Comments Thread For: Wlad, Vitali, Haye, Adamek: What is the Final Four Outcome

[Gumby McPokey]

The online odds for Haye at UK betting sites have increased. He's now 23/10 (i.e. pays $33 for a $10 bet) to beat Wladimir. These odds would have to lengthen quite a bit before a bet on Haye becomes a good idea.

Adamek will probably be around a 6/1 underdog against Vitali.

Haye is still a bit of an unknown because he hasn't fought a single tough heavyweight. Even so, it's not hard to see from his previous fights just how poorly he matches up against Wladimir. All Haye has going for him is hand speed. Haye has one chance -- land a stunning shot early. If he fails to do that, he is done.

[Tiozzo]

If you are saying that in order to be undisputed champion you have to own every alphabet belt simultaneously, then it's a silly term that should never be used because it's completely meaningless. It's also a perversion of the English language, because the definition of "undisputed" is that there is no dispute. There is no dispute about who is currently the Middleweight champion of the world - anyone who knows anything about boxing agrees that it is Martinez - but Martinez doesn't hold any of the major alphabet belts.

Not only is it impossible to hold onto all of them even if you win them, because you'll get stripped for bullshit reasons if you do, but there is usually no sporting reason for anyone to even try to win them all, because the alphabet rankings are so corrupt. For example, when the Super 6 winner fights Bute, no one who knows anything about boxing will dispute that the winner of that fight will be the world Super Middleweight champion. No one will demand that they have to fight Dimitri Sartison and Robert Stieglitz before they can be considered to be the man at 168. Sartison isn't even a top 10 fighter, FFS. It's just a silly definition and if you insist on using it, then the term simply should never be used. If no one credible disputes who is the champion, then to claim there is no undisputed champion is to pervert the English language.

That definition is an archaic hangover from the days when there were only two sanctioning bodies and when their rankings were still respected. In those days the definition made sense, but it's just silly now and it's time people grew up and recognised that fact.

funny you should bring up Martinez, he's a good example

he is lineal, and that lineage goes back to Hopkins

but is he undisputed ? no, because there are other title holders who can dispute his spot

Martinez is considered to be the best, rightfully so, because of his opposition, but there are Sturm, who has been a title holder for way longer than Martinez has at 160, and Pirog who can make an argument as somewhat legitimate champions, or legitimate contenders to the title of champion

unifying all the belts leave no one to be called champion but you, even if those so called champions aren't on your level

taking all the belts suppress all argument

I personnaly like the variety of the terms that qualify the fighters, and I don't see it as an archaic or silly expression at all

each one of the terms qualify a reality, a state

the championship being shattered in 4 parts, I believe, makes the term undisputed more relevant than ever as it is a very tough task to hold all the titles simulteanously

Hopkins did it
Tyson had the 3 existing versions
Calzaghe had 3, and you could say 4 had he not vacated the IBF strap
Jones had 3 if not 4 at some point

[Die Antwoord]

The thing that bothers me most is the way people keep bringing up the Chris Byrd fight. Vitali was beating Byrd and I think if Vitali was more experienced, he would have kept going with the fight and finished it. I think his entire career has shown how tough of a dude he is. Vitali came from a country thats legends werent Ali, werent Louis, werent SRR, werent Marciano...etc... He came from a country where up until a few years before he entered pro boxing...there was no pro boxing. He then, ko's his first 27 opponents with ease. He gets in the ring and he's winning easily, but he's hurt and hes frustrated that hes hurt, etc.. He comes from a kickboxing background and amateur boxing background. 1 loss means nothing in these 2 sports unless its a tournament. Vit didnt really have to work hard for the WBO title, he won it in 2 rounds, and KO'ed everyone up till that point. So I am sure in his mind, with his background he thought, "Meh, im hurt, this is annoying, ill just quit and come back healthy...who cares." I think Vitali was shocked that anyone was surprised he quit. If you watch the interview after the fight hes not upset, hes not hurt, he's stoic and simply says, "I hurt my shoulder, I dont want to hurt myself more." I think after that, after he heard people call him soft, and a coward etc...he realized how different pro boxing is. No one's going to ***** about Peyton Manning pulling himself out of a week 3 game against the lions with a shoulder injury...but if he does it in the Super Bowl? Every night a prize fighter enters the ring its their super bowl and I think Vitali learned that the hard way.

