David Haye top 15 all time Heavyweight?

First topic message reminder :

Will Haye be this if he KOs Wlad this summer? He will according to legendary trainer Angelo Dundee.

http://www.boxingscene.com/dundee-i-look-forward-haye-knocking-klitschko-out--38448


Beating Wlad will make Haye the premier fighter of this era.

I, like Dundee, thinks that Haye will KO Wlad this summer but not sure I would place him in the top 15 ever of Heavyweights, not because he is not talented enough but more to do with he hasn't faced the opposition to prove it.

Where would you put Haye on the all time heavyweight list if he beats Wlad.

Some shouldn't have been in there (Austin, Brock, arguably Brewster, Thompson, Castillo).

Castillo was before he won the title the rest, barring Austin, were Ring mag top 10.

Hmm?

WK smashed "Rahman to pieces" 3 years too late!

Also Shannon Briggs, Liakovich and Chagaev and maybe JC Gomez in the list of fights that should have happened.

I don't blame Wlad for this - he was slowly rebuilding his career after some debilitating losses. However - rebuilding a career does not equal domination.

I appreciate that he did eventually fight Chagaev - BUT - it was after inactivity and Chagaev being stripped and the title handed to Valuev; although still a good win.

You point out that, excepting Austin, they were all ring ranked contenders. However - they were bottom end contenders. And beating them doesn't equal dominance.

Furthermore - where are Arreola, Solis, Briggs, Johnson, JC Gomez, in Wlad's dominance?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

oxring wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Longevity being 3 years.

The Klits have greater longevity and have cleaned up the division, and haven't been KO'd in their prime. Klits>>Tyson

Which of the Klits has cleaned up the division?

Both of them.

So technically neither of them.

No, technically both of them.

No, neither of them.

I am a huge fan of the K-bros - but unless they're "sharing" an atg spot; and unless Haye is going to beat both of them in a "tag team" matchup - then no, they haven't both "cleaned up" the division.

Not until they fight each other. Which they're not going to do.

Between the 2 of them, they have destroyed all the top 15 HWs except Povetkin, who declined to be destroyed. However - Wlads' wins don't go to Vitali and vice versa.

Who was helping WK while Vitali was retired for 4 years.

Did Wlad unify all the belts in those four years? No.

Furthermore - where are Arreola, Solis, Briggs, Johnson, JC Gomez, in Wlad's dominance?

Johnson?? Briggs???

Areola and Solis are prob the only two that Wlad would/should have faced if it weren't for his brother.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

oxring wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Longevity being 3 years.

The Klits have greater longevity and have cleaned up the division, and haven't been KO'd in their prime. Klits>>Tyson

Which of the Klits has cleaned up the division?

Both of them.

So technically neither of them.

No, technically both of them.

No, neither of them.

I am a huge fan of the K-bros - but unless they're "sharing" an atg spot; and unless Haye is going to beat both of them in a "tag team" matchup - then no, they haven't both "cleaned up" the division.

Not until they fight each other. Which they're not going to do.

Between the 2 of them, they have destroyed all the top 15 HWs except Povetkin, who declined to be destroyed. However - Wlads' wins don't go to Vitali and vice versa.

Who was helping WK while Vitali was retired for 4 years.

Did Wlad unify all the belts in those four years? No.

Who cares about belts?

Who did Tyson beat to unify. Trevor Berbick, Tony Tucker and Bonecruser Smith.

Look, the point is that no single Klit brother 'cleaned up' the heavyweight division. Why not say then that Khan and Bradley have 'cleaned up' the light welterweight division? It's the same principle.

BALTIMORA wrote:Look, the point is that no single Klit brother 'cleaned up' the heavyweight division. Why not say then that Khan and Bradley have 'cleaned up' the light welterweight division? It's the same principle.

They haven't cleaned up in the sense that they have beaten every single rated fighter, but who has? Definitely not Mike Tyson.

It's not a team sport!! If they've not fought the same opponents then only one can possibly have cleaned up, at most. As it is neither has individually cleaned up. Just because they're brothers doesn't mean their wins are eligible to be combined. If you care to check out Boxrec you'll find that Wlad and Vitali are listed as separate entities.

If you care to take a look at Boxrec you'll find out that VK was retired for 4 years. Therefore the Klitschko 'team' did not exist for over half of WK's reign.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:If you care to take a look at Boxrec you'll find out that VK was retired for 4 years. Therefore the Klitschko 'team' did not exist for over half of WK's reign.

And? In that time did Wlad clean up? No. Thanks for underlining my point. T'riffic.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:If you care to take a look at Boxrec you'll find out that VK was retired for 4 years. Therefore the Klitschko 'team' did not exist for over half of WK's reign.

And? In that time did Wlad clean up? No. Thanks for underlining my point. T'riffic.

