My thoughts on David Price

[S. Saddler 1310]

Has your admiration for Mr.Fury gone so far that you're referring to him as Luke?

you're free to speculate. but when are you ever getting out of Birmingham and your mama's house?

Did I mention anything about Fury being in trouble against Chisora?

you mentioned him being in trouble against opponents he 'shouldn't have been in trouble against'. i had to try and give you some credit that you weren't dumb enough to believe the John McDermott fights are telling at this point in time, but apparently you do. is that really what you're clinging to?

newsflash, Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore. Fury has shared a ring with, and defeated, much better fighters than McDermott in the years since they met. identify to me Fury's athletic and stylistic shortcomings in the McDermott fights and then try to tell me that those issues haven't been addressed to a notable degree in the 10 or so fights since. do you think Fury isn't a better fighter now than he was when he fought Pajkic 18 months ago? his fight-game hasn't shown any evolution since then? really?

let's see Price evolve after his crushing defeat. my breath is baited.

You pretty much re-iterated the rest of my comments in that post and made some stupid assumptions.

you must really admire the prophet if you're trying to take credit for my thoughts, but, really, how is the following passage in any way a reiteration of anything you said?

why would you even bring up Berto, chubs? the guy moves like he's stuck in molasses. he's not unusually athletic for a man his size in this sport. a bit of pop and a decent punch-arsenal is pretty much all that ever stood out about Berto.

athletic versatility will make for a better boxer, period. example - Pernell Whitaker was a fine technician, but he was also an exceptional athlete. athletic ideals are nuanced somewhat from sport to sport, but the athletic desirables of boxing are litheness, dexterity of foot and hand, torso-control, the ability to perform a full range of bodily movement with ease. are you going to tell me that those qualities (in varying degrees of abundance) don't benefit a boxer when coupled with fundamental learning? look at Tim Bradley, both an excellent technician and athlete. athletic ability and technical skill is the best formula for consistent results in this sport.

Fury is better than Price in all departments save pop. if ever the term 'robot' befitted a fighter, that fighter would be David Price. a lithe big man heavy who can slip and slide >>>>> an oaf like Price all day.

technically and athletically, Fury craps on Price. the more conditioned we see him, the busier we see him, the more freely mobile we see him. and more than just 'tightening up' his game, Fury has shown a developing technical skillset - lateral movement, creates angles, increasing head and upper-body movement, can work inside, knows how and when to spoil, selects punches well. his awareness of the ring and how to general it is constantly refining.


he shouldn't have been in trouble against Chisora? what does anyone think would have happened to Price had he faced Dereck Chisora? Pajkic? getting caught on the chin and dropped by a tough, game, industrious journeyman opponent is the kind of experience that helps turn a young man from a developing young talent into a professional fighter. anyone who thought Pajkic should be some some easy mark at that stage of Fury's development hadn't done their homework. had Price fought that guy, he would've been knocked the **** out with the same overhand right that dropped Luke. clowns can talk crap about guys like Pajkic and Firtha, but they represented worthwhile seasoning, some variety and some decent padding to a young fighter's record. after being weened on the usual diet of novices and perennial losers for his first ten fights, Price stuck exclusively to the easily identifiable mediocrities and over-the-hill names of the UK domestic scene and was kept well clear of lesser known quan****** with winning records from other shores before Wank Baloney's backfiring attempt to cherry-pick what he believed was a ripe name in Thompson.

Fury has the potential to amount to something. if he stays interested and motivated and continues to be managed correctly and matched progressively and with variety, he's more than capable of becoming a champion and participating in high-end fights. Price never truly had that kind of potential. people just bought into that jug-eared dullard because he punches hard and looks vaguely hench. period.

my views are considerably nuanced from, and often in direct contrast to, yours. how delusional or lacking in powers of comprehension must you be to believe that i'm reiterating your statements (statements which i find laughable, btw)?

It's that inferior complex in play again, anyone who criticised Fury and believed Price was the better of the two automatically became huge Price fans in their eyes.

There isn't a post on this forum where I say I'm a Price fan and apparently struggling against John McDermott is not a cause for concern.

