Licensed To Thrill: David Haye vs. Dereck Chisora

Enter your Licensed To Thrill: David Haye vs. Dereck Chisora fan card
CONTROVERSY RATING: N/A
The percentage of fan cards that disagree with an official result. Exclusively on EYE ON THE RING.
Licensed To Thrill: David Haye vs. Dereck Chisora
Fan Rating: 
0
Your rating: None
4.5
Average: 4.5 (4 votes)

Date: 
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Location: 
Rounds Scheduled: 
10
Contracted Weight: 
Referee: 

Official Judging
Stanley Christodoulou 40 - 36
Paul Thomas 39 - 37
Mickey Vann 39 - 37

More:



Fight Notes: 

David Haye comes out of a short-lived retirement to blast out hated English rival Dereck Chisora in front of over 30,000 at Upton Park -- the bad blood between the two came to a boil at the post-fight press conference of Chisora's unsuccessful attempt to beat Vitali Klitschko, when Chisora went into the audience to confront a heckling David Haye, and the two men proceeded to engage in one of the most disgraceful brawls in recent memory.




Fan Cards: Licensed To Thrill: David Haye vs. Dereck Chisora


scorecard by ADAMJO260
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
10
10
40
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
9
9
36


scorecard by CAPMAN
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
9
10
39
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
10
9
37


scorecard by CHRIS M95
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
10
10
40
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
9
9
36


scorecard by OLAAIN1994
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
10
10
40
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
9
9
36


scorecard by HART
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
10
10
40
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
9
9
36


scorecard by DIZZY
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
10
10
40
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
9
9
36


scorecard by THEICEMANJDOG
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
10
10
40
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
9
9
36


scorecard by KAISERKOBA
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
10
10
40
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
9
9
36


scorecard by TALESFROMTHECRYPT
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
10
10
40
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
9
9
36


scorecard by BOXING KNOWLEDGE
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
10
10
40
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
9
9
36


scorecard by MIKE25
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
10
10
40
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
9
9
36


scorecard by CHAMPION97
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
9
10
39
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
10
9
37


scorecard by ARJ GUY
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
10
10
40
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
9
9
36


scorecard by MALDEN
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
10
10
40
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
9
9
36


scorecard by ZOE
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
10
10
40
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
9
9
36


scorecard by NICK_FOXX
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
DAVID HAYE
10
10
10
10
40
DERECK CHISORA
9
9
9
9
36


Comments

Nick_Foxx's picture

I'm actually greatly looking forward to this fight

Zoe's picture

That finish was truly frightening.

rorschach's picture

Awesome heavyweight fight!!

David Haye took to strategy for this fight and a easy win.

David Haye was careful not to let Chisora get any momentum.

The press conference for this fight was entertaining. Haye struck Chisora with a bottle as Chisora screamed he glassed me.

dizzy's picture

This was an entertaining action-packed fight, where two styles matched perfectly. Chisora is a big guy with solid upper-body movement that knows how to cut the ring and apply pressure on his opponent, but he can get careless and overaggressive, especially when he's frustrated, and that is exactly what David Haye's game plan was built around - he was patiently shooting at Chisora from the outside, he wasn't peppering Chisora with volume punches but rather took his time to land the hard ones, he always stayed at perfect range, he was baiting Chisora to chase him, he made him miss a lot even while being against the ropes and occasionally countered him with well timed shots - Chisora was not able to truly trap him on the ropes at any point in the fight, whenever it looked like he was, Haye was able to successfully escape. By the third round, Chisora seemed to be slowly adapting to Haye's rhythm, he was able to step up the aggression and even found some success, but was also eating some really hard shots from Haye. By the fifth round, Chisora was aggresively and somewhat carelessly coming forward, which was exactly what Haye wanted from him, and during one of the sequences where Chisora tried to pressure him against the ropes, Haye sneaked in a huge left bomb that Chisora walked right into and did not recover from.

