BoxRec

SteveDow wrote:Oliver, I normally really like what you post but I have to say that I found this article sensationalist. I am a lawyer myself and the constant references to the public reaction as treating Audley as if he had raped someone are frankly ridiculous.
The fact is that Audley was paid well over a million pounds to contest a boxing match. A boxing match consists of two men throwing punches at each other until one emerges victorious. Many people, including myself, paid hundreds of pounds to watch a boxing match and saw a guy standing there doing nothing for three rounds before being stopped.
This is the equivilant of a chess player failing to move a piece on the board. He did not do what he was paid to do.

It's all good and well to feel sorry for poor Aud when you see the tears etc but the fact is that Audley Harrison is a complete fraud. He is an embarassment to British boxing and is inexplicably receiving a fortune for being so.

Next week, one of the best, bravest, most entertaining British fighters
of the last 20 years takes part in a bone fide world title fight. Yet Carl Froch won't be getting anywhere near what Fraudley got for that farce next week.

x2

Well said, the defence of this man has gone beyond a joke, it's like a fornicating soap opera

I dont know why everyone is going Audley a tough time. It's not as if he hurt anyone!

PS The only defence many seem to have is that Harrison is not a criminal so he doesn't deserve too much criticism.

He seems a decent enough man, or course he shouldn't be hung, drawn and quartered but he deserves every critical comment he receives about lacking heart and wasting such a wonderful opportunity, the chance to become heavyweight champion of the world. Such a shame...he blew it and should hang his head in shame for such a desperately poor showing. I'm sure he'll take solace in the million quid though.

slapbangwhallop wrote:I dont know why everyone is going Audley a tough time. It's not as if he hurt anyone!

:)

Captain Hook wrote:PS The only defence many seem to have is that Harrison is not a criminal so he doesn't deserve too much criticism.

He seems a decent enough man, or course he shouldn't be hung, drawn and quartered but he deserves every critical comment he receives about lacking heart and wasting such a wonderful opportunity, the chance to become heavyweight champion of the world. Such a shame...he blew it and should hang his head in shame for such a desperately poor showing. I'm sure he'll take solace in the million quid though.

Absolutley.

He has more ego than dignity - anybody else would be hiding under the rock they crawled under after that performance rather than talking about his 'destiny' and '2011'

SteveDow wrote:Oliver, I normally really like what you post but I have to say that I found this article sensationalist. I am a lawyer myself and the constant references to the public reaction as treating Audley as if he had raped someone are frankly ridiculous.
The fact is that Audley was paid well over a million pounds to contest a boxing match. A boxing match consists of two men throwing punches at each other until one emerges victorious. Many people, including myself, paid hundreds of pounds to watch a boxing match and saw a guy standing there doing nothing for three rounds before being stopped.
This is the equivilant of a chess player failing to move a piece on the board. He did not do what he was paid to do.

It's all good and well to feel sorry for poor Aud when you see the tears etc but the fact is that Audley Harrison is a complete fraud. He is an embarassment to British boxing and is inexplicably receiving a fortune for being so.

I really hope you bring a higher standard of analysis to your work as a lawyer, the relevance of which to Haye-Harrison I must confess I don't quite see.

The public reaction to Audley was horrendous. Mike Tyson got a much better reception in his first fight after being convicted of rape than Aud did before, during, or after the Haye fight. So, whether or not the article was "sensationalist," it was certainly accurate on that count.

A boxing match consists of two men trying to use their boxing skills to emerge victorious. If you understand boxing you will realise that Audley was conforming to that - listen to Booth's breakdown of the fight or Dwyer from Gambler's Advisory on YouTube. The first two rounds may not have been good for the crowd but, given the huge discrepancy in boxing talent between Haye and Harrison, they went pretty well for Audley.

At the start of a chess game, the players have to move their pieces to enhance their chances of winning the match. At the start of the Haye fight, Audley enhanced his chances of winning by not throwing punches, because opening up would give Haye opportunities. His strategy was to take the fight into the later rounds when Haye normally tires. Then he got knocked out. That sort of thing does tend to happen in heavyweight boxing when one of the very best fights one of the very mediocre. What were you expecting to see?

