Can we all agree David Haye would completely ANNIHILATE Wilder?

[paulf]

You cant say he'd easily beat __________ when he's afraid to risk fighting Shannon Briggs. Period.

[billeau2]

I'm saying footwork and positioning play a role before punches do.

Wilder defends by moving which is all Wlad had to do against Haye. Wlad didn't even use upper body movement or many angles. He stayed right on the track because Haye's footwork wasn't good enough to get close enough to Wlad to make him switch tracks let alone hit him.



Let coach Berry explain

Good source!

I tend to see the outcome of the fight like you do: Imo Haye is an ambush fighter and he depends on a certain probability that during the course of a match, he will get a certain amount of chances to unload a big punch. He does not have counterpunching ability, he has no real variations other than using speed to bridge the gap....

Consequently when he faces a big man who holds his ground he can't get the opportunity to unload because he cannot get past reach...probably because he does know how to use angles. He always has fleet of foot but without angles why should an opponent with reach give up a potential opening?

When he was a cruiser he had a big enough punch to carry the day...and as a heavyweight he had problems with guys who have a lot of reach. Indeed, Klitsko did not have to make any adjustments to keep Haye away.

I also see Juggy's point that potentially Haye is very talented, and against an inexperienced opponent like Wilder he may get an opportunity, but, without using angles...I would bet on Wilder.

[Marchegiano]

Alright don't get emotional bud, Wilder doesn't have the defence to keep Haye off & the chin to survive the 12 rounds. I'm well aware of the size comparison & the ability to use this, you'll see what I'm talking about if the fight ever happens.

We all know it won't though as Wilder will duck anyone of note.

Have a nice evening pal.

I specifically put those smilies there so you wouldn't misunderstand me for a grumble.

Listen maybe I've been too harsh, I don't know. To be honest I can't really tell if this whole forum is just ****ing with me or not. I'm joking around and being sarcastic as **** because I struggle to take y'all seriously.

I came here to talk about technique but y'all don't even know the terminology.

I came here to talk about history but y'all seem to only bother with history from 1895 to today in a sport that's been around since 686 BC.

Since i've been gone from this forum and returned the posters have gone from honest to god enthusiast to media marks. Most of what most you have to say I can read in articles written by know-it-all know-nothings all day. Where's the insight? Where's any suggestion I should take any of you seriously? I was considering writing a thread about it. Following the boxing media is really silly because they have a terrible track record and have always been experts, former champions, trainers, promoters, etc.

If you are a serious poster I don't really mean to be a ****, I meant to talk about boxing, but look around you dude. Everyone's being a complete ****ing *******. Let's just pretend my knowledge of techniques and history means something for just a second. Who the ****'s going to pay any attention? Being a sarcastic **** got me responses. Being a friendly and educational got me nothing. At least this way I know you're reading some of what I'm trying to say even if I had to package it sarcastically.

[Marchegiano]

Good source!

I tend to see the outcome of the fight like you do: Imo Haye is an ambush fighter and he depends on a certain probability that during the course of a match, he will get a certain amount of chances to unload a big punch. He does not have counterpunching ability, he has no real variations other than using speed to bridge the gap....

Consequently when he faces a big man who holds his ground he can't get the opportunity to unload because he cannot get past reach...probably because he does know how to use angles. He always has fleet of foot but without angles why should an opponent with reach give up a potential opening?

When he was a cruiser he had a big enough punch to carry the day...and as a heavyweight he had problems with guys who have a lot of reach. Indeed, Klitsko did not have to make any adjustments to keep Haye away.

I also see Juggy's point that potentially Haye is very talented, and against an inexperienced opponent like Wilder he may get an opportunity, but, without using angles...I would bet on Wilder.

Coach Robinson is my favorite guy for explanations.

[billeau2]

Coach Robinson is my favorite guy for explanations.

He actually analyzes and breaks down technique...These days what goes for training often involves "come on Come on!!!!" Robinson is a credit to the sport, there are others...I tend to be miscategorized as an "old time enthusiast" when in fact I just want someone who will develop and analyze so people can learn and get better.

I always enjoy his material...One of my favorites was the breakdown on the Ward Dawson fight!

[uppercut510]

anytime someone wins this is the reaction

[daggum]

Coach Robinson is my favorite guy for explanations.

i remember this fool had ward beating kovalev and thought brook was doing great against ggg. its nice that he can point out things but he seems to do so at the expense of what is happening overall. or in other words...

[al-Xander]

Haye is 4 inch smaller. Wilder dominates smaller guys. You fools don't get it.

[Marchegiano]

i remember this fool had ward beating kovalev and thought brook was doing great against ggg. its nice that he can point out things but he seems to do so at the expense of what is happening overall. or in other words...

For as loud as I've been with these other guys I'm actually pretty humble. If someone who clearly knows more than I do says Ward won than he did. If he claims Brook did well than he did. The only real way for me to say no that seems wrong is if something Barry says goes against something someone i respect more is saying.

If science says something counter to what the boxing world claims I'll go with science every time.

That said I don't trust trainers who have something to gain by speaking to the media or promoting a mindset. Coach Barry is the highest caliber trainer I know of that isn't connected to other stables and is willing to teach us internet folk.

Not saying you're wrong but I do struggle to agree with a text based forum character over a professional combat sports trainer even if my eyes agree with you. I assume there's something I don't know that makes Barry right.

[AddiX]

Haye is not good and was never good. Just has a few nice highlight KOs and thats it.