Who was more talented: Audley Harrison or David Price? Poll

I didn't say anything about amateur boxing except Audley left his best in the amateurs. You are getting all worked up over some nonsense in your own mind.

Good luck to you.

 

As a pro Price was much more explosive, albeit a glass cannon with hamster lungs. Indeed he ktfo A-Farce in 1 round.

 

Agreed. I always felt that Harrison turned pro a bit too late, physically. I wonder if he would've achieved a bit more if he'd have turned over sooner (although he wouldn't have had the gold medal).

 

Price was 29 and at his peak when he fought Harrison. Harrison was about to turn 41.

Price is about as old NOW as Harrison was when Price fought him.

And Price has been retired for SIX YEARS now.

Their fight means nothing in this comparison, obviously.

Harrison turned pro too late and stayed too long. I don't know why people don't recognize the obvious and just dismiss it.

 

I had completely forgotten that they fought each other

looking at Price I wonder if part of his problem was panic attacks? It’s like the energy just gets zapped out of him when he faced any adversity. Sometimes punches weren’t even landed on him and he seemed to just crumble.

 

Price was a devastating puncher, just couldn't mix it with the top 10 world level guys. Struggled big time against Chisora.

Harrison struggled big time with confidence. Whenever he made the step up, froze and looked scared. His best win was the Sprott 2 KO. I think it was a prizefighter fight.

Out of the two, I'd say Price was better.

 

haha what a load of waffle, rubbish!

30's is peak for heavyweights.

Audrey was petrified of being hit! I've never seen a bigger coward in the ring, never seen a fighter hate being hit so much. He just didn't have the minerals.

He had a glass chin, poor punch resistance

No heart, not a real fighter

No Killer instinct

& You overrate his skills, good skills but definitely not excellent. he was never ever going to beat Wladimir Klitschko or Lennox Lewis put it that way.

He was lucky to win a european title, he actually ovearchieved by winning a european title and undeservedly fighting for a world title, David Haye could have ended that fight in 10 seconds if he'd have wanted to.

He was never good enough.

 

If your 30s is the peak for fighters, then David Price REALLY sucked. He went 10-7 in his 30s and got knocked out all seven times. Never avenged any of his losses. Never won a rematch.

By comparison, Audley Harrison went 24-5 in his 30s, and Audley avenged three of those five losses in rematches.

So, Audley was not only more talented, winning a gold medal in his 20s, Harrison was better in his 30s than Price was in his.

I think a lot of guys were raised on hating Harrison and praising Price. They can't even articulate why. Because the wins certainly don't back it up.

 

Totally agree with panic attacks in Price when fight was wrong

 

Audley was a better Amateur, Price a better pro

 

you're clearly a fan of audley and a big hater of price.

I wasn't even talking about price to you. I was just saying you massively overrate audley.

audley was better in the amateurs, price was better in the pros, it's quite simple and clear.

at least Price looked like a beast when he was first coming up, in his British title fights he was really impressive, looked like he was gonna do serious damage so the hype was justified. Though he clearly found his level and his flaws soon appeared.

whereas harrison was never ever impressive as a pro, he looked **** from start to finish.

 

What you are describing is heart, not talent.

 

I don't have any dog in the fight. I watched both of their careers as they progressed. Both were huge disappointments as pros.

But Harrison was an Olympic Gold Medalist and was very impressive as an amateur. Price wasn't as good.

As pros, you're also wrong. People in this thread act like Price only failed against top fighters, when the fact is Harrison and Price's big "wins" were never against world-class fighters, just European level.

Don't act like Harrison failed and the world-level stage and Price didn't. They both did.

And people act like Harrison had no chin, when Price was the one who got obliterated routinely and never avenged any of his losses, whereas Harrison beat a number of guys in returns who defeated him the first time.

I watched them both. Harrison was the better fighter.

Seems like most of you have just seen Harrison when he was an old man. The fact that a 29-year-old Price beat a 41-year-old Harrison means nothing. Price was about done as a pro at about the same age as Harrison was when he turned pro.

I think Harrison had 10 wins after he turned 36. Price had one. Haye, whose name got thrown around a lot in this thread, had NONE. By the time Haye was 36, he couldn't even last more than a few rounds against Tony Bellew.

Harrison just turned pro too late and had bad management, as I mentioned earlier.

Price was managed expertly, on the other other hand, and didn't get any farther than Harrison.

 

I mean they fought each other and Harrison couldn’t even make it out of the first round

Audley was scared to even throw punches. At least Price would come to fight he’d just gas out after 3 or 4 rounds.

 

Price was in his prime at 29, and Harrison was 41 and shot.

Price is the same age NOW as Harrison was when he fought Price. Put the current David Price in the ring with Audley Harrison at 29 and Price gets wiped out.

You guys understand how AGING works, right?

Price and Haye never won a fight after the age of 37. And you're bashing Harrison for losing at 41?

And you realize the older a fighter gets, the fewer punches he tends to throw, because the reaction times slow down tremendously. Did Harrison go rounds without throwing punches as an amateur or early in his pro career? Hell no.