Haye reapplies for British licence.

First topic message reminder :

Subject to medical checks the board are expected to accept his application, but could this mean a deal with Vitali is close?

Haye has constantly said he would only fight Vitali or retire, and mentioned they've been in talks for a while during his gyms open day. Haye vs Vitali this summer anyone?

It's funny how this discussion has b-all to do with Haye's license. What we're we talking about again........oh yeah that's right. Truss has a monopoly on 80s heavyweights so anyone that dares disagree that these lumps were all that special is a wally! Ha ha.

Wasn't he beating Tucker but for some reason decided to quit?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Corrie Sanders was limited he knocked Wlad out..Wlad is the worst Heavyweight of alltime.....

The powerhouse that was Brewster also.

Others know more than me......but at least they have seen the guys they talk about!!

So If Douglas got trashed off Holy (great fighter)..what was Wlad's excuse against Sanders????

I've said time and time again that the Douglas performance against Tyson was an anomaly that can't be fully explained, yes he was capable of it but never before or after did he look like performing that well. Yes Tyson wasn't at his dynamic best but a lot of credit has to go to Douglas for not letting him settle.

I've seen enough to form an opinion and more than enough (too much) to hold an opinion on Bruno!

Wlad was green, was before he tightened his defence, before Steward. Plenty of excuses. Man, can't a boxer lose without being consigned to the dustbin! Lewis had no business losing to Rahman but is still a legend.

Tyson can beat Wlad no doubt but to suggest it is a 2 round blow out is silly. Tyson has not beaten anyone as good as Wlad and has lost to lesser fighters. I agree with Super D, people make out like Douglas was some sort of unbeatable heavyweight that night. He wasn't. He came in with a plan and Tyson came up short like he did a number of times.

TYson has the style that when he wins he looks more impressive than Wlad. Doesn't mean he'll blast him out though.

I saw him beat Greg Page and he boxed beautifully, outclassed Mccall...

I saw him wreck the much fancied Mike Williams and the jab was superb that night...

"But never before did he look like performing that well"...

No offence Ghosty but I think I saw more of him than you did....

He came in with a gameplan that consisted of doing things Wlad can't, like throwing his left hand, throwing combinations and going to the body.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Tyson can beat Wlad no doubt but to suggest it is a 2 round blow out is silly. Tyson has not beaten anyone as good as Wlad and has lost to lesser fighters. I agree with Super D, people make out like Douglas was some sort of unbeatable heavyweight that night. He wasn't. He came in with a plan and Tyson came up short like he did a number of times.

TYson has the style that when he wins he looks more impressive than Wlad. Doesn't mean he'll blast him out though.

I agree. 2 rounds was me taking the P. It wouldn't last as long. Wlad is just not good enough. If he weren't scared $h.tless before the bell goes, as soon as he feels the brutal combinations, he'll fall over.

I agree with ghosty...Hasn't the defence or the speed to keep a side to side Tyson off him....

which is no shame...Holmes couldn't..

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He came in with a gameplan that consisted of doing things Wlad can't, like throwing his left hand, throwing combinations and going to the body.

Doing things Wlad can't or things Wlad doesn't need to do.........?

Whichever one you wish Boon, if he doesn't do it against Haye he sure as hell wont do it against Tyson, he's far too safety first to try something new.

Do you know what the main problem with matching Tyson against Wlad is.....

All the hype and menace that surrounded unbeaten Tyson made his challengers soil their pants.....Guys were scared and didn't have the bottle to follow through with their gameplans.....

Good guys like Holmes, Spinks, Thomas were all intimidated......

But a guy that got completely destroyed by Sanders would be full of confidence..

Super D Boon wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He came in with a gameplan that consisted of doing things Wlad can't, like throwing his left hand, throwing combinations and going to the body.

Doing things Wlad can't or things Wlad doesn't need to do.........?