Yet you think Tyson cleaned up despite NEVER facing his main rival. Marvelous.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:If you care to take a look at Boxrec you'll find out that VK was retired for 4 years. Therefore the Klitschko 'team' did not exist for over half of WK's reign.

And? In that time did Wlad clean up? No. Thanks for underlining my point. T'riffic.

Yet you think Tyson cleaned up despite NEVER facing his main rival. Marvelous.

Show me where I said that. Good luck finding it.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:If you care to take a look at Boxrec you'll find out that VK was retired for 4 years. Therefore the Klitschko 'team' did not exist for over half of WK's reign.

And? In that time did Wlad clean up? No. Thanks for underlining my point. T'riffic.

Yet you think Tyson cleaned up despite NEVER facing his main rival. Marvelous.

Show me where I said that. Good luck finding it.

If you jump into my discussions I take it that you want to discuss points that I have made.

We were comparing the relative reigns of the K's and Tyson.

'cleaned up' is a subjective term. I could understand saying that neither the K's nor Tyson cleaned up at HW.

There was I thinking this was a public forum.

Anyway, I take it that you don't think Tyson cleaned up at HW then. That's pretty much end of discussion.

Well at the time Tyson had cleaned up the division at the time of unifying the division, it was only at the tail end of his reign that Holyfield became a viable option. I personally feel that despite his level of opposition not being brilliant it was more than decent, wins over Smith, Witherspoon, Tubbs, Tucker, Spinks, Holmes, Berbick means a hell of a lot more than anyone the K Bros have beaten, even if they beat Haye whom is considered their biggest rival it doesn't alter that fact.

Tyson unified all three belts, then beat the lineal champion in Spinks while doing it in an explosive exciting fashion, for that reason alone he'd be ranked well ahead of the K Bros.

The IBRO top 15 is as follows and I don't see either Klitschko or Haye displacing anyone of them

1.Joe Louis
2.Muhammad Ali
3.Jack Johnson
4.Jack Dempsey
5.Rocky Marciano
6.Larry Holmes
7.James J. Jeffries
8.George Foreman
9.Sonny Liston
10.Joe Frazier
11.Gene Tunney
12.Lennox Lewis
13.Mike Tyson
14.Evander Holyfield
15.Sam Langford

Tyson never fought Witherspoon.

Holyfield was his number one ranked challenger over his whole reign and he didn't fight him. Can you really say that he cleaned up?

Holyfield was the number contender for just over a year I believe so it's safe to assume that prior to Holyfield moving up he had cleaned up the division quite decisively unless winning every single belt there is to win isn't good enough.

Apparently just "being there" seems to be enough - because judging by Jukebox's argument - Tyson won every belt but didn't fight every challenger possible (though the Holyfield fight was booked next if he'd beaten Douglas, incidentally) and so therefore wasn't dominant, but Wlad Klitschko didn't win every belt OR fight every challenger available so has been dominant.

Somewhat incoherent argument, that.

You can't have it both ways. If you say that WK didn't clean up the division because he never fought his bro, you have to also admit that Mike Tyson never cleaned up at HW because he didn't face his closest rival. Simple

The Furious Freak wrote:Holyfield was the number contender for just over a year I believe so it's safe to assume that prior to Holyfield moving up he had cleaned up the division quite decisively unless winning every single belt there is to win isn't good enough.

Ring Magazine had Holyfild as Tysons top ranked contender from 1987 - 1990.

You'll find at the time of the Douglas fight Holyfield was approaching his second year as number one contender but seemed quite content building into the weight rather than going straight for Tyson.

You seem to like mentioning Vitalis 4 year absence, why did Wladimir clean up during that time then because if he had cleaned out the division he would have held all 4 titles as well as the lineal title surely?

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight--1980s

Many thanks D4 you just proved me right

Actually in fact Holyfield was the number one contender for 20 months

The Mighty Atom wrote:You'll find at the time of the Douglas fight Holyfield was approaching his second year as number one contender but seemed quite content building into the weight rather than going straight for Tyson.

You seem to like mentioning Vitalis 4 year absence, why did Wladimir clean up during that time then because if he had cleaned out the division he would have held all 4 titles as well as the lineal title surely?

Holyfield was number contender back in 1988, ranked higher than Douglas, Williams and Bruno.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Many thanks D4 you just proved me right

Actually in fact Holyfield was the number one contender for 20 months

Just as long as Tyson was Champion for.

Having beaten 8 of the guys ranked in the top 10 during 1986 don't think we can say that Tyson hadn't well and truly cleaned up the division at the point he'd beaten Spinks, if that isn't cleaning out a division then nothing is.

Terrible Tim was amongst the ranked contender but was never taken on.

But it King's fault not Tyson's he wanted to feed Tyson easy fight after easy fight and ride his golden horse to the pots of gold.

