RAZZ-MCFC Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 WBC super-middleweight champion Carl Froch believes that friend and former world heavyweight title holder David Haye will retire from the sport in the near future, calling time on his nine-year professional career. The 34 year-old was speaking to The Daily Mail ahead of his Showtime Super-Six Final bout with undefeated American Andre Ward and after spending time on holiday with the former undisputed cruiserweight champion, Froch sees the ‘Hayemaker' hanging up his gloves. ‘I don’t think he is going to (return),” stated Froch. Listening to him, he is quite content. It doesn’t really sound like it.’ Haye, 30, had planned to retire before his 31st birthday and has said in the past that he will only fight on if he is granted a rematch with Wladimir Klitschko. The Ukrainian, who now holds four of the major belts at heavyweight, out-pointed the Londoner in July to take his WBA belt and may now have ended his career. http://www.worldboxingnews.net/2011/08/carl-froch-i-dont-think-david-haye-will.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ko Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 To me that would be a huge dissapointment if Haye retired, Im still a big fan, he needs to redeem himself he let down himself and millions of people rooting for him, he isnt old, he is still very young at 31 and has only had 25 fights anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAZZ-MCFC Posted August 23, 2011 Author Share Posted August 23, 2011 I don't think there's anybody who wants him to carry on. That isn't a bad thing either, i'm as big a Haye fan as any but it's the right time. He reached his peak in the division, won a world title and the only meaningful fights are ones he probably doesn't have the motivation for anymore in the shape of the Klitschko's. Thanks for some good nights David, but it's time to hang them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemurphy Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I think the Wlad performance was so abysmal that the only way to atone for it would be taking on Vitali or a Wlad rematch. I don't see him being able to get EITHER of those fights (although Vitali did issue a statement this week that gives Haye some hope). To fight anyone else is to suggest he's going to try to rebuild his career, and I don't think he's interested in doing that (for the reasons Froch mentions). Haye's ego is such that I don't think he'd have any trouble living with the Toe Fight being his defining one, and spending the next 50 years of his life trying to spin doctor it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donlevy Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Even though I always thought he had a better chance against the older,slower Vitali,I don't think Haye ever had much confidence in beating him.With Wlad,it was always that small chance against a guy who had been stopped three times in the past.Not so much with the iron chinned Vitali. And considering how much money he's managed to rake in over the last two years,I dont think Haye will really care what anyone has to say about him.He milked that title reign for all it was worth and made a ton of money out of doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skav Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 It's interesting that GBP wanted Haye to face Vitali because they thought that Haye's mobility would be a big advantage over Vitali's aging legs. As for Haye himself, he'll probably continue. He already said that he may intend to put his retirement plans on hold. There were rumblings of a rematch with Wlad a while after the fight as well as a match with Vitali but it's all calmed down now and we've not heard a peep from all three. Of course, the father of the Klits just died so no doubt they want some peace for a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gavpowell Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 The Klitschkos have fioghts coming up and have issued an assortment of pressreleases concerning future options, but Fury said he's not interested yet and there's nobody else left except maybe Povetkin(if he beats Chagaev) and Helenius. I'd expect an announcement a little after the Adamek fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemurphy Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 The Klitschkos have fioghts coming up and have issued an assortment of pressreleases concerning future options, but Fury said he's not interested yet and there's nobody else left except maybe Povetkin(if he beats Chagaev) and Helenius. I'd expect an announcement a little after the Adamek fight. Agreed. We have to get these upcoming current fights out of the way before it makes sense to speculate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBride Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 After 3 years plus of mouthing and failing abyssmally to deliver, does it really matter whether he retires or not? I mean lets be honest here gents, it wasn't as if it was even a fight, never mind going out on one's shield, and all that stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamasadlittleboy Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 A lil bit of misreporting, Haye was NEVER undisputed champion, he was UNIFIED...Just a little correction, but those "professionals" at WBN should have had that pointed out to them...;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skav Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 A lil bit of misreporting, Haye was NEVER undisputed champion, he was UNIFIED...Just a little correction, but those "professionals" at WBN should have had that pointed out to them...;-) In fairness, many people of the boxing community call a boxer undisputed when he unifies because he's more often than not considered to be the best in his division based on his ability. But sure, if we are being specific then it's inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamasadlittleboy Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 A lil bit of misreporting, Haye was NEVER undisputed champion, he was UNIFIED...Just a little correction, but those "professionals" at WBN should have had that pointed out to them...;-) In fairness, many people of the boxing community call a boxer undisputed when he unifies because he's more often than not considered to be the best in his division based on his ability. But sure, if we are being specific then it's inaccurate. Many people doing something doesn't mean it is right. Many people repeat Floyd Mayweather's ludicrous "41 have tried" statement...thats sort like saying Man United beat 23 times in last year's premiership...or Novak Djokovic has beaten 50 players in 2011...ignoring the fact the Nadal, for example, has been beaten something like 4 times alone. Unified=/=undisputed, ANYONE writing about the sport SHOULD know that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleman370 Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 A lil bit of misreporting, Haye was NEVER undisputed champion, he was UNIFIED...Just a little correction, but those "professionals" at WBN should have had that pointed out to them...;-) In fairness, many