I think the aftermath to the Byrd fight woke him up and westernized him to the sport. If you remember Golata, another Eastern Euro did the same thing right before Vitali did. Vitali gets it now though. I dont think he will ever stop in a fight. Just from his demeanor in and out of the ring, I think someone will have to outbox him or knock him unconcious to beat him, and I dont think theres anyone alive who can do that.

[Dave Rado]

funny you should bring up Martinez, he's a good example

he is lineal, and that lineage goes back to Hopkins

but is he undisputed ? no, because there are other title holders who can dispute his spot

Martinez is considered to be the best, rightfully so, because of his opposition, but there are Sturm, who has been a title holder for way longer than Martinez has at 160, and Pirog who can make an argument as somewhat legitimate champions, or legitimate contenders to the title of champion

unifying all the belts leave no one to be called champion but you, even if those so called champions aren't on your level

taking all the belts suppress all argument

I personnaly like the variety of the terms that qualify the fighters, and I don't see it as an archaic or silly expression at all

each one of the terms qualify a reality, a state

the championship being shattered in 4 parts, I believe, makes the term undisputed more relevant than ever as it is a very tough task to hold all the titles simulteanously

Hopkins did it
Tyson had the 3 existing versions
Calzaghe had 3, and you could say 4 had he not vacated the IBF strap
Jones had 3 if not 4 at some point

Martinez should fight Sturm because Sturm is the clear #2 in the division and for no other reason. The fact he holds a bullshit belt that he has never once defended against a meaningful opponent is completely irrelevant. However, Sturm will never fight Martinez or any other top 10 fighter, if he can possibly avoid it, so the point is academic. No credible boxing analyst would claim that Sturm can validly dispute Martinez's claim to be the world champion unless Sturm genuinely tries to make a fight with Martinez and gets turned down. And that ain't ever gonna happen. And no one gives a damn about Sturm's silly little trinket.

Pirog is ranked the #7 contender by The Ring and by Boxingscene (which means #8 in the division), #6 by boxrec, and #8 by espn - i.e. he is not a top 5 fighter in any of the credible independent rankings. He needs to beat a top 10 opponent convincingly before he can even be considered a top contender, never mind being considered someone who can validly dispute Martinez's claim to be called the world champion, unless he beats him first.

Gennady Golovkin is the WBA champion now (Sturm was stripped and is their "Super Champion" now) - and Golovkin is not even a top 10 fighter.

When it is not only possible but actually quite common for someone to hold an alphabet belt without even being a top 10 fighter, the idea that anyone has to beat them all in order to be called the champion is just silly.

The reason it is so hard to win and hold all four belts is solely because the sanctioning bodies are so corrupt. It has nothing to do with the difficulty of fighting and beating the best contenders. The title holders are almost always not the best contenders. The only Middleweight title holder who is in the top 5 currently is Sturm. And Martinez was stripped of the two belts he held for bullshit political reasons.

Hopkins only won them because of the Don King tournament (which King tried to exclude him from). That sort of tournament only happens once in a generation.

Jones had three for corrupt reasons (he never had all four) because Michalczewski was stripped by the IBF and the WBA immediately after winning the lineal title, and Michalczewski's belts were given to Jones for political reasons. Jones then refused to fight Michalczewski, as a result of which there was no divisional clarity in that division for many years, and it meant that the lineal champion and the concensus #1 were two different people for a generation (approx 20 years), which was very bad for boxing.

Lennox Lewis held three of the major belts (never all four) for only one fight before being stripped by the IBF for bullshit reasons.

Back during Tyson's first title reign it was still just about possible to hold all the belts, although Holmes was stripped for bullshit reasons, so even back then it had far more to do with politics than it did with who was the real world champion (no one disputed that Holmes was the champion); but it is impossible now, and the reason has nothing to do with the difficulty in beating four top opponents, it is simply because there are too many sanctioning bodies all with too many mandatories against bums, and they are all too corrupt, both in terms of their corrupt rankings, and in terms of stripping people for ****** reasons that have nothing to do with boxing.

If Pacquiao fights Mayweather, the winner will be considered by everyone who matters to be the world Welterweight champion, despite the fact that neither fighter holds any belts. No one will dispute that (except maybe you, just to be obstinate). And no one will demand that the winner must fight Viacheslav Senchenko before he can be considered to be the champion. Senchenko is not even a top 5 Welterweight. Just as no one is demanding that Martinez must fight Gennady Golovkin, who isn't even a top 10 Middleweight.

