his CW titles once and his HW WBA title twice. That is 4 for Adamek and 3 for Haye.

Edge: Adamek

Wins - Quality of Competition

Adamek's competition is still very much relevant in their respective divisions whereas Haye's competition is retired or is on the fringe of relevance. Cunningham is still holds a belt and Chad Dawson just fought for a title against Pascal and lost but that was his only loss of his career, not bad. Haye's competition at CW and HW has been pretty much old men on the verge of retirement. The average age of Haye's HW opponents is 37 years old and at least 8 years older than him, whereas Adamek's competition has generally been younger or the same age as him. Ruiz is retired, Valuev is retired, Barrett is on the verge of retirement, so is Audley most likely.

Edge: Adamek


Losses - Manner of Losses and Quality of Opponent

Both have only one loss but Adamek's lone loss was a decision to a 26 year old unbeaten top fighter in Chad Dawson, who is still very much relevant in his division with one recent loss to Pascal. Haye on the other hand lost to a 40 year old who had 6 losses, 5 by KO, via a TKO, in a fight where he had to be hooked up to an oxygen tank afterwards.

Edge: Adamek

Clear winner - Adamek.

Such a bias, bias post. And, I like Adamek more so than Haye. But, you didn't have to be so bias about it.

[Sweet Jesus]

Pretty even right now. Adamek will overtake him if Haye does retire this year.

[WladIsTheChamp]

then please name to me the fighters who he should have fought at cruiserweight to clean out the division then.

Off the top of my head how about Adamek, Cunnigham, Wlodarczik (I know I am ****ing his name up), and Huck (prior to his loss to Cunningham). Haye didn't have all the belts, all that undisputed is bullship, considering he only beat. That's four world champs that were world champs at some point around 2007/2008 when Haye was supposedly "cleaning" up the division. He fought and beat 2 CW champs during his long one-defense "reign" at CW.

[WladIsTheChamp]

Such a bias, bias post. And, I like Adamek more so than Haye. But, you didn't have to be so bias about it.

Please tell me which part wasn't true.

[jrosales13]

Please tell me which part wasn't true.

Never said that you mentioned anything false. I'm just stating that you didn't hold Adamek to the same standards which makes it bias.

For example: You being critical on how Haye won the HW title. But, you didn't mention anything on how Adamek won the LHW title. In reality he should have never been the LHW champ.

You didn't mention the way Adamek won the CW title. It was something ala Pac-JMM. Where it was a very close competitive fight. Where Cunningham clearly was the better boxer. When he clearly won the majority of rounds. But, Adamek scored 3 knockdowns that gave him the close decision.

I mean all this is stuff you should mention if you want an unbiased post.

And, then you mentioned the losses. Not mentioned that Dawson was on the line of being a prospect but knocking on the door of being a contender. While Haye at the time it was his 11 fight. Very green still in the pro ranks.

Is like you mentioned everything negative about Haye. Not giving him anything positive. But, you didn't mention anything negative to Adamek. And, you really didn't give him anything positive either. You just said he basically won the comparison against you don't hold in a high regard.

So that is what I mean by it was a very bias post. But, looking at your name what we could expect right?

[The Hammer]

But he did, however, pick up the WBC/WBA/WBO titles (becomming lineal champ). Which is an accomplishment. Literally a textbook, written on paper, for the records accomplishment.

Adamek was linear and Ring cruiserweight champion, and he got there by defeating a better opponent that Haye ever fought: Steve Cunningham.

[WladIsTheChamp]

Never said that you mentioned anything false. I'm just stating that you didn't hold Adamek to the same standards which makes it bias.

For example: You being critical on how Haye won the HW title. But, you didn't mention anything on how Adamek won the LHW title. In reality he should have never been the LHW champ.

You didn't mention the way Adamek won the CW title. It was something ala Pac-JMM. Where it was a very close competitive fight. Where Cunningham clearly was the better boxer. When he clearly won the majority of rounds. But, Adamek scored 3 knockdowns that gave him the close decision.
I mean all this is stuff you should mention if you want an unbiased post.

And, then you mentioned the losses. Not mentioned that Dawson was on the line of being a prospect but knocking on the door of being a contender. While Haye at the time it was his 11 fight. Very green still in the pro ranks.

Is like you mentioned everything negative about Haye. Not giving him anything positive. But, you didn't mention anything negative to Adamek. And, you really didn't give him anything positive either. You just said he basically won the comparison against you don't hold in a high regard.

So that is what I mean by it was a very bias post. But, looking at your name what we could expect right?

Did you watch the fight? There was nothing controvertial about Adamek's win over Cunningham, it was a clear win for Adamek. It's only biased to you because you are a fan of Haye (I don't know why) still, but like you said, everything I said was true in my post.

[jrosales13]

Adamek was linear and Ring cruiserweight champion, and he got there by defeating a better opponent that Haye ever fought: Steve Cunningham.

Wasn't Haye the same thing?

[Left Hook Tua]

haye is gaye.