people of the boxing community call a boxer undisputed when he unifies because he's more often than not considered to be the best in his division based on his ability. But sure, if we are being specific then it's inaccurate. Many people doing something doesn't mean it is right. Many people repeat Floyd Mayweather's ludicrous "41 have tried" statement...thats sort like saying Man United beat 23 times in last year's premiership...or Novak Djokovic has beaten 50 players in 2011...ignoring the fact the Nadal, for example, has been beaten something like 4 times alone. Unified=/=undisputed, ANYONE writing about the sport SHOULD know that... not to mention it goes both ways. i consider, as i hope everyone (barring mcbride lol//) does, bernard hopkins is The Lightheavyweight Champ; or sergio martinez is The Middleweight Champ. you don't have to unify to be undisputed (though i guess in some really strict sense, mcbride dissenting does deny bernard the undisputed title! alas, i lose on a technicality) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamasadlittleboy Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 A lil bit of misreporting, Haye was NEVER undisputed champion, he was UNIFIED...Just a little correction, but those "professionals" at WBN should have had that pointed out to them...;-) In fairness, many people of the boxing community call a boxer undisputed when he unifies because he's more often than not considered to be the best in his division based on his ability. But sure, if we are being specific then it's inaccurate. Many people doing something doesn't mean it is right. Many people repeat Floyd Mayweather's ludicrous "41 have tried" statement...thats sort like saying Man United beat 23 times in last year's premiership...or Novak Djokovic has beaten 50 players in 2011...ignoring the fact the Nadal, for example, has been beaten something like 4 times alone. Unified=/=undisputed, ANYONE writing about the sport SHOULD know that... not to mention it goes both ways. i consider, as i hope everyone (barring mcbride lol//) does, bernard hopkins is The Lightheavyweight Champ; or sergio martinez is The Middleweight Champ. you don't have to unify to be undisputed (though i guess in some really strict sense, mcbride dissenting does deny bernard the undisputed title! alas, i lose on a technicality) If ANYONE holds another title there is a "dispute". Martinez and Hopkins are the #1 guys in the weight, they are not "undisputed". I know it can be stupid, such as when Tyson and Buster Douglas held the IBF/WBA/WBC titles and you had Francesco Damiani holding the WBO title making s dispute. What made that one more complex was that Tyson "was" the undisputed champion prior to the WBO's formation...which sort of helped to make the WBO the joke it has been until recently... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gavpowell Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 An undisputed champion is near-impossible these days, because you've got a million belts from the big four, plus all the other minnows like the IBU(soon to be contested by Oliver McCall) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamasadlittleboy Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 An undisputed champion is near-impossible these days, because you've got a million belts from the big four, plus all the other minnows like the IBU(soon to be contested by Oliver McCall) Generally it's accepted that it's just the big 4, the last one being Jermain Taylor (who was swiftly stripped of his IBF title) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshDevilRob Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 The US took awhile to acknowledge the WBO but did so because of TV Company's wanting title fights. Now the US doesn't have the need as there are so little top US fighters around in most Top 10's these days. (going by Boxing Monthly's Top 10's) Last time I tried counting the different World titles it was something like 33. Not sure on the figure now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAZZ-MCFC Posted August 27, 2011 Author Share Posted August 27, 2011 I didn't even realise it was only Hopkins and Taylor who have held all 4 belts at the same time. Since the WBO has been recognised as a major org. anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamasadlittleboy Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 The US took awhile to acknowledge the WBO but did so because of TV Company's wanting title fights. Now the US doesn't have the need as there are so little top US fighters around in most Top 10's these days. (going by Boxing Monthly's Top 10's) Last time I tried counting the different World titles it was something like 33. Not sure on the figure now. Think the WBA alone have 33, in total there will be nearer 100 O_O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemurphy Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 An undisputed champion is near-impossible these days, because you've got a million belts from the big four, plus all the other minnows like the IBU(soon to be contested by Oliver McCall) It was still sort of possible when it was just the WBA, WBC, and IBF, Holyfield did it at Cruiser for example, but with the inclusion of the WBO into the mix and you get those four different mandatories going at the same time, it becomes almost impossible, you'd have to be defending one or the other all the time with no breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donlevy Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Besides,who wants to pay all those extra sanctioning fee's just to hold a belt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshDevilRob Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 The US took awhile to acknowledge the WBO but did so because of TV Company's wanting title fights. Now the US doesn't have the need as there are so little top US fighters around in most Top 10's these days. (going by Boxing Monthly's Top 10's) Last time I tried counting the different World titles it was something like 33. Not sure on the figure now. Think the WBA alone have 33, in total there will be nearer 100 O_O The WBA were probably feeling insecure so have added extra champions to their roster to seem more important. grin// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleman370 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 An undisputed champion is near-impossible these days, because you've got a million belts from the big four, plus all the other minnows like the IBU(soon to be contested by Oliver McCall) It was still sort of possible when it was just the WBA, WBC, and IBF, Holyfield did it at Cruiser for example, but with the inclusion of the WBO into the mix and you get those four different mandatories going at the same time, it becomes almost impossible, you'd have to be defending one or the other all the time with no breaks. that's why i think we should (attempt!) to ignore the bodies and stick to lineal titles. if we can't get 1 v 2 then we can just follow the top dog, if he loses the division has a new top dog. to hell with the belts! if at least they held up pants they'd have a purpose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now