'inferior complex'? did you even finish school? bro, you're dumber than dirt.

you started this thread in an attempt to save face to begin with. your whole transparent defense is predicated on this repeated insistence that you were never a fan or a believer in Price. who cares? it doesn't change the fact that you (wrongly) derided Fury as an unskilled clown and claimed that Price was the much superior talent/artisan. how could you think that? on what observations did you base such a belief? did you ever box? do you know the first thing about boxing? have you ever been to a gym? your comments reek of someone who couldn't spot skill if it bobbed and weaved its way into your personal space and chopped you down with an overhand right.

as Earl astutely noted a few pages back, your established M.O. is to puff up a fighter you fancy on some creepy personal level (HAYE, HAYE, HAYE), while distancing yourself just enough from total commitment to allow yourself some wiggle-room in the event that it all goes ****-up. which is more the policy of a gobshite who likes the sound of his own voice than an educated observer with an opinion he's willing to support with insight and detailed analysis.

Good job at picking out of context comments.

i picked the comments that showed you trying to cover your ass after being called out for showing your ass.

greetings from Ontario, son.

[Tom Cruise]

...,


he doesn't have what it takes.



...his raw physical talent. in assessing the professional potential of a young boxer/athlete, you're looking for signs of how good he could be. you're not thinking about the relative strength of the era (the landscape of a weight-class can look very different in just a couple of years).



please. Fury, as a 23 year old heavyweight, is still a baby even now - he was green and unpolished as hell when he fought McDermott. how much do you think he'd struggle with McDermott now? are you the guys who talk about Adrien Broner struggling with Fernando Quintero four years ago like it's a hugely relevant factor in 2013?

it's an embarrassing conversation when those you're attempting discourse with can't even grasp basic concepts like progressive development.

Fury is not the finished article. after 20 fights, he has fulfilled some of the potential he clearly demonstrated as a teenager and has potential still to burn.

Price has stayed more or less in one place for the entirety of his professional upbringing. he hasn't been developing or becoming to any significant degree, which is part of why it was so easy (at least, apparently, for myself, Earl and Fury) to forsee his eventual downfall against an opponent who would be experienced but heavily unfancied coming in.

this was Price's moment, the potential is not there for him to develop significantly from what he is now, he's too limited. with Fury, there's much room for improvement. as i've said before, Luke could take a loss in his next fight, or two losses in his next four fights, and still achieve something in the long haul. time is on his side. all he needs to do is maintain his enthusiasm for the sport and keep his head focused on his craft, the rest will follow. getting knocked down, losing fights, struggling in fights, all of these experiences are instructive and constructive if the fighter has significant ability to spare as well as the capacity to evolve with learning (which latter has already been demonstrated in Fury's case).



DUH. are fighters supposed to look worse after 20 fights than they looked after 1, 5, 10 fights? what kind of backward point are you trying to impress upon me here?

let's not play revisionist historian and pretend that nobody was excited abut Fury just because your eye was undeveloped, you were naive, your senses were dull and you weren't excited about Fury. how old were you, anyway? 16, 17, 18? at that age, guys like me are teaching guys like you about the sport. punk kids don't know shit and should only be seen and not heard.

anyway, back to class - again, it doesn't surprise me if those who surveyed the young Fury with a lazy or uneducated eye saw little of worth in the kid, but those with discernment saw the potential and saw him becoming what he is now (and better further down the line).



all the people who saw something in the chubby, curly-haired youth just got lucky? they risked their credibility by investing faith in an overweight, teenaged gypo who, by some fluke, just so happened to turn out to be a decent enough fighter to save them from looking stupid? it wasn't a matter of keen discernment and being able to spot and measure talent/potential in the raw?

give me a break.



your eye sucks.

to the unbolded section - i repeat that it's an embarrassing conversation when those you're attempting discourse with can't even grasp basic concepts like progressive development of raw talent.







oh lawd, internet boasts. 'every sport under the sun', 'silly money'. bit superfluous, methinks. somebody must be insecure about their place in the world. another kid living off mommy. are you expecting to make that money from talent-spotting? if so, you might have to rethink your plans.

who on earth calls themselves 'tom cruise' on a boxing forum, anyway? terry-cloth. smh.

Off you go again with the personal insults Like i say we arent 12 anymore, insults over the internet are completely pointless.

My issue isnt that Fury had talent, my issue is with you acting like he was, or is, the second coming of Mike Tyson when he clearly wasnt. His 'obvious athletic talent' was hidden for years under a healthy layer of blubber and hence it was not easy to spot it. By the way did I ever say he didnt have potential?

The weak era was completely relevent in terms of how much unwarranted hype he got, and still gets, coming up. He has a great win in Johnson, and is improving every fight. You think a win against a fringe world level guy gets you this much hype in many other eras outside this one? I would still be wary of his chin and I would still want to see him against a decent tall fighter, before declaring him some kind of boxing god.

