Page 1 of 1

Is Audley shot? He is 35 afterall

Posted: 22 Feb 2007, 13:51
by Heartbreak_Kid79
Before people start saying he was rubbish all along, think about the age factor in his defeat to sprott.
Audley turned pro at age 29 which is relatively late (even if Skeltons was even later). six years later (and nowhere near a title shot) perhaps Father Time has caught up with him already.
Reflexes and stamina erode over time, as athletes are in their physical peak in their 20s-early 30s

In their mid 30s Ali, Louis, Lewis, Holmes to name a few were losing to fighters you wouldn't have thought would beat them.
Audley is in that age category now. 36 later this year.

Posted: 22 Feb 2007, 14:17
by jamesmcdonnell
I think you're one letter out mate......give you a clue, it's the third one.

The answer to that question is definetly.....yes.

Posted: 22 Feb 2007, 14:28
by Mimmy
Personally i never rated Harrison, i always thought that he never tried and i think he actually beleived you can win a world title by winning an olympic gold medal. I also think if Harrison was properly managed and promoted he would have done better, possible British Champion.

Harrison was a scared boxer, i dont think he enjoyed being hit.

if you watch the Sprott fight Harrison came out good, and i think most people thought that Harrison was going to win after that knock down, but in round 2 he suddenly changed. Was it sprott getting up that frightened him, maybe it was Harrisons best shots, and he still got up.

I remember a quote from Mike Tyson, 'My career ended in round 10' that is what Harrison was proberly thinking one sprot got to his feet.

Don't underestimate what sprott did, it was a fantastic knock out.

Posted: 22 Feb 2007, 14:33
by The Hawk
Heres another question, when did Audley even "Peak" as a pro ?? :TU:

Posted: 22 Feb 2007, 14:35
by jamesmcdonnell
Hmm, right before the bell went for his first pro fight?

Posted: 22 Feb 2007, 14:38
by The Hawk
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Hmm, right before the bell went for his first pro fight?
I think so James :lol: .........his career is the worst self pro-claimed great figher hype Job in a very long time.
:TU:

Posted: 22 Feb 2007, 14:45
by nickd
He isn't shot, he was just never that good.

Posted: 23 Feb 2007, 04:33
by Heartbreak_Kid79
I disagree. He still won an olympic gold which is a great achievement.
Samuel Peter was in the same olympic compertition as Harrison, and he is a genuine title contender- still unbeaten i think.

Audley does (or did) possess skill, but lacked aggression. That was his problem. It was his ultra cautious approach that made him hold backa against opponents you would expect him to demolish.
the point of this post is that the six years of his career has been very slow paced with his run of constant injuries and reluctance to step up in class of opposition at an earlier point, means that age is catching up with him now.

Had he stepped up a gear earlier on his career, he could have been challenging for titles at age 32 or 33, (lennox was world champ less than 4 years into his pro career) not still langusihing on the british scene at 35/36 when Father time is catching up with him

Posted: 23 Feb 2007, 05:08
by nickd
Some fighters are better suited to the amateurs. Peter and Vidoz are clearly better suited to the pro game with their styles. Harrison was a good amateur but a terrible pro.

Re: Is Audley shot? He is 35 afterall

Posted: 23 Feb 2007, 07:15
by Syntax Error
Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Before people start saying he was rubbish all along, think about the age factor in his defeat to sprott.
Audley turned pro at age 29 which is relatively late (even if Skeltons was even later). six years later (and nowhere near a title shot) perhaps Father Time has caught up with him already.
Reflexes and stamina erode over time, as athletes are in their physical peak in their 20s-early 30s

In their mid 30s Ali, Louis, Lewis, Holmes to name a few were losing to fighters you wouldn't have thought would beat them.
Audley is in that age category now. 36 later this year.
Great question.

It may explain why his stamina is so appalling!!!! :lol:

Seriously though, you might be right.

This is one of the reasons why I was so desperate for him to fight more often & a better standard of opposition.

He never had time on his side, yet he conducted his career as if he was 18 or something.