[jimmy1569]

The thing that bothers me most is the way people keep bringing up the Chris Byrd fight. Vitali was beating Byrd and I think if Vitali was more experienced, he would have kept going with the fight and finished it. I think his entire career has shown how tough of a dude he is. Vitali came from a country thats legends werent Ali, werent Louis, werent SRR, werent Marciano...etc... He came from a country where up until a few years before he entered pro boxing...there was no pro boxing. He then, ko's his first 27 opponents with ease. He gets in the ring and he's winning easily, but he's hurt and hes frustrated that hes hurt, etc.. He comes from a kickboxing background and amateur boxing background. 1 loss means nothing in these 2 sports unless its a tournament. Vit didnt really have to work hard for the WBO title, he won it in 2 rounds, and KO'ed everyone up till that point. So I am sure in his mind, with his background he thought, "Meh, im hurt, this is annoying, ill just quit and come back healthy...who cares." I think Vitali was shocked that anyone was surprised he quit. If you watch the interview after the fight hes not upset, hes not hurt, he's stoic and simply says, "I hurt my shoulder, I dont want to hurt myself more." I think after that, after he heard people call him soft, and a coward etc...he realized how different pro boxing is. No one's going to ***** about Peyton Manning pulling himself out of a week 3 game against the lions with a shoulder injury...but if he does it in the Super Bowl? Every night a prize fighter enters the ring its their super bowl and I think Vitali learned that the hard way.

I think the aftermath to the Byrd fight woke him up and westernized him to the sport. If you remember Golata, another Eastern Euro did the same thing right before Vitali did. Vitali gets it now though. I dont think he will ever stop in a fight. Just from his demeanor in and out of the ring, I think someone will have to outbox him or knock him unconcious to beat him, and I dont think theres anyone alive who can do that.

Good honest post without the bs that usually happens when bringing up that fight. Good job!

[jimmy1569]

What;s most likely going to happen is this......

Wlad & Haye...someone's getting KTFO within the first 3 rds... whoever lands his right first.

Vitali & Adamek.... ADAMEK is going to be brutalized... he's not outboxing Vitali & he won't be able to take his punch... vicious beatdown here as this dude is overrated as a heavy & this is Not his natural weight. Grant had him staggered & Arreola was on the verge of finishing him but his stamina let him down. Those fighters are Not Vitali.. this will be such a mismatch.

Haye vs Vitali FOR all the marbles... Vitali will have a open heart as His BRO just got brutally knocked by Haye's super speed & power.. assuming ofcourse Haye landed first in the Wlad fight as Vitali ain't fighting his brother.. Anyway.. Vitali will be weary of Haye's speed & Haye will be apprehensive to throw anything meaningful early on.. It will be similar to the Sanders fight & Haye will catch Vitali with something big & will throw the kitchen sink at him to try to take him out only to run out of gas & be caught with a counter & Vitali stops him in 6 rds after nearly being knockdown. Funny.. Sanders came very close & WITH A couple of well placed shots could've had him 2 Klitschko's in a row. Haye will come even closer But Vitali will get all 4 belts..retire & let Haye& Wlad fight the rematch to see who gets all the belts. That's what's going to happen IMO.

[Dave Rado]

What;s most likely going to happen is this......

Wlad & Haye...someone's getting KTFO within the first 3 rds... whoever lands his right first.

Haye doesn't have the defence to get past Wlad's jab (watch the Ruiz fight, where Ruiz landed his jab at will, or even the Valuev fight, where Haye only avoided Valuev's very slow jab by getting on his bike, which meant he was very rarely in a position to counter). And Wlad won't risk throwing his big shots until Haye is thoroughly demoralised - it's not in his nature. The KO will come in the late rounds. And it will be Haye who is knocked out.

[MARKBNLV]

Best matchup would be Haye Adamek.

[Pirao]

Haye and Adamek will get stopped and everything will remain as it is now.

[Clint650]

Haye is who ive been rooting for, he can make the division exciting for atleast a couple title defenses if he manages to do what i think he can which is to fight a smart fight with Wlad and cathing him with either a looping left hook or big right over the top. Wlad has not seen speed like Haye in awhile so it could surprise him. id bet on that just to make things fun, but on another note...america's Seth Mitchell will be in line for a title shot in a couple years and ill make a prediction that he beats whover is holding the belt at the time.