Witherspoon was the only boxer in the 1986 top ten whom Tyson didn't face, now the standard of that top ten isn't the best but it's the best the division had to offer at the time.

Would you not agree that beating 7 of the top ten along with the champion is cleaning out a division as much as anyone could realistically expect?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Having beaten 8 of the guys ranked in the top 10 during 1986 don't think we can say that Tyson hadn't well and truly cleaned up the division at the point he'd beaten Spinks, if that isn't cleaning out a division then nothing is.

Looking at that list just proves how weak the heavyweight division in the late 80s

The Mighty Atom wrote:You'll find at the time of the Douglas fight Holyfield was approaching his second year as number one contender but seemed quite content building into the weight rather than going straight for Tyson.

You seem to like mentioning Vitalis 4 year absence, why did Wladimir clean up during that time then because if he had cleaned out the division he would have held all 4 titles as well as the lineal title surely?

WK beat 6 of the top 10 ranked guys of 2005. The other 4 being tied up to Don Kings WBA merry-go-round.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Witherspoon was the only boxer in the 1986 top ten whom Tyson didn't face, now the standard of that top ten isn't the best but it's the best the division had to offer at the time.

Would you not agree that beating 7 of the top ten along with the champion is cleaning out a division as much as anyone could realistically expect?

I would have like to see him face Tim and Evander. Beat them and he would have clean out the division in the late 80s.

But it does show up the division of being light of top quality opposition.

But it's still far stronger than it is today, the heavyweight division has never been particularly strong aside from the golden era.

I doubt that Maskaev, Ruiz, Valuev, Ibragimov amongst others would have beaten the best of the rest of the late 80's lot.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Witherspoon was the only boxer in the 1986 top ten whom Tyson didn't face, now the standard of that top ten isn't the best but it's the best the division had to offer at the time.

Would you not agree that beating 7 of the top ten along with the champion is cleaning out a division as much as anyone could realistically expect?

Tyson's reign at the top didn't really start until 1987. You can't ignore the top ranked fighters after 1986. Whichever way you try to gloss over it Tyson did not fight his main rival.

Tyson's opposition 1986 - 1990 is very comparible to WK's of 2005 up to but not including Haye.

The Mighty Atom wrote:But it's still far stronger than it is today, the heavyweight division has never been particularly strong aside from the golden era.

I doubt that Maskaev, Ruiz, Valuev, Ibragimov amongst others would have beaten the best of the rest of the late 80's lot.

Is it though?

Think about?

The top ten between 1986-1990 and the Top ten between 2006-2010.

I would go for 2006-2010

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:You'll find at the time of the Douglas fight Holyfield was approaching his second year as number one contender but seemed quite content building into the weight rather than going straight for Tyson.

You seem to like mentioning Vitalis 4 year absence, why did Wladimir clean up during that time then because if he had cleaned out the division he would have held all 4 titles as well as the lineal title surely?

WK beat 6 of the top 10 ranked guys of 2005. The other 4 being tied up to Don Kings WBA merry-go-round.

You can't even consider Wladimir to have cleaned out his era because the two most prestigious belts have never been in his possession, even then the WBO belt has never been considered as a belt for the elite in the division to win. Bowe is easily the strongest holder of that belt and he only had Hide to beat to optain it.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Witherspoon was the only boxer in the 1986 top ten whom Tyson didn't face, now the standard of that top ten isn't the best but it's the best the division had to offer at the time.

Would you not agree that beating 7 of the top ten along with the champion is cleaning out a division as much as anyone could realistically expect?

Tyson's reign at the top didn't really start until 1987. You can't ignore the top ranked fighters after 1986. Whichever way you try to gloss over it Tyson did not fight his main rival.

Tyson's opposition 1986 - 1990 is very comparible to WK's of 2005 up to but not including Haye.

Not really Tubbs, Thomas, Holmes, Spinks, Tucker all had far more ability than anyone Wlad has beaten. Hell Valuev who for years was considered the best behind the K bros could only scrape a contentious decision over an ancient Holyfield, if that sort of boxer is considered good nowadays then god help us all.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Witherspoon was the only boxer in the 1986 top ten whom Tyson didn't face, now the standard of that top ten isn't the best but it's the best the division had to offer at the time.

Would you not agree that beating 7 of the top ten along with the champion is cleaning out a division as much as anyone could realistically expect?

Tyson's reign at the top didn't really start until 1987. You can't ignore the top ranked fighters after 1986. Whichever way you try to gloss over it Tyson did not fight his main rival.

Tyson's opposition 1986 - 1990 is very comparible to WK's of 2005 up to but not including Haye.

Not really Tubbs, Thomas, Holmes, Spinks, Tucker all had far more ability than anyone Wlad has beaten. Hell Valuev who for years was considered the best behind the K bros could only scrape a contentious decision over an ancient Holyfield, if that sort of boxer is considered good nowadays then god help us all.