Looking back at Haye's career, there's no doubt that he was a fantastic fighter and is a future HOF member, we can discuss his skills, strenghts and weaknesses all day long, none of this changes the fact that he was the most dominant force in the division that saw boxers like Jean-Marc Mormeck, O'Neil Bell, Wayne Braithwaite, Steve Cunningham, Marco Huck, Vassiliy Jirov, James Toney, Virgil Hill etc. fighting for the crown. Now it's hard to rank the cruiserweights in terms of greatness given that whenever a boxer emerges as THE dominant force in this division, he eventually moves up to heavyweight, but I would argue that Haye was probably the greatest cruiserweight of the 2000s, at the very least he was top-3. He blasted away an experienced Alexander Gurov, beat then-very highly regarded Jean-Marc Mormeck to win the unified cruiserweight title and then walked through WBO world cruiserweight champion Enzo Maccarinelli without breaking a sweat. There's a reason why Haye was the biggest British PPV draw (yes, even bigger than Ricky Hatton and Prince Naseem) before the emergence of Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury, and the showmanship was just a part of it. It's honestly irritating how many people, even the so-called "boxing experts", sum up his entire career with the Klitschko fight alone, omitting everything else David Haye accomplished through the course of his career.

Champion97's picture

I can't disagree Haye is in the HOF given he was a a champion at cruiser and heavy, but he is very poor by HOF standards for me, he isn't a good inside fighter, he was patient, waited for that one big shot, like Wilder, and he should get the same criticism as Wilder in my opinion, because like Wilder, he was very dangerous, very explosive, but swung wildly, and relied on his power. He wasn't more dominant than Huck in my opinion, Huck was a champion for 5-6 years, gave Povetkin a tough fight, that is unrelated to his cruiser success, but it gives you an idea of his level, and I think he would have beaten Haye. Enzo was a good analyst, good British level fighter, maybe European, but never world level, Haye got the early stoppage, but the first round was close, and if Enzo had been more even slightly durable or harder to hit, it would have been an interesting fight. I didn't realise Mormeck was as old as he was when he fought Klitschko, but I still don't think it's enough to back up Haye being better than Huck when he was a champion for less than a year. I find it more irritating when people say he'd have beat Fury and Joshua, he did very little at heavyweight, he didn't do better against an older Valuev than a 46 year old Holyfield, I read your comment on Holyfield last week, I can see your argument, but I disagree, because whether he was doing well for his age or not, Holyfield was still 46, and when a fighter is that old, it is always a factor, he had already lost to fighters he I think would have beaten comfortably in his prime. I think Haye was lucky he was in the era he was in, the cruiserweight division isn't as old as other divisions, and he didn't only fought one of the names you mentioned, he didn't prove he was ever the best in his division. What makes a prime Haye better than Bellew, all those people saying their fight was a mismatch was beyond the joke, when Haye was as inactive as he was. Bellew beat Masternak and Makabu, these are not bad fighters, are on a similar level to Mormeck in my opinion, I think Bellew vs Haye would have been a 50/50 fight if they were both in their primes, Haye shouldn't have been written off in of their fights, the weight favoured him, and Bellew didn't have activity on his side the second time as he did the first time, but he should definitely have been the favourite.

dizzy's picture

I see where you're coming from. Now in my opinion, Huck's title reign deserves similar criticism that Wilder received - Huck never unified, he didnt face the best opposition available, aside from Denis Lebedev his opposition was piss poor, he rarely faced top-ranked contenders. Now I don't say Huck was a bad fighter - similarly to Wilder's case, I think he's much better than people give him credit for - bus his title reign suffers from lack of proper opposition. We can have our opinions about certain fighters that may be biased and untrue, and I accept that, but what you can hardly argue with is that very few Huck's title defenses were against top-10 ranked contenders - the fact that he never unified nor won The Ring magazine title (AKA the man who beat the man) proves that. That's why I regard cruiserweights like Haye, Mormeck and Bell much higher - whatever I think about their skills, it doesn't change the fact that they held the true CW crown and weren't sheer titleholders like Marco Huck and Juan Carlos Gomez, that to me is a better proof of their boxing ability instead of my personal preferences. Granted, I don't rate Maccarinelli highly myself but you fight the best guys that are in front of you, and that's what Haye did and Huck didn't. Back to Haye. The comparison of Valuev vs. Haye and Valuev vs. 46-year old Holyfield by the sheer result is meaningless - styles make fights. Tyson Fury went the distance with Kevin Johnson, while young and green Anthony Joshua knocked the same guy out inside two rounds - does that mean Joshua is better than Fury by a country mile? Haye is an outfighter that baits his opponents to come at him and leave themselves open, his style isn't exactly tailor made to beat Valuev, while Holyfield's bob-and-weave strategy was much more fitting. As for Bellew, I admit I havent watched any of his fights except the last one, so it's hard for me to tell how would these two square off against each other if their clash happened 5-7 years earlier.