You say that, "Many people, including myself, paid hundreds of pounds to watch a boxing match," for which Harrison "is inexplicably receiving a fortune." Yup, inexplicable.

You are disappointed at the value you got for your money, and blame Audley. You must have expected Audley Harrison to come out on November 13th and to fight like someone other than Audley Harrison. It didn't happen. Analyse your own behaviour logically, and you will find you cannot blame Audley for your disappointment.

I quickly got bored of Audley, when he was still on the BBC, with Buncey and McGuigan trying their hardest to convince us he was great ... yep, the memory is still clear

This is where - for me anyways - Buncey and McGuigan lost all cred. They really sold themselves out.

At that time, I said that Audley would put the last nail in the coffin regarding terestrial television showing boxing. This wasn`t long after Sky had had enough of an `Alleged` promoter putting on terrible match-ups that were little more than record fillers.

Turns out Audley did damage the sport, but no more than the said promoter did, only difference being is that Audley was a clearer target.

Can I forgive Audley?
Of course. He did, what he did, because it was offered and open to him to do so. I`d imagine any other pro-boxer would do the same.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:At least Audley had the stones to get up and face the music. He could easily have stayed down, he's not a coward, but he is definitely terrified of letting his hands go. He seems afraid to punch, more so than getting hit. It's most bizzare.

Well said.

The man is not a coward as some seem to be making out, he's just very reluctant to let his hands go. He was clearly looking to counter Haye with his left, i think that was his plan A, B and C for the whole fight. Haye gave Audley nothing at all to counter during those first two rounds (betting scam?) and, with his first attack of the fight, he took Audley out.

It was definately a rotten performance from Audley and he deserves a lot of stick for it, he should have let his hands go and made a fight of it. Given all of his boasting over the years, in comparison to his achievements (post olympics) he definately deserves the title of Fraudley, but its wrong to call the man a coward.

bruthead wrote:
I really hope you bring a higher standard of analysis to your work as a lawyer, the relevance of which to Haye-Harrison I must confess I don't quite see.

The public reaction to Audley was horrendous. Mike Tyson got a much better reception in his first fight after being convicted of rape than Aud did before, during, or after the Haye fight. So, whether or not the article was "sensationalist," it was certainly accurate on that count.

A boxing match consists of two men trying to use their boxing skills to emerge victorious. If you understand boxing you will realise that Audley was conforming to that - listen to Booth's breakdown of the fight or Dwyer from Gambler's Advisory on YouTube. The first two rounds may not have been good for the crowd but, given the huge discrepancy in boxing talent between Haye and Harrison, they went pretty well for Audley.

At the start of a chess game, the players have to move their pieces to enhance their chances of winning the match. At the start of the Haye fight, Audley enhanced his chances of winning by not throwing punches, because opening up would give Haye opportunities. His strategy was to take the fight into the later rounds when Haye normally tires. Then he got knocked out. That sort of thing does tend to happen in heavyweight boxing when one of the very best fights one of the very mediocre. What were you expecting to see?

You say that, "Many people, including myself, paid hundreds of pounds to watch a boxing match," for which Harrison "is inexplicably receiving a fortune." Yup, inexplicable.

You are disappointed at the value you got for your money, and blame Audley. You must have expected Audley Harrison to come out on November 13th and to fight like someone other than Audley Harrison. It didn't happen. Analyse your own behaviour logically, and you will find you cannot blame Audley for your disappointment.

Audley should have been throwing jabs and trying to actively land his left hand rather than sitting there doing nothing. His only chance to win the fight was to be active in the fight and throw jabs but he was too frightened to throw punches. He didn't fight a good fight at all. He fought a pretty bad fight if you ask me. Are you actually giving Audley credit for fighting the way he did? He gave himself no chance of winning. He should have been extending his jab out there and throwing left hands from time to time to make haye weary of opening up.

You are right about where the blame should lie. This fight was clearly what it was. Everybody knew it and everybody should have known that Audley had no chance here and would fight the way he has always fought, instead of changing and giving himself a chance to win the fight by being proactive.

tonyevs wrote:I quickly got bored of Audley, when he was still on the BBC, with Buncey and McGuigan trying their hardest to convince us he was great ... yep, the memory is still clear

This is where - for me anyways - Buncey and McGuigan lost all cred. They really sold themselves out.

