Article: The Tragic Truth of Haye-Harrison

[oliverfennell]

Do you have the same opinion of the fight between Tyson & Spinks?

That's hardly a fair comparison. Spinks was an undefeated two-weight champion and the last remaining obstacle to true (if not official) unification of the heavyweight title. The anticipation for a well-matched fight was real and merited, and a lot of people backed Spinks to win. Unlike with Harrison, there was no prior evidence that he may freeze, and he was hardly the first or last boxer to be intimidated by Tyson.

[Hagler2002]

Do you have the same opinion of the fight between Tyson & Spinks?

That's hardly a fair comparison. Spinks was an undefeated two-weight champion and the last remaining obstacle to true (if not official) unification of the heavyweight title. The anticipation for a well-matched fight was real and merited, and a lot of people backed Spinks to win. Unlike with Harrison, there was no prior evidence that he may freeze, and he was hardly the first or last boxer to be intimidated by Tyson.

The point is if a fighter freezes come fight night it hardly makes him mentally ill. That statement has been retracted to a certain extent and the emphasis is now based on the fact Haye implemented "one of the cruellest things I have ever seen, not just in boxing but in life" by fighting a rabbit trapped in the headlights. I can only remember on one occasion where he failed to throw punches the way he did on Saturday and in my opinion was no worse of an opponent than Briggs was for Vitali, the only difference was Shannon had a chin.

To claim it was the cruelest thing someone had witnessed in their entire life is another big pile of steaming horse shíte!

[oliverfennell]

Oh yeah, agree with the freezing vs mentally ill bit.

But whether we agree with James or not, he was positing that Haye knew Harrison had certain frailties, and exploited them. That could never be argued for Tyson-Spinks in terms of the reasons for the match being made.

[Hagler2002]

But surely that's a edge a fighter looks for, he looks for an advantage and exploits it. Harrison had been European Champion and relinquished the belt for a title shot it was hardly the worst opponent in the world, the article writer is now trying to make out that Haye tortured a man who should have never been in the ring. Ive certainly seen a lot crueler things take place between the ropes over the last 25yrs of following the sport than what I witnessed last Saturday.

[bruthead]

I don't have a big problem with Tyson-Spinks. With Harrison you are looking at:

1. A delusional and emotionally fragile guy.
2. A guy who is scared of being punched.
3. A guy who hadn't done enough to earn a heavyweight title-shot.
4. A guy who was given almost no chance of winning by boxing experts or the bookmakers.
5. A guy who the public hated, whose humiliation was enjoyed. The crowd booed Audley even after the fight when Lennon Jr. said “How about a hand of recognition for the challenger?" and then they chanted, "You're shit and you know you are."

Bear in mind also that Haye knew all five of those things and BEFORE the fight boasted about knowing them.

Tyson-Spinks I am not sure you are looking at any of those five at all, especially to the same extent. Definitely not 3, 4 or 5. Spinks had been in the ring with Larry Holmes and Gerry Cooney so it's not like he was scared of big punchers per se and he was a champion who had proven far more mental toughness than Harrison. Yes, Tyson might have spooked him but it's just not on the same level.

As another point of comparison, with something like Tyson-Francis you are looking at numbers 3 and 4, although obviously it wasn't a title bout but Francis shouldn't really have been in the ring with someone as good as Tyson. Still, I don't have a problem with that bout because Francis knew exactly what he was doing, even selling that advertising space on the soles of his boots.

[bruthead]

Oh, and to say Harrison was European champ? Come on, now. We are boxing people on this forum, don't give us that Sky hype crap. Harrison beat Michael Sprott. Most people rank Harrison below Chisora and Sexton in the UK alone. He was never European champ in any meaningful sense.

[JamesH]

Oh, and to say Harrison was European champ? Come on, now. We are boxing people on this forum, don't give us that Sky hype crap. Harrison beat Michael Sprott. Most people rank Harrison below Chisora and Sexton in the UK alone. He was never European champ in any meaningful sense.