Wlad would have to stand in range to do that and move out. He moves out in straight lines which against Tyson is suicide. When do you ever see him go to the body? To do that risks being hit.

How anyone mentions Tyson and Haye in the same sentence is beyond me. FFS, Tyson and Haye?

Haye is a totally different fighter to Wlad, don't really see it as a relevant comparison. Wlad was clearly winning anyway, so why change things. If he was bothered about having an exciting style he would develop his jab and be safety first.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Do you know what the main problem with matching Tyson against Wlad is.....

All the hype and menace that surrounded unbeaten Tyson made his challengers soil their pants.....Guys were scared and didn't have the bottle to follow through with their gameplans.....

Good guys like Holmes, Spinks, Thomas were all intimidated......

But a guy that got completely destroyed by Sanders would be full of confidence..

Why change the debate to tyson v wlad?

The debate was who has had better victories. The answer is both have had victories against opponents of the same level. An over the hill Holmes is the same level as a prime Haye.

Answer Ghosty's question...........

victorgarco wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Do you know what the main problem with matching Tyson against Wlad is.....

All the hype and menace that surrounded unbeaten Tyson made his challengers soil their pants.....Guys were scared and didn't have the bottle to follow through with their gameplans.....

Good guys like Holmes, Spinks, Thomas were all intimidated......

But a guy that got completely destroyed by Sanders would be full of confidence..

Why change the debate to tyson v wlad?

The debate was who has had better victories. The answer is both have had victories against opponents of the same level. An over the hill Holmes is the same level as a prime Haye.

Tucker, Thomas, Tubbs, Biggs and others are better than anything Wlad fought. They came to fight.

Seeing as you know the Tyson era so well Victor could you please let me know who was the most highly regarded british heavyweight in the late 1980's?

Super D Boon wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Hmmm, super, interesting take on Douglas Tyson and Douglas Holyfield. You seem to be picking Douglas as the constant. Others see a uniquely motivated Douglas in one fight, and a lardy disinterested one in the second.

I can't help but think the Douglas Tyson fight, whilst being a huge upset at the time has grown legs and started doing the lambada. Tyson was off that night and Douglas fought his heart out. Douglas was similar to Wlad in that he boxed behind a good jab and tied and frustrated Tyson when he got in. Seeing the fight again and again I thought Tyson was flat and Douglas whilst implementing the perfect plan just did the same thing over and over. I fail to see the sheer mastery in his perfromance. It's not like he needed to change tact during the fight he stuck to the script.

As for Douglas Holyfield, any version of Douglas would have lost to Holy. Holyfield took away his jab and Douglas was shown up to be the no more than decent operator he was. As for Douglas outboxing, Tucker, Tyson etc etc......so? I never knew Tucker was anything more than a bloated 80s titleist. Could be wrong though!

Well i guess he didn't need to change tack because it was working... Isn't that the thing about a master class. Ultimately, he did what no-one else had come close to, and its easy to look back at the figure tyson bacame and undermine his achievement. I don't think the legend has has grown legs, it always had them despite the long count crap from king, and the stacks of Tyson apologists putting it down to Tyson not training. Im not saying that didnt contribute, its hard to say how much impact it had.

In the fight, i watched though, douglas came straight out of the blocks and landed big right hands early. He was the first guy to take the initiative from tyson and never relinquished it. In my view he was exceptional that night. Game plan, skill, hand speed, output and heart.

All of that is just my personal opinion. However, Tucker was one of the few 80's heavies who wasn't bloated super, at least not in the 80's so maybe you are wrong

azania wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He came in with a gameplan that consisted of doing things Wlad can't, like throwing his left hand, throwing combinations and going to the body.

Doing things Wlad can't or things Wlad doesn't need to do.........?

Wlad would have to stand in range to do that and move out. He moves out in straight lines which against Tyson is suicide. When do you ever see him go to the body? To do that risks being hit.

