Fraudley in Strictly

Post Reply
Mimmy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Fraudley in Strictly

Post by Mimmy »

What a effing joke.
Mimmy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Fraudley in Strictly

Post by Mimmy »

66/1 to win as well.
tonyevs
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5843
Joined: 08 Feb 2004, 18:13

Re: Fraudley in Strictly

Post by tonyevs »

I look forward to watching Auld-Audley.
Its good to get ex-boxers on TV. Hopefully it'll lead to more invites for other boxers to make themselves some money and celebrity. All too often a boxer retires and struggles for direction and then financially.
There are lots of great characters in boxing. I'm sure we could all name some guys we'd love to see given the chance.

Lets hope Audley sells the sport better than he did whilst he was fighting.
Best of luck to him.
Mimmy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Fraudley in Strictly

Post by Mimmy »

personally I do not think he will do well in Stricly, I think he will be to big to move correctly. He aint no Latin dancer.
jameswilson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13395
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01

Re: Fraudley in Strictly

Post by jameswilson »

He looks a bit overweight if you ask me.
CB
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Apr 2005, 07:55

Re: Fraudley in Strictly

Post by CB »

I've got a fiver on Robbie Savage at 15/1. Just seen he's been paired with Orla as well so gives me an extra excuse to watch them closely! :DD

I only watch it because my missus makes me though. Obviously.
CB
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Apr 2005, 07:55

Re: Fraudley in Strictly

Post by CB »

Nigel1001 wrote:
mimmy123 wrote:66/1 to win as well.
WORTH A TENNER!
You can get over 200/1 on Betfair.
Crazyboy
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1246
Joined: 12 Nov 2010, 11:56

Re: Fraudley in Strictly

Post by Crazyboy »

Nigel1001 wrote:I do not think we should call him Fraudley.

He actually did beieve he would beat HAYE.

Haye is the real fraud. Haye sold up a pup! He knew al. along he was not going to win and so did Adam Booth with his talk of HAYE being a cruiser after the fight.

Good luck to Audley in strictly.

DAVID HAYE CONNED US!

mate get a grip

We should DEFINATELY and ALWAYS call him Fraudley. This discussion was about him, not Haye.
the truth
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 759
Joined: 12 Dec 2009, 11:54

Re: Fraudley in Strictly

Post by the truth »

who cares?
stevieb_8006
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Fraudley in Strictly

Post by stevieb_8006 »

Nigel1001 wrote:
Crazyboy wrote:
Nigel1001 wrote:I do not think we should call him Fraudley.

He actually did beieve he would beat HAYE.

Haye is the real fraud. Haye sold up a pup! He knew al. along he was not going to win and so did Adam Booth with his talk of HAYE being a cruiser after the fight.

Good luck to Audley in strictly.

DAVID HAYE CONNED US!

mate get a grip

We should DEFINATELY and ALWAYS call him Fraudley. This discussion was about him, not Haye.

BUT HAYE CALLED AUDLEY THE 'LAUGHING STOCK OF BRITISH BOXING'.

I THINK HAYE IS THESE DAYS!

thats just shows how fickle boxing fans are. he unified the cruiser division (away from home vs a solid champ). then won a portion of the heavyweight crown. hardly makes him a laughing stock going the distance with the dominant champ of his generation. Who of hayes era has achieved more? Name me 5 british fighters of his time.
DavidPayne
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6248
Joined: 11 Mar 2004, 11:00

Re: Fraudley in Strictly

Post by DavidPayne »

stevieb_8006 wrote:
Nigel1001 wrote:
Crazyboy wrote:
mate get a grip

We should DEFINATELY and ALWAYS call him Fraudley. This discussion was about him, not Haye.

BUT HAYE CALLED AUDLEY THE 'LAUGHING STOCK OF BRITISH BOXING'.