My other issue is with you debating like a complete ****tard and acting like you are superior over every other member because you got your prediction on Price right, one which no one here really argued with you about. Can we not just debate boxing without questioning were people live, or calling each other 'nerds'? (still cant get over it, you cut me real deep with that one)

[S. Saddler 1310]

Off you go again with the personal insults Like i say we arent 12 anymore, insults over the internet are completely pointless.

My issue isnt that Fury had talent, my issue is with you acting like he was, or is, the second coming of Mike Tyson when he clearly wasnt.

why would i be making an association between a long, tall big man heavy and a 215lb guy whose style was modelled on lightweights?

either you're too slow-witted to comprehend the points i've been making or you've been stumped so badly that all you have left is some lame strawman argument about me posting up hyperbolic nonsense that i haven't posted. either way, you haven't been able to keep up.

His 'obvious athletic talent' was hidden for years under a healthy layer of blubber and hence it was not easy for me, the random internet person calling himself 'tom cruise', to spot it.

i fixed the passage for you. your powers of discernment may be deficient, mine (and others') are not.

By the way did I ever say he didnt have potential?

when a fellow says that he found it difficult to perceive significant talent in Fury at the beginning of his professional career, isn't he basically saying that he saw little potential in him?

'uhh, this fatass is short on discernible talent, but i dunno, i think i see some potential there.' contradictory no?

The weak era was completely relevent in terms of how much unwarranted hype he got, and still gets, coming up. He has a great win in Johnson, and is improving every fight. You think a win against a fringe world level guy gets you this much hype in many other eras outside this one?

you've gone on a tangent. read the conversation back, we were talking about Fury as a freshy pro just off the am conveyor belt.

so, one more time (because you seem slow),

"the reason he looked a good prospect before getting into shape was because of" his raw physical talent. in assessing the professional potential of a young boxer/athlete, you're looking for signs of how good he could be. you're not thinking about the relative strength of the era (the landscape of a weight-class can look very different in just a couple of years).


now, Fury is hyped? really? he gets good exposure on terrestrial TV and has a decent fanbase because people think he's a character and an exciting prospect to follow. big whoop. that's not undue hype.

Price being declared 'the English Wlad' - now that was undue hype.

there hasn't been an abundance of hype around Fury in the wake of the Johnson fight. generally speaking, his performance has been received for what it was - a praiseworthy showing against a credible foe (relative to the fringe level Fury is at right now) which left room for further improvement.

My other issue is with you debating like a complete ****tard and acting like you are superior over every other member because you got your prediction on Price right, one which no one here really argued with you about. Can we not just debate boxing without questioning were people live, or calling each other 'nerds'? (still cant get over it, you cut me real deep with that one)

i didn't think twice about calling you a nerd, but you keep mentioning it. if it means nothing to you, don't hold onto it.

nobody argued for Price? really? this forum has been full of dumbasses claiming that Price was the British heavy to watch and the future of the division for the last year or so. granted, they've gone quiet ever since that dopey **** got KTFO, but isn't that always the way (*snicker snicker*).

yes, i'm superior to everyone who thought David Price was a more skilled and promising up and comer than Tyson Fury. if you're upset because you happened to be one of those guys, sue me. this is a boxing forum. people who make it obvious that they don't know shit about boxing should be silent. life is cruel, what can i say.

limeys. smh.

[D-MiZe]

you're free to speculate. but when are you ever getting out of Birmingham and your mama's house?



you mentioned him being in trouble against opponents he 'shouldn't have been in trouble against'. i had to try and give you some credit that you weren't dumb enough to believe the John McDermott fights are telling at this point in time, but apparently you do. is that really what you're clinging to?

newsflash, Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore. Fury has shared a ring with, and defeated, much better fighters than McDermott in the years since they met. identify to me Fury's athletic and stylistic shortcomings in the McDermott fights and then try to tell me that those issues haven't been addressed to a notable degree in the 10 or so fights since. do you think Fury isn't a better fighter now than he was when he fought Pajkic 18 months ago? his fight-game hasn't shown any evolution since then? really?

let's see Price evolve after his crushing defeat. my breath is baited.



you must really admire the prophet if you're trying to take credit for my thoughts, but, really, how is the following passage in any way a reiteration of anything you said?



my views are considerably nuanced from, and often in direct contrast to, yours. how delusional or lacking in powers of comprehension must you be to believe that i'm reiterating your statements (statements which i find laughable, btw)?