I'll look forward to your write up of the Chisora-Wlad fight

[dondada]

I don't have a big problem with Tyson-Spinks. With Harrison you are looking at:

1. A delusional and emotionally fragile guy.
2. A guy who is scared of being punched.
3. A guy who hadn't done enough to earn a heavyweight title-shot.
4. A guy who was given almost no chance of winning by boxing experts or the bookmakers.
5. A guy who the public hated, whose humiliation was enjoyed. The crowd booed Audley even after the fight when Lennon Jr. said “How about a hand of recognition for the challenger?" and then they chanted, "You're shit and you know you are."

Bear in mind also that Haye knew all five of those things and BEFORE the fight boasted about knowing them.

All this is true. Yes, it takes two to tango. But I'm afraid this 'meaningful sense' thing re the Euro title is a red herring. If you were to apply 'meaningful sense' to boxing titles, you would be as mentally unwell as you think Harrison is. I know, I've been there.

He was the Euro champ and, in my opinion, anyone who is isn't far away from a shot at a 'world' title. Couple this with the fact Audley sold this fight more than anyone else, destiny, 'new champion, NO DOUBT' etc and that's why he got the fight, as well as it being easy money for both.

You're saying Haye knew all those things and boasted about them. This actually undermines your argument, in my opinion. He told everyone what was going to happen and in graphic terms. This makes him far less culpable than had he pretended Audley had a shot.

It was a cruel and embarrassing spectacle. But it is a different type of cruelty to that which McIlvanney is referring.

[forcefraser]

I fail to see how David Haye giving a massive underachiever like Harrison the opportunity to make a £1 million plus, can be seen as cruel.

I wish somebody would be that cruel to me.

[bruthead]

You're saying Haye knew all those things and boasted about them. This actually undermines your argument, in my opinion. He told everyone what was going to happen and in graphic terms. This makes him far less culpable than had he pretended Audley had a shot.

Really? I really think it makes it much worse. I agree that it passes some culpability on that his words were out in the open but I don't think Haye gets off the hook by a long shot. Frankly, given what Haye did to Harrison begs the question - what wouldn't Haye do if 700,000 people were willing to pay £15 to watch him do it?

Yes, any fans who paid specifically to see Audley beaten up share culpability. Even those of us who paid in the vain hope of seeing a fight are not entirely blameless.

The WBA, given what Haye was saying, given that Audley should never have got ranked, share culpability. Sky share culpabilty for pushing for this fight and not a more competitive one, etc. etc.

But, realistically, David Haye was the most powerful actor. He's the champ and when he calls the tune, everybody else dances; that's just the way boxing has come to work and Haye knows how boxing works, even if it is not edifying that the WBA/Sky/etc. are only looking at their bottom lines. Ultimately, the fact Haye predicted all along this "cruel and embarrassing spectacle" would happen and went through with it to earn £5m just shows him to be a shameless and morally deficient individual.

[wadey]

You're saying Haye knew all those things and boasted about them. This actually undermines your argument, in my opinion. He told everyone what was going to happen and in graphic terms. This makes him far less culpable than had he pretended Audley had a shot.

Really? I really think it makes it much worse. I agree that it passes some culpability on that his words were out in the open but I don't think Haye gets off the hook by a long shot. Frankly, given what Haye did to Harrison begs the question - what wouldn't Haye do if 700,000 people were willing to pay £15 to watch him do it?

Yes, any fans who paid specifically to see Audley beaten up share culpability. Even those of us who paid in the vain hope of seeing a fight are not entirely blameless.

The WBA, given what Haye was saying, given that Audley should never have got ranked, share culpability. Sky share culpabilty for pushing for this fight and not a more competitive one, etc. etc.

But, realistically, David Haye was the most powerful actor. He's the champ and when he calls the tune, everybody else dances; that's just the way boxing has come to work and Haye knows how boxing works, even if it is not edifying that the WBA/Sky/etc. are only looking at their bottom lines. Ultimately, the fact Haye predicted all along this "cruel and embarrassing spectacle" would happen and went through with it to earn £5m just shows him to be a shameless and morally deficient individual.

There is another side to the arguement, that Haye had to try and sell the fight to the public. Because let's be honest it was an awful matchup, and any one who knows any thing about Boxing knew pretty much what the outcome would be. Yes people may have put an arguement forward as they usually do that any thing can happen in a heavy weight contest. But then again this was Audley!!!!!! Any way Haye was aware of this and realised to maximise revenue he had to big the fight up as best he could by making the statements he did. He is no different to any other fighter out there who is confident in their ability. Klitcshko has made comments about what he wants to do to poor Del Chisora. When he carries this out is the same going to be said about him. No because the bottom line is Del Boy should not be going into the ring with Wlad like wise Audley with Haye.