P.S. As for Mormeck, it was not just about age but also his inactivity, inbetween Klitschko and Haye fights Mormeck had abysmal three fights in 4.5 years, his next fight after Haye was more than two years later (!!!), he was clearly a shade of his former self when he fought Klitschko.

Champion97's picture

To say the names I mentioned are piss poor is an exaggeration to say the least, but Lebedev, in my opinion, was better than Haye as well. Three examples between the two of us, not a lot, but more than Haye, how many top 10 contenders did he fight? I know Haye won two belts, but even if you think Mormeck was underrated, it's one fight, he didn't have a title reign, it wasn't a dominant win, I wouldn't have written off any of the names you mentioned against Haye, I think Haye would have beaten Jirov and Bell, but I think Toney would have beaten Haye at cruiser, and for the record, the difference between the legacies of Toney and Haye is laugahble.

Haye didn't do that is what I'm saying, beating Mormeck and Enzo isn't enough to rank Haye as high as you do for me because the Mormeck win is all he did, I don't discredit him for the Enzo fight, he did what he had to do, but I don't take much from it given Enzo's level.

Come on man, it's not meaningless by a long way to say two fighters are likely on a similar level based on doing similar against a common opponent at a similar time, granted, styles are a valid reason to say one is better than the other, and if you think Haye would have beaten a 46 year old Holyfield and his style was better for Valuev, I won't argue with that, the 10th best in a divison might beat the best if his style is all wrong for him, but the 30th best in a division doesn't beat the best no matter how bad his style is (provided it isn't a case of a terrible chin and a puncher), there are better examples of styles make fights than that, and no case of styles make fights is enough discount Haye and an old Holyfield being on a similar level when they did as well as each other against the same opponent, at a similar time.

Obviously not. I'm not saying a 46 year old Holyfield was better than a prime Haye by a country mile, or that the Valuev fights prove they were dead even, I think Haye would have beaten a 46 year old Holyfield, but it would have been a good fight. That's a bad comparison, because when a fighter doesn't hit that hard, but has a lot of skills, a shut out is almost as impressive as a KO, Joshua fought Johnson 3 years after Fury as well.

Fair enough, but Hill was 38, he beat Bell in the rematch, and if Haye hadn't moved up, the rematch would have been a good fight, there was as much reason for Haye vs Mormeck II as Bell vs Mormeck II, Mormeck dropped Haye, it was close on the cards. Would Mormeck have beaten Hill before Hill lost to Michalczewski?

dizzy's picture

I think you really underestimate the styles make fights argument (plus you have to remember that one fight is not like the other). There are a lot more examples than just Fury and Joshua, the most recent might be the case of Kownacki, Helenius and Washington. Hell, Muhammad Ali had THREE close, almost dead even fights with Ken Norton, while George Foreman blasted Norton away inside two rounds - would you think that Foreman is better than Ali? Here's another one, Vitali Klitschko lost to Chris Byrd while Wladimir beat the same guy in dominant fashion, twice nonetheless. Granted, Vitali was winning on scorecards and retired in his corner because of the shoulder injury, but he struggled with Byrd's style an awful lot more than Wladimir, does that mean that Wladimir would beat Vitali if they fought? I can go on and on and on about this topic. Don't underestimate the importance of the clash of styles, it's much more important than you think. It's true that there are levels in this game, and that an elite fighter would probably not struggle with club fighters, but you have to remember than there's a lot more to each individuals style than just a basic description "bob-and-weave, counterpuncher, pressure fighter" etc. Holyfield was far removed from his prime when he fought Valuev, but you have to remember that he is regarded as one of the greatest pound-for-pound fighters of all time for a reason- he's always been an incredibly smart boxer, and at 46 years of age, he had tons of experience behind him, and he showed it in Valuev fight - not to mention that Valuev is not an elite fighter himself.

One of the things that rubs me the wrong way in a major fashion is a serious lack of proper in-depth analysis of boxing fights. I've spent some time in boxing and MMA community, and there are several popular MMA sources that provide amazing in-depth breakdowns of MMA fights. Boxing community has none. And don't call Max Kellerman and Stephen A. Smith boxing analysts. Smith is a major clown that doesn't know jack shit about combat sports and I'm glad that Joe Rogan called him out on that, and Max Kellerman can be easily replaced with any Twitter/YouTube troll and no one would notice a difference. The closest this sport has to an actual analyst is Paulie Malignaggi. So many major sports educate its fans, but boxing sadly isn't one of them.