At that time, I said that Audley would put the last nail in the coffin regarding terestrial television showing boxing. This wasn`t long after Sky had had enough of an `Alleged` promoter putting on terrible match-ups that were little more than record fillers.

Turns out Audley did damage the sport, but no more than the said promoter did, only difference being is that Audley was a clearer target.

Can I forgive Audley?
Of course. He did, what he did, because it was offered and open to him to do so. I`d imagine any other pro-boxer would do the same.

You mean McKenzie?

no - in all fairness to Duke he just used to do the commentating.

McGuigan was the guy bigging him up. Hard to forget the Buncey & Barry back then ....

tonyevs wrote:no - in all fairness to Duke he just used to do the commentating.

McGuigan was the guy bigging him up. Hard to forget the Buncey & Barry back then ....

Barry never worked for the BBC. He's ALWAYS slagged off Audley. You mean Woodhall - cause it wasn't Barry for the BBC.

ThereByTheGrace wrote:The question you lot should be asking is:

"Can You Forgive SKY?!!! No you can't"

Thats what happens when you give let a monopoly run British Boxing - to hell with them.

Harrison was never good enough yes - the beeb are partly to blame for giving him that contract - but sky made more from 8 mins than the beeb ever did and they get away scot free?!

NO CHANCE

I partly agree - i dont mind a lacklustre title fight but they absolutely dogged us with the undercard. Surely some guys like warmachine, fury, price, dallas, afolabi or anyone half intereting were available for some fights. Its should be a 3 live fight minimum on any undercard.

stujones wrote:

tonyevs wrote:no - in all fairness to Duke he just used to do the commentating.

McGuigan was the guy bigging him up. Hard to forget the Buncey & Barry back then ....

Barry never worked for the BBC. He's ALWAYS slagged off Audley. You mean Woodhall - cause it wasn't Barry for the BBC.

Im fast learning tony is a clueless guesser!

stujones wrote:

tonyevs wrote:no - in all fairness to Duke he just used to do the commentating.

McGuigan was the guy bigging him up. Hard to forget the Buncey & Barry back then ....

Barry never worked for the BBC. He's ALWAYS slagged off Audley. You mean Woodhall - cause it wasn't Barry for the BBC.

Got me thinking hard now ...

Pretty sure it was Barry. Seem to remember then competing for attention ...

Anybody else remember for sure?

tonyevs wrote:

stujones wrote:

tonyevs wrote:no - in all fairness to Duke he just used to do the commentating.

McGuigan was the guy bigging him up. Hard to forget the Buncey & Barry back then ....

Barry never worked for the BBC. He's ALWAYS slagged off Audley. You mean Woodhall - cause it wasn't Barry for the BBC.

Got me thinking hard now ...

Pretty sure it was Barry. Seem to remember then competing for attention ...

Anybody else remember for sure?

Seems like Stuart remembers mate, he's not usually wrong on these matters. Memory is a funny old thing.

Stuart's right, old Baz has always been ITV or Sky....

It was the McKenzie, Bunce, Woodhall and Rawlins show on the Beeb at that time......

I remember several pieces with Bunce strolling around housing estates with Big Aud, hands clasped together urging people to be patient with him, to calm down and let him fulfil his destiny...etc etc etc

Looks like i'm off to stand in the corner with my pointy hat on again then ...

tonyevs wrote:Looks like i'm off to stand in the corner with my pointy hat on again then ...

You are thinking of Jim McNeilly mate!

Captain Hook wrote:Stuart's right, old Baz has always been ITV or Sky....

It was the McKenzie, Bunce, Woodhall and Rawlins show on the Beeb at that time......

I remember several pieces with Bunce strolling around housing estates with Big Aud, hands clasped together urging people to be patient with him, to calm down and let him fulfil his destiny...etc etc etc

I'm getting confused now! Was it Rawlins or Neilly?!

Anyway, Darke is my favourite.....

It was both, but more Neilly.

Marvin Hagler was the co-commentator in some of the early "Audrey" (as he called him accidently) fights (first two if I remember correctly although it might have been a couple more). It is forbidden by law to criticise the marvelous one. I think for Audley's debut they brought the late, great, Harry Carpenter out of retirement to co-commentate (he was also there for Lewis vs Rahman).