Valuev has never been considered good. He was just a result of Don Kings shananigans. None of the names you mentioned would stand out in the HW division today.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:You'll find at the time of the Douglas fight Holyfield was approaching his second year as number one contender but seemed quite content building into the weight rather than going straight for Tyson.

You seem to like mentioning Vitalis 4 year absence, why did Wladimir clean up during that time then because if he had cleaned out the division he would have held all 4 titles as well as the lineal title surely?

WK beat 6 of the top 10 ranked guys of 2005. The other 4 being tied up to Don Kings WBA merry-go-round.

You can't even consider Wladimir to have cleaned out his era because the two most prestigious belts have never been in his possession, even then the WBO belt has never been considered as a belt for the elite in the division to win. Bowe is easily the strongest holder of that belt and he only had Hide to beat to optain it.

And Mike Tyson had to beat the magnificent Trevor Berbick, Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker for his!!!

The belts mean nothing. Tyson was only able to unify so quickly and against such poor opposition because Don King owned the belts.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:WK beat 6 of the top 10 ranked guys of 2005. The other 4 being tied up to Don Kings WBA merry-go-round.

So he didn't "clean up" then, having missed 4 of the top 10. Simples.

Being serious - its your argument that Wlad "cleared up" HW. Without fighting every available contender OR winning every belt. Even when his big bro was away.

If we're abusing Tyson for not fighting Holyfield (his main rival) at first (he was next up after Douglas, though) then why aren't we abusing WK for not fighting Vit or Valuev?

The Tony Tucker whom Tyson beat was a very good fighter who, I suspect, would have set very difficult problems for Wlad Klitschko. Pretty big guy with a good skill set and a very good jab. Ditto Pinklon Thomas. I'm not necessarily saying that I believe they would have beaten Klitschko, but I do believe that they would have represented a stiffer challenge than the men he has beaten. Even a focused Tony Tubbs, with his speed and technique, would have been a difficult opponent for many a champion, Klitschko included.

Tyson gets a bad rap for the quality of his competition, in my opinion. If we assume his prime, ( how I detest that word, ) to be from the Berbick fight to the Holyfied fights, his opponents had a combined average record of 26 - 2 - 0, which equates to 92.8%, and is a fair bit better than many of the usual candidates for a top fifteen spot. Granted, statistics without context are pretty meaningless, but I believe that if we watch Tyson's challengers the context is provided for us.

Just my opinions, of course.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:None of the names you mentioned would stand out in the HW division today.

If you honestly believe that Tucker, Tubbs, Thomas and so on weren't better boxers and technicians than Solis, Ibragimov and Peter, then you simply haven't ever watched them fight. There can be no other explanation at all. At least the likes of Thomas and Tucker knew how to work behind a jab and turned up in the ring looking in good shape.

Not sure why I'm trying to debate with you though, to be honest. Anyone who describes this generation of Heavyweights as a 'golden era', regardless of context, has some seriously skewed views.

Had a dream the other night that both Haye and Wlad ended up outside the ring. Unfortunately Haye couldn't get up and Vitali shoved Wlad through the ropes and helped him to his feet. Also dreamt that Hatton KO'd Morales in 3.....

Michaels, Sean wrote:Had a dream the other night that both Haye and Wlad ended up outside the ring. Unfortunately Haye couldn't get up and Vitali shoved Wlad through the ropes and helped him to his feet. Also dreamt that Hatton KO'd Morales in 3.....

That's enough for me, tenner on those two results, please!

There's a good argument Haye is in the 15 worst heavy champs of all time bracket at the moment. When Wlad smashes him to pieces he will likely rise a few spots!

Haye would have to dominate both K brothers then clear out the next upcoming crop of young heavies and then have them go on to be decent before even being considered top 20

Who are the next up and coming crop of heavyweights worth while taking on if he beats the K bros? Tyson Fury? Derek Chisora?
Pointless Even if he beats both K's he won't be top 15 because the K bro's don't deserve to be top 15 all time heavyweights.

The heavyweights extend beyond the UK you know...

Povetkin
Helenius
Boystov
Pulev
Perez

wow_junky wrote:The heavyweights extend beyond the UK you know...

Povetkin
Helenius
Boystov
Pulev
Perez

Still not an awesome line-up, and they've yet to really prove themselves.

wow_junky wrote:The heavyweights extend beyond the UK you know...

Povetkin
Helenius
Boystov
Pulev
Perez

TBH i would pick Chisora to beat all these guys and I'm not a big Del Boy fan. I just put Fury and Chisora out their because they were the first that came to mind. It's still the morning. :sleep:

That's generally the idea with "up and coming fighters"... they tend to be unproven!

As I said, Haye would have to clear out those lot and then they would need to go on and prove they were simply more than prospects