Sorry about my little rant. It's just that boxing is called sweet science but is not treated like one, and it really pisses me off. Anyway, back to Haye. I do agree that Mormeck is probably the only elite fighter Haye fought at cruiserweight, hence why I said Haye might be top-3 - I feel like both Mormeck and Bell had also done enough to be in the discussion. But Haye held the CW crown, he wasn't there by accident, and you can't disregard that. I do not compare Toney's and Haye's legacies, I'm not sure why you brought that up, nor have I written off any of those names against Haye - I would've loved to see Haye against guys like Toney or Virgil Hill. But in terms of discussing the greatest cruiserweight of the 2000s, you can't tell me that Toney, Hill, Jirov, Cunningham etc. had done more at CW than Haye to be ranked higher than him.

Champion97's picture

I think styles were factors in Usyk vs Briedis, Pacquiao vs Horn, I know styles are important. Good point, and Kownacki might have been 10 or more rankings above Helenius, but not 30, and was that more about styles or Kownacki underestimating Helenius? I think the second. There is an argument for it, because you could say Ali's style was bad for Foreman, but I think Ali fighting as smart a fight as he did, is enough reason to give him that, and that's the thing with punchers, when they land, a lot of things go out the window, but when they fight an opponent who can take, avoid, negate their power, their adaptability gets tested. More examples are Frampton and Quigg against Martinez, Mayweather vs Pacquiao against De La Hoya and Hatton, Froch vs Groves and Bute against Johnson, but I think you are putting too much stock into it in this scenario. That wasn't about styles, Klitschko was injured and pulled out, Byrd didn't win through his own merits. I know you can, and you could think of much better examples than a fight that was stopped on a shoulder injury, but the key point is, do you agree 30th best doesn't beat the best, sheerly because of his style and no other reason? And was Holyfield's style that much worse for Valuev than Haye's? I've been through this topic many times, I know styles aren't as predictable as that. A 60 year old fighter has experience, Holyfield had plenty of experience in his thirties, the fact he was getting even more experience as an old fighter who was well past his best means very little, all old and even shot fighters have wisdom, but their bodies don't follow. I know he wasn't, so Haye didn't comfortably beat a non-elite fighter, it's hard to say he was a level above him based on that fight, and I don't know if I agree his style was a big factor, I'd need to watch Valuev fight again.

I think for the better fighter, a fighter who is very similar to him, but slightly worse in every department, has the right style for him, but a fighter who is equally good as the other opponent, far worse in some departments, but better in others has a bad style for him, and it is the overlap that often makes the style bad, a good example is Spence, Porter, Danny Garcia, I think Porter vs Garcia II would be 50/50, Spence didn't have an off night against Porter, but he would beat Garcia more comfortably because although he isn't as much better than Garcia in any departments as he is better than Porter is some, he also might be slightly better in every department. I think being unorthodox and hard to prepare for is what makes a fighter's style bad, and even just size, being abnormally tall or short makes you awkward.

Don't worry pal, I'm with you on that one, even after Smith's brilliant argument about why he's a boxing expert, 'I saw Ali, I saw Leonard', etc, every casual has seen Ali and Leonard fight, and anyone can look intelligent comapred to Skip, who I think is a comedian more than anything else, 'Pacquiao was the aggressor so he beat Mayweather', I just can't buy anyone is that stupid. Paulie is a great analyst, I've learned a lot from him, it's a shame he's as unprofessional as he is.