I think it may have finally dawned on him what a mistake he has made, or at least I hope it has. :roll:

Posted: 23 Feb 2007, 08:07
by stujones
I am a firm believer in the way you live your life affects your chronical logical age.

Audley is 35 but had an easy road as a Pro, came to the game (even as an amateur late) - had a long(ish) but not particularly hard Amateur career and has fought sporadically as a pro and not in hard fights.

I know he had a bit of trouble as a teen but I don't think he did much harm to himself in those days and soon got his life around and never have I seen him balloon up and down in weight.

Audley is 35, but I would say a very young 35 from what I have read and how I can judge it. His chronillogical age is probalby closer to 25 than 35.

So no, I don't think he is shot.

Matt Skelton generally seems to have looked after himself, but had a much harder career before boxing. No sign of him slowing down at 40.

I think Harrison has at least another 3 years before he starts slowing down.

Lewis' loss was purely down to motivational issues (as proven in the rematch) - at 38 vs Klitchsko he was showing signs of wear and tear but again 3 years older than Harrison.

Did Holmes lose to Spinks? Even if you scored it to Spinks is there much shame in that - Michael was a damn good fighter. Anyway, Holmes had a tough long career as a sparring partner.

Joe Louis - again, any shame louis to Charles and Marciano- plus again it was at the tail end of a long hard career.

Posted: 23 Feb 2007, 08:37
by Heartbreak_Kid79
I am not strictly talking about boxers, think about athletes in general.

By their mid 30s footballers, rugby players, athletic runners, their careers all start winding down

Of course there are rare exceptions to the rule, but age is a big issue. Audley will not be in better physical shape at age 35 than he was when winning the gold medal all those years ago.
He started his pro career too late, and plodded along too slowly.
Within 3-4 years Ali, Lewis, Holyfield, De la hoya plus many more had become world champs after winning olmpic medals.

3-4 years after winning his, Audley was still fighting bums in empty casinos. At such a slow pace by the time hes stepping up in class of opistion hes getting older and older

Posted: 23 Feb 2007, 08:58
by dr_devious
Im not sure whether he is shot, because heavyweights tend to age more slowly than lighter weight fighters. Also, he hasnt got many miles on the clock, especially for a 35 year old fighter.
To me, his problem is that he is "gun shy". This was exposed in the first Williams fight, and again against Sprott before the knockout. Audley simply doesnt like being hit, and isnt prepared to get into the trenches to win a fight.
I dont see where Audley can go after this. He could fight the winner (or the loser?) of Skelton-Sprott, but his career is basically going nowhere. He had the physical tools to have a big career, especially amongst todays crap heavyweight division. Sadly for him, he hasnt got the heart, fighting spirit, or probably the chin to have a successful pro career.

Posted: 23 Feb 2007, 10:40
by glittermonkey
I think that the perfect example of a "shot" fighter was provided when Juuko was shipped over here to fight Gomez. His balance was gone, his punch resistance was gone, and there was nothing at all to his punches.

Comparing Audley to that is just nonsense. He was not staggering around like a drunk at chucking out time, was well on top in the first round, and won the second. Shot fighters do not win rounds against decent domestic/lower European class operators. He just wasn't good enough.

Posted: 23 Feb 2007, 11:16
by stujones
Yeah, his first round vs Sprott was argueably his best of his pro career.

Anyway, it is possible to get old "overnight" but its usually alot older than 35 and following a tough career.

Arturo Gatti, Marco Antionio Barrera are not the fighters they were but they are not Juuko esque shot.

Posted: 23 Feb 2007, 15:45
by WildWaylon
Harrison has never been in fights such as the Ward/Gatti fights - Had he been in with Skelton then I think Matt would have aged him - Tearups do shorten careers, but Harrison has had a pretty steady pro carreer so at 36 he should still be pretty fresh - He has a big gob but lacks confidence to commit himself in a fight - Let not make excuses for him, he makes enough of his own, he just isnt good enough and he has proved that so its time for him to go.

Posted: 24 Feb 2007, 17:56
by harrygreb
audley doesnt have to be shot to be considered not good enough for a genuine challenge for a worthwhile world title, he aint shot he is just not up to it