I THINK HAYE IS THESE DAYS!

thats just shows how fickle boxing fans are. he unified the cruiser division (away from home vs a solid champ). then won a portion of the heavyweight crown. hardly makes him a laughing stock going the distance with the dominant champ of his generation. Who of hayes era has achieved more? Name me 5 british fighters of his time.

A lot of fuss is made about Haye UNIFYING the Cruiserweight division. Am I the only one who feels this is sometimes over-stated.

He beat the top man, away from home, to win the title - I cannot deny that. A terrific win.

And in my oldy-worldy view, that is all that matters. As there can pnly be 1 champion.

However, this unifying argument then crops up.

He beat the WBO champion Enzo Maccarinelli. A gutsy but flawed fighter.

Who held the other belts, was it the vastly superior pairing of Tomasz Adamek and Steve Cunningham by any chance or is my memory letting me down.

So when we say he unified the division is it entirely reflective or a supposed DOMINANCE because I'm not quite buying it.
tonyevs
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5843
Joined: 08 Feb 2004, 18:13

Re: Fraudley in Strictly

Post by tonyevs »

stevieb_8006 wrote:
thats just shows how fickle boxing fans are. he unified the cruiser division (away from home vs a solid champ). then won a portion of the heavyweight crown. hardly makes him a laughing stock going the distance with the dominant champ of his generation. Who of hayes era has achieved more? Name me 5 british fighters of his time.

Yes, Haye did very well at cruiser .. but he certainly did not dominate there as Holyfield did. He won against the guy most observers felt was the linear champ .. that isn`t to say the best at the weight. He certainly didn`t hang around there to test his dominance.

He then won a decision from one of the worst heavyweight champs ever ... a guy who had been found out previously by another - at best - average heavyweight.
And Haye got a decision by running for almost all 12rnds ... and lets not forget an ancient Holyfield had looked alot more dominant and comfortable when he lost a decision to the giant previously .. the old Holyfield actually took it to Valuev for quite a stretch of the fight ... something Haye didn`t feel confident enough to do.
And alot, if not most here who watched the fight (even though it could hardly be described as a fight) thought Haye had lost widely.

And as for naming 5 ..
Calzaghe, Froch, and Khan have achieved much more in regards to facing and beating much better oppostition.
To list you other British boxers to hold a version of a world title belt would be alot easier ..
Ricky Burns, it could be argued, that when he beat Martinez, beat the top guy at the weight .. who is to say he doesn`t pick up an easy belt at the higher weight in the future too ... he too would be on par then with Haye :-?
Lenny
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3656
Joined: 27 Nov 2003, 05:31

Re: Fraudley in Strictly

Post by Lenny »

Yes he can!
jameswilson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13395
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01

Re: Fraudley in Strictly

Post by jameswilson »

DavidPayne wrote: A lot of fuss is made about Haye UNIFYING the Cruiserweight division. Am I the only one who feels this is sometimes over-stated.

He beat the top man, away from home, to win the title - I cannot deny that. A terrific win.

And in my oldy-worldy view, that is all that matters. As there can pnly be 1 champion.

However, this unifying argument then crops up.

He beat the WBO champion Enzo Maccarinelli. A gutsy but flawed fighter.

Who held the other belts, was it the vastly superior pairing of Tomasz Adamek and Steve Cunningham by any chance or is my memory letting me down.

So when we say he unified the division is it entirely reflective or a supposed DOMINANCE because I'm not quite buying it.
Think Cunningham was the only other champ.
KOMAN
Cruiserweight
Posts: 27
Joined: 12 Dec 2010, 06:21

Re: Fraudley in Strictly

Post by KOMAN »

Let's hope he puts up a better performance than he did vs David Haye :lol: !!!
DavidPayne
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6248
Joined: 11 Mar 2004, 11:00

Re: Fraudley in Strictly

Post by DavidPayne »

Or yeh, Audley has promised the Richel Hersisia version for this contest.

The bigger ring, shorter rounds and Amateur scoring should help him.
Post Reply