I give Haye credit for beating Mormeck, he was a very goof fighter, just not as good as you say in my opinion, based on how litte he's done, the Mormeck and Chisora wins are all he did that impressed me, it might be time to agree to disagree on Haye. I brought that up because when you say Haye is in the HOF and say he shouldn't be judged on the Klitschko fight, a fighter like Toney or Hopkins, Holyfield, who did a lot in their career, shows you how little Haye did, there isn't much to judge Haye on, and Klitschko was the only great fighter he fought. Cunningham beat Ross, Huck, Wlodarcszyk, you can't tell me beating Mormeck alone is more impressive than that, I agree apart from Cunningham, Hill wasn't the fighter he was at 175 and Toney was better either side of 200.

dizzy's picture

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about Holyfield. What I meant is that he was indeed far removed from his prime, but at 46 years old he was still a capable boxer, that, with his in-ring IQ and experience, had the tools to scrap the victory against on-paper superior fighters, like Larry Holmes and George Foreman were able to do during the 90s, or Bernard Hopkins at the age of 49 (the guy was a grandpa, for fook's sake). For example, one of the things that suprised me in Valuev vs. Holyfield fight was that, despite the massive height disatvantage, Holyfield was able to sneak in some really hard and precise headbutts on Valuev's jaw, it's a really dirty trick but still. I do agree that styles aren't as predictable as I probably painted them to be - there are so many other things, such as preparation, agility, athleticism, craft, technique, footwork or - most importantly - in-ring IQ, that influence each fighter's style. It's not just "this guy is a puncher, that guy is a dancer, this guys uses bob-and-weave, this one stands in front of you" etc., if it sounded like I was saying that, than my apologies.

Now, when it comes to Haye vs. Valuev and Holyfield vs. Valuev, I haven't watched these fights in a while, but what I do remember was that Holyfield used the bob-and-weave strategy for the fight, he was moving in-and-out just enough to win rounds and mostly relied on short punches. Holyfield is a good inside fighter, which is why it wasn't hard for him to apply this strategy, even at this age, and Valuev is a slow plodding heavyweight that comes forward but not too aggressively, as his enormous size always made it much easier for him to cut the space for his opponent, but he doesn't have the speed, power, footwork, technique nor intelligence to control the distance the way both Klitschkos did, and keep the tempo up with someone capable of sneaking-in and sneaking-out. Haye is not and inside fighter, he can hold his own when the fight is in tight quarters but is rarely the one to close the distance himself, he's much more comfortable when the opponent is coming at him, and in order to be the smaller guy and soundly outclass Valuev like Chagaev did, you can't just rely on Valuev coming at you. The two strategies that, in my opinion, are tailor made for a smaller guy to beat a 7-foot giant like Valuev, is either being an agressor that is comfortable fighting on the inside, or bob-and-weave, where you sneak-in and sneak-out just enough to do the damage and not be in range to receive damage himself. Haye isn't good at either of those things, he's mostly a counterpuncher/spoiler type of fighter, which isn't necessarily unappliable against Valuev - as I mentioned, Valuev is usually the one that occupies the center of the ring and carefully comes forward - but Valuev has never been the agressor in the same sense as guys like Povetkin, Chisora, Arreola, Kownacki etc., which is why, all in all, I think Haye's style is not exactly a perfect match. Now Chisora's style, on the other hand, is tailor made for Haye, hence why Haye was able to get the job done so quickly.

When it comes to Haye's cruiserweight legacy, it wouldn't be such a stretch to say that it was a lot about smoke and mirrors, but you can say that about many fighters, he did a good job promoting himself hence why everybody rates Haye's cruiserweight accomplishments almost on the same level as Holyfield's. Honestly, if we cut all the bullshit, minimize the narratives pushed into media and the influence of heavyweight accomplishments, than Jean-Marc Mormeck is the greatest cruiserweight of the 2000s, maybe he's even top-5 cruiserweight of all time. If I remember correctly, the only four fighters that held the CW crown in 2000s were Mormeck, O'Neil Bell, Haye and Tomasz Adamek. Adamek's position was exactly strong given that he only held the IBF belt, so he's not in discussion in my opinion. So I would say, Mormeck is No.1 of the 2000s, Bell is No.2 and Haye is No.3. IMO, that is fair.

When it comes to Kownacki vs. Helenius, it depends on what you mean by underestimated. Kownacki fought the same way he fought all of his previous opponents, he should've made proper adjustments after absorbing some hard shots from Helenius in the opening rounds, instead he tried to solve the problem the same way he was doing it against Szpilka, Washington etc., by stepping up the pressure. It worked against these guys but didn't work against Helenius, who is comfortable fighting on the back foot and isn't exactly thrown out of his rhythm by being pressured. I thought Kownacki did underestimate Helenius in that he expected to get job done by fighting the same way he usually does. If he learns his lesson from this fight, than he might do much better against Helenius in possible rematch.

