Norton was the better boxer and would have a good chance to take the decision but I could see Haye turning the tables with his right hand. Norton could be hurt, and despite all the shit he has gotten during the last year Haye's right cross is a terrific punch
Norton. I don't think Haye is THAT kind of hitter. And he sure as fuck doesn't have any discernible skill besides leaping
Norton was a MUCH better fighter than Haye. And Haye is not a Foreman type puncher at heavy...no matter how much he is advertised as such. Norton wins via very wide decision or later round TKO.
Haye isn't Foreman or Shavers in the power department, but he's much faster and his punch is something to be respected. I still favor Norton pretty big. Substance over style.
Are we talking a prime healthy Haye or a Haye with a broken toe nail. Because that's like comparing prime Cassius Clay with Ali of today.
Typically with mythical matchups it's both fighters at their best. However certain intagibles have to be considered. In this particular case it would be David Haye with only a half broken toe nail.
Norton clearly. It's just a case of whether he stops Haye. If Haye bitches out like he did against Wlad, he may last the distance, but I think that Norton would make him fight and get a late TKO. Better condition, MUCH better fighter.