I'm not saying you ever see Wlad doing those things no, my point being is that he doesn't need to. In terms of body shots Steward used to implore his man to attack more to head and body and wade in and finish the guy off rather than the constant one-two torture that Wlad dishes out. I also read somewhere that Steward belived Wlad had all the shots in the book he just never uses them. How much of that is hyperbole is anyone's guess.

The thing with Wlad is , if it ain't broke......considering he barely ever loses a round it's hard to make the guy do any differently.

I rate Wlad highly but his style was made for Tyson. What he did best would be ineffectual against a fast, brutal and hyper aggressive fighter likd Tyson.

Super D Boon wrote:

azania wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He came in with a gameplan that consisted of doing things Wlad can't, like throwing his left hand, throwing combinations and going to the body.

Doing things Wlad can't or things Wlad doesn't need to do.........?

Wlad would have to stand in range to do that and move out. He moves out in straight lines which against Tyson is suicide. When do you ever see him go to the body? To do that risks being hit.

I'm not saying you ever see Wlad doing those things no, my point being is that he doesn't need to. In terms of body shots Steward used to implore his man to attack more to head and body and wade in and finish the guy off rather than the constant one-two torture that Wlad dishes out. I also read somewhere that Steward belived Wlad had all the shots in the book he just never uses them. How much of that is hyperbole is anyone's guess.

The thing with Wlad is , if it ain't broke......considering he barely ever loses a round it's hard to make the guy do any differently.

Good point

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Do you know what the main problem with matching Tyson against Wlad is.....

All the hype and menace that surrounded unbeaten Tyson made his challengers soil their pants.....Guys were scared and didn't have the bottle to follow through with their gameplans.....

Good guys like Holmes, Spinks, Thomas were all intimidated......

But a guy that got completely destroyed by Sanders would be full of confidence..

How differently do you think it would play out Truss if we were talking about big bro rather than little? Vit always seems like a very tough cookie and I think, even against Tyson, he wouldn't be intimidated enough for it to detriment his performance. Add to that one of the better HW chins and I'd be curious about Tyson's mental fragility when after 6-8 rounds he was still getting big Vit's (prime) jab in his face.

Think its a bit silly to say that Tyson would go through Wlad with ease, especially the Wlad of the past 3 or 4 years. Think Tyson would beat him, but it'd be late on and it'd be largely due to a mistake Wlad would make rather than Tyson going through him - lets face it, Wlad is 6"7 and 240lbs+ and not exactly known for gassing.

I'd say Tyson in 8 or 9, flash KO.

Wlad gassed pretty badly against Brewster and Purrity. Pretty much the main reason he lost those fights I think. He didnt pace himself well earlier in his career.

manos de piedra wrote:Wlad gassed pretty badly against Brewster and Purrity. Pretty much the main reason he lost those fights I think. He didnt pace himself well earlier in his career.

I did reference the Wlad of the past 3/4 years

Thought he said he'd been drugged against Brewster.

Wlad..a self confessed drug taker!!!!!!!!

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Wlad gassed pretty badly against Brewster and Purrity. Pretty much the main reason he lost those fights I think. He didnt pace himself well earlier in his career.

I did reference the Wlad of the past 3/4 years

I thought it was pretty clear you were talking about the wlad of the last 3/4 years and not the wlad of nearly a decade ago.

I'm not sure who wins tyson or wlad. Tyson has never beaten anyone as good as wlad and wlad has never beaten anyone as good as tyson. I think it boils down to who comes in with the best game plan.

Still lean towards Tyson 7-8 times out of Ten but we've never seen Wlad under genuine pressure since he remodeled his technique - he might be brilliant or he might be just ordinary and ordinary don't cut it against Tyson.

As we've established previously that Tyson's peak lasted approximately 15-20 minutes, are we suggesting that if it goes beyond six then Wlad wipes the floor with him?

If it goes beyond 8 I think Wlad doesnt pour it on enough to have him knackered by 6 although most of the venom will have gone out of him.