Champion97's picture

I rate Valuev higher than you, and I think he was levels below Bowe and Lewis. Holyfield aged well, Valuev isn't a bum by any stretch, but think how easily the Holyfield who beat Tyson, Bowe, gave Lewis a tough fight in the rematch, would have beaten Valuev, I'm not trying to make you repeat yourself, you've said he was far removed from his prime, but it doesn't mean much if he was still a capable boxer on a lower level. Hopkins did everything right, didn't have a beer or fizzy drink from the age of 17, didn't take much damage in his career, was very intelligent, but even he wasn't at his best in his fourties. That's because Valuev didn't use his reach well, he was known for use of the head, but it's boxing, you do what you can get away with. What I noticed was how low Holyfield's output was, and he still gassed in the second half.

You could say Holyfield's style was worse for Valuev because he was a good inside fighter, unlike Valuev and Haye, but you could say Valuev's style was bad for Holyfield because he has a long reach, throws the jab often. I'd need to watch them fight again to be more confident, but I agree, because even though Valuev had a regular jab and long reach, he was very slow, so I don't think a high amount of slow jabs is bad for a bobber and weaver like Holyfield, but let's not forget, Holyfield didn't bob and weave nearly as well as in his prime, becaue head movement is the legs, the way to move the head is dip down the knees, so just like moving around the ring, you can't move your head when you're old like you could before, so as well as not gassing, having a higher output, getting into range more quickly, a younger Holyfield's head movement would have been better. I understand, but the issue I have with that is, because Haye was likely better than Valuev (not a lot better in my opinion), and you could say because Valuev had a long reach, boxed on the outside, that Haye benefitted from him not taking advantage of Haye's lack of inside fighting ability. Good point about him not coming forward like Povetkin or Chisora, and that made it harder for Haye to use defensive punching. I think Chisora also underestimated Haye's power, should have been more patient and tried to make Haye work harder in the early rounds rather than rushing in.

For quality to make quantity unimportant, you have to do what Fury did, beat Klitschko, stop Wilder easily, and when a fighter doesn't do that, you have to keep in mind how long they defended for, how much they did, and there is no comparison between Huck and Haye in that regard, I added a couple of Huck's fights yesterday, and it occured to me, you were well off the mark saying his opposition was piss poor, even more than I thought, if you wonder why I bring Huck up, it's because he is the best example of a better cruiserweight than Haye, his era might have been later than Haye's, but I'm confident Huck would have beaten Haye at cruiser, and if we look at this era, do you think Haye would have beaten Gassiev, Dorticos, Briedis? I don't. What do you mean cut all the bullshit? Haye wouldn't have the reputation he has if hadn't been a champion at heavy as well as cruiser, wo what he did at heavy is relevant. You're never going to be able to back that up with anything objective, I'm not going round in circles, but I can think of a lot more than 5 all time cruiserweights than Mormeck. Because he only had one belt? Or specifically because it's the IBF belt? If the second, then of course he's in the discussion, he beat Cunningham, that's a good win, I see how you rate Mormeck as high as you do, but I don't see why you are so confident given how many unknowns there are, I've said what I said about Hill and Bell, I don't rate Mormeck as high as you based on his resume. To be fair, like Jamea Toney, Adamek did more either side of cruiser, but he still beat Cunningham, Banks and Gunn aren't particularly good wins, so the Cunningham win is all I can say for Adamek at cruiser, just like the Mormeck wim is all I can say for Haye at cruiser. It's fair, but I disagree, because I don't think Mormeck's resume was better than Cunningham's, and I don't think he'd have beaten him, I've backed up what I say about Cunningam's resume, it might be time to agree to disagree, unless there is something we've missed.

I think he fought with even less regard for what was coming back him than in his previous few fights, I reckon he thought there was no chance Helenius was going past 4, didn't think Helenius could hurt him. Yes, but he's taken hard shots before and it hasn't cost him, he has a very positive style. I personally think you over analyse that fight, I think he got caught with one shot that hurt him, had no survival skill whatsoever, got stopped, and what is more interesting is how he would fight in a rematch, I know you mentioned the rematch, but I don't think the fight was about styles, and my opinion on Helenius hasn't changed much, he's similar to Price in a lot of ways, might be slightly more durable, but I think he neglects his reach advantage even more than Price. He didn't take so much damage he'll be shot after that, nowhere near, but it was a mentally damaging defeat.