[Glyn Leach]

Another good discussion on boxrec, well done for instigating it Bruthead. Whether an article is good or bad, it's always good for one to get people talking.

Disagree on your 'semantics' argument — the mental issue, word it how you like, is one of the central themes of your piece, not just hair-splitting. And yes, pretty obvious you are a Hugh-ite! Nothing wrong with that, takes all sorts. It's a question of approach, I think. Your rather dramatic view of things, coupled with your excellent writing style, makes you nailed on for a sports book of the year one day, I'd say. There is a market for the Dark Trade, War Baby, 'deep and dark' approach, boxing lends itself to it and there are people who like to read about boxing the way you write about it. 'I've got an artistic license and I'm going to use it.' Fair enough, you put your words together very nicely.

This is not to say that those who disagree with your view lack depth, it's more that they choose not to fixate on it or on finding it. It would be possible to overplay the dramatic aspect of literally any fight, boxing is a very dramatic sport, with strong leading characters. It lends itself to imagery. But sometimes the imagination can run riot, take a seed of an idea, based in fact, and expand on it to a degree where the reality becomes an obstruction to telling a good story. I think that's what you've done here. It's a good story, based in fact, but in the telling of it the story has lost factual accuracy and become close to fiction.

That's just my view, which is journalistic. As a piece of journalism, your article doesn't tick the boxes, because it fiddles with fact. Perhaps it would be more fair to view the piece as 'sports writing'. But when an article is titled "The Truth", behind anything, the fact becomes an issue.

(My God, how many more typos am I going to find in this bloody post? Excuse me if there are any more, I'm getting word blindness here.)

[JDC]

A good writeup. I do believe that Haye was as scaired as Harrison though. This was a massive event for them both. They had both got into each others heads and both seemed to fear for the worse. In the first round Haye looked even more worried than Harrison.

Both bottled it. Does that meen that Vitali will be contemptable when he knocks a fearful Haye's head off?

[MightyWarrior]

For me, Haye-Harrison was one of the cruellest things I have ever seen, not just in boxing but in life.

Like I say, nice article, but I think you're over doing it on the the whole tragic cruelty angle. It's a cruel sport, and there are 1000's of far worse undercard mismatches a year - hapless no hopers are routinely thrown in to be despatched by the house fighters, without the million pound reward Audley got. And some of the FW WBO "main events" we've seen bordered on the obscene - those guys Joe and Enzo despatched in one or two rounds made for a pretty cruel spectacle.

And the fighters we sometimes see, sent out for round after round, when they clearly have no hope, just to absorb a steady beating in front of the crowd, and sometimes end up badly injured as a result - that's real cruelty.

And how about Ali getting the green light to take on Larry Holmes ?

[Glyn Leach]

Valid points as ever Macho ...

[dbf]

Another good discussion on boxrec, well done for instigating it Bruthead. Whether an article is good or bad, it's always good for one to get people talking.

Disagree on your 'semantics' argument — the mental issue, word it how you like, is one of the central themes of your piece, not just hair-splitting. And yes, pretty obvious you are a Hugh-ite! Nothing wrong with that, takes all sorts. It's a question of approach, I think. Your rather dramatic view of things, coupled with your excellent writing style, makes you nailed on for a sports book of the year one day, I'd say. There is a market for the Dark Trade, War Baby, 'deep and dark' approach, boxing lends itself to it and there are people who like to read about boxing the way you write about it. 'I've got an artistic license and I'm going to use it.' Fair enough, you put your words together very nicely.

This is not to say that those who disagree with your view lack depth, it's more that they choose not to fixate on it or on finding it. It would be possible to overplay the dramatic aspect of literally any fight, boxing is a very dramatic sport, with strong leading characters. It lends itself to imagery. But sometimes the imagination can run riot, take a seed of an idea, based in fact, and expand on it to a degree where the reality becomes an obstruction to telling a good story. I think that's what you've done here. It's a good story, based in fact, but in the telling of it the story has lost factual accuracy and become close to fiction.