Claude Abrahms was there also at times.

TerribleTerry wrote:How can you hold a grudge against a fighter of Audley's calibre?

Such a lethal combination puncher; a man who's inside work has at times been reminiscent of a prime Riddick Bowe...

Presume that's a dig at me quoting somebody else?

SteveDow wrote:Oliver, I normally really like what you post but I have to say that I found this article sensationalist. I am a lawyer myself and the constant references to the public reaction as treating Audley as if he had raped someone are frankly ridiculous.

Nope, the reaction has been stronger than if he'd raped someone. That's the whole crux of the article. I'm not defending his performance - I was as disappointed by it as anybody - and I'm not asking anyone to sympathise with him. The point I'm making is that he's been turned into a pariah for a much lesser offence, whether on a sporting or societal level - than a great many others.

PaddyBoxing wrote:

bruthead wrote:
I really hope you bring a higher standard of analysis to your work as a lawyer, the relevance of which to Haye-Harrison I must confess I don't quite see.

The public reaction to Audley was horrendous. Mike Tyson got a much better reception in his first fight after being convicted of rape than Aud did before, during, or after the Haye fight. So, whether or not the article was "sensationalist," it was certainly accurate on that count.

A boxing match consists of two men trying to use their boxing skills to emerge victorious. If you understand boxing you will realise that Audley was conforming to that - listen to Booth's breakdown of the fight or Dwyer from Gambler's Advisory on YouTube. The first two rounds may not have been good for the crowd but, given the huge discrepancy in boxing talent between Haye and Harrison, they went pretty well for Audley.

At the start of a chess game, the players have to move their pieces to enhance their chances of winning the match. At the start of the Haye fight, Audley enhanced his chances of winning by not throwing punches, because opening up would give Haye opportunities. His strategy was to take the fight into the later rounds when Haye normally tires. Then he got knocked out. That sort of thing does tend to happen in heavyweight boxing when one of the very best fights one of the very mediocre. What were you expecting to see?

You say that, "Many people, including myself, paid hundreds of pounds to watch a boxing match," for which Harrison "is inexplicably receiving a fortune." Yup, inexplicable.

You are disappointed at the value you got for your money, and blame Audley. You must have expected Audley Harrison to come out on November 13th and to fight like someone other than Audley Harrison. It didn't happen. Analyse your own behaviour logically, and you will find you cannot blame Audley for your disappointment.

Audley should have been throwing jabs and trying to actively land his left hand rather than sitting there doing nothing. His only chance to win the fight was to be active in the fight and throw jabs but he was too frightened to throw punches. He didn't fight a good fight at all. He fought a pretty bad fight if you ask me. Are you actually giving Audley credit for fighting the way he did? He gave himself no chance of winning. He should have been extending his jab out there and throwing left hands from time to time to make haye weary of opening up.

You are right about where the blame should lie. This fight was clearly what it was. Everybody knew it and everybody should have known that Audley had no chance here and would fight the way he has always fought, instead of changing and giving himself a chance to win the fight by being proactive.

Yes, even though Bruthead and I are on the same page in some respects, that's an odd reading of the fight. The way I saw it, Harrison not throwing punches only gave Haye even MORE confidence - i.e. how can you discourage a man without hitting him. I actually feel Haye was pretty wary in the early going, but Harrison's timidity gave him caret blanche to tee off.

kingfinn wrote:

ThereByTheGrace wrote:The question you lot should be asking is:

"Can You Forgive SKY?!!! No you can't"

Thats what happens when you give let a monopoly run British Boxing - to hell with them.

Harrison was never good enough yes - the beeb are partly to blame for giving him that contract - but sky made more from 8 mins than the beeb ever did and they get away scot free?!

NO CHANCE

I partly agree - i dont mind a lacklustre title fight but they absolutely dogged us with the undercard. Surely some guys like warmachine, fury, price, dallas, afolabi or anyone half intereting were available for some fights. Its should be a 3 live fight minimum on any undercard.

Absolutely agree. Or even with the undercard they had, there was no reason not to show at least 3 or 4 fights. That was a bigger con job than anything Harrison pulled, and even if the main event turned out to be terrific, it would still have been a shocking bill by PPV standards.