That's just my view, which is journalistic. As a piece of journalism, your article doesn't tick the boxes, because it fiddles with fact. Perhaps it would be more fair to view the piece as 'sports writing'. But when an article is titled "The Truth", behind anything, the fact becomes an issue.

(My God, how many more typos am I going to find in this bloody post? Excuse me if there are any more, I'm getting word blindness here.)

This is why I have been logging onto Boxrec for years. To read threads like this. To read responses like this.

Great stuff.

[oliverfennell]

i find it funny that people question his skills, the same people who have never boxed or thrown their voice , never mind their fists

(I have boxed but will take this up anyway)

Why is it funny that people who have never boxed question Audley's skills? Funny how exactly?

Surely you don't mean that until somebody has physically done something themselves, they have no right to question another person who has, do you?

Yep, it always amuses me, that one. Do we have to be qualified chefs before we can complain about a meal? Do we have to be professional musicians before we can slate an album? Is our doctor required to have suffered from cancer before he treats us for it? etc...

[THEBUTCH]

Haye WAS disgraceful in taking a soft option in Fraudley, BUT he wasn't the first and won't be the last in taking a soft-touch as a title defence. Clearly the demand was there and it was too lucrative to turn down.

That said, Harrison doesn't deserve any sympathy or excusing for this pathetic performance. It's worse than clutching at straws seeing posters trying to focus on the two rounds prior to Fraudley getting knocked into next week.

Harrison did nothing in a world title attempt.

It's so desperate to try and bring Haye into question when the bottom line is after two completed rounds Haye bashed him from pillar to post with next to no resistance. Harrison had no business boxing at this level and I'm thankful to Haye that he at least proved this beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Glyn Leach]

But there's no disputing that Haye did next to nothing for two rounds too Butch. Doesn't make Harrison's performance any less terrible, but Haye was in the fight too and for over half of it he was as guilty of doing nothing as Harrison was. That's what happened, we all saw it.

[THEBUTCH]

Yes, that is a fact, but when David did get his finger out he was all business and won so emphatically. Surely, it's futile measuring them against each other for 6 minutes to try and drag Haye down to Fraudley's level?

[Glyn Leach]

Agree Butch, not aiming to drag Haye down, but it is something that seems to have been ignored in everyone's haste to dig out Harrison. I've been thinking about it in terms of the Board and their hearing into whether Harrison's purse should be withheld. Supposing, just supposing, the first two rounds went as they did, then it was Harrison and not Haye who had sprung into life and caused a stoppage in the third. Would the Board have considered withholding the purse of the show's promoter (Haye)? Personally I don't think they would and so they shouldn't consider it in Harrison's case. We'll never know though.

[Datsue]

But there's no disputing that Haye did next to nothing for two rounds too Butch. Doesn't make Harrison's performance any less terrible, but Haye was in the fight too and for over half of it he was as guilty of doing nothing as Harrison was. That's what happened, we all saw it.

Just an aside on this, but has anyone seen Rafa Marquez vs Heriberto Ruiz?

[Glyn Leach]

Just an aside on this, but has anyone seen Rafa Marquez vs Heriberto Ruiz?

Not me

[Andypittcov]

Very good article and sums up the mis-match that took place rather well.

However to suggest audley harrison is mentally unwell may be a little far fetched,could it not be that audley is actually an intelligent man who understands that belief is imperative to succeed in life and even more so in boxing so in talking the talk he was just trying to give himself more confidence and more of a chance,fair enough it did'nt work but without it he may never of even left his dressing room. He clearly is frightened of taking a punch and therefore he's in the wrong profession but is he going to earn the same money working a 9-5.. as long as the money's on the table he'll have a go,that does'nt make him delusional or mentally weak.

Maybe it's the fans who actually expected him to have a toe to toe war that are a little unhinged.

[Syntax Error]

I think brutehead is a victim of his own eloquence.

A lot of people seem to be seizing on the mentally ill comment, yet I have seen numerous comments over the years about Audley, all proclaiming him to be delusional/crazy.

These are mental illnesses, yet I don't recall too much condemnation about those comments.