'inferior complex'? did you even finish school? bro, you're dumber than dirt.

you started this thread in an attempt to save face to begin with. your whole transparent defense is predicated on this repeated insistence that you were never a fan or a believer in Price. who cares? it doesn't change the fact that you (wrongly) derided Fury as an unskilled clown and claimed that Price was the much superior talent/artisan. how could you think that? on what observations did you base such a belief? did you ever box? do you know the first thing about boxing? have you ever been to a gym? your comments reek of someone who couldn't spot skill if it bobbed and weaved its way into your personal space and chopped you down with an overhand right.

as Earl astutely noted a few pages back, your established M.O. is to puff up a fighter you fancy on some creepy personal level (HAYE, HAYE, HAYE), while distancing yourself just enough from total commitment to allow yourself some wiggle-room in the event that it all goes ****-up. which is more the policy of a gobshite who likes the sound of his own voice than an educated observer with an opinion he's willing to support with insight and detailed analysis.



i picked the comments that showed you trying to cover your ass after being called out for showing your ass.

greetings from Ontario, son.

Except those comments I made were well before the Price-Thompson fight...

It's funny you mention a creepy attachment to a boxer when you're the one calling Fury by his birth name. Yes, I was a fan of Haye but I made a thread about how wrong I was a good 3 years ago. I don't sit on the fence, I don't mind being wrong but nothing I said about Price was wrong.

I'll repeat again, that the majority of the British boxing threads on here are related to Tyson Fury. Whilst I like the guy, I don't particularly rate him that high and thought Price to be the better prospect. When have I ever stated Price to be something special? I haven't. I have stated that I'm nowhere near sold on him and Fury's a lot more proven, going on to say Price's progression was a worry.

I never claimed Price as the far superior technician, well done on twisting words to make your argument seem worthwhile. Again, I have said from Fury's early fights that he had a great amount of potential if he could secure a trainer like Steward or a good trainer as his physical attributes were great and he was so young.

I didn't need to save face because I never proclaimed Price to amount to anything great. I was never a fan, find me an instance where I've said as such. I'm amazed at you and Earl's inability to recognise that just because you think one fighter is better than another, it doesn't mean you're a fan.

Your views are often in direct contrast? Apart from our views on Fury, what else have we discussed?

You've reiterated my views on;

- Fury's athleticism
- His tribulations against opposition and making him stronger
- His potential


Obviously Fury has improved since McDermott but it wasn't that hard, he was a 6ft9 in-fighter with no jab, out of shape and inexperienced. My concern is how much he's improved and whether him beating on smaller guys is a facade.

It's a telling sign when you resort to personal insults . What's even funnier is that I don't live in Birmingham and what's wrong with living at home at 21.

[Tom Cruise]

*long winded essay*

Your misrepresenting what i am arguing.

I havent said i didnt see potential in Fury, I havent said i saw potential in Price. You claimed it was easy to see Furys potential while Price was obviously rubbish, you did it a needlessly confrontational manner, but that is what you said. I countered saying that it was not easy to see Fury's potential when he was younger due to the aforementioned reasons. Rinse and repeat.

Thing is we really arent disagreeing on much tbh. I would still want to see a little more from an inshape Fury before i'm completely sold, but hey thats just me.

By the way i would check the nationalities of the guys touting David Price as the next big thing. Interestingly a lot of them are not British, they tend to be Americans or Eastern Euros who havent watched his whole career/ didnt know about his suspect chin (suspect at the time, pretty much confirmed now). It was quite widely known in boxing circles in this country after he was stopped with headgear on in the Olympics and more hardcore amatuer boxing fans had seen him rocked and dropped earlier than that. His fanbase here was mostly casuals and Liverpool FC fans.

Tom Cruise out

[techliam]

I don't want to get pulled into the childish namecalling and hairpulling that this thread seems to have turned into.

My views on Price/Fury:

I predicted a Thompson KO. Price always had lousy defence. I don't think it's fair to call Thompson a bum either. At the top of his career, he's only lost to Wlad twice, and the first Wlad fight was pretty harsh for Wlad. Price can rebuild, but he won't be hyped up like before. Unfortunately, us Brits can get carried away at hyping up our boxers (Fury/Price are the best examples of this) to be something they are not.

I can't particularly see a bright future for Fury either. The guy openly said he doesn't want to fight the Klitschkos, nor did he want to fight Price. I guess he could wait until Wlad retires, but that's a fair few years yet. Even afterwards, if he gets a title somehow, he'll just be one of many average HW's getting titles. He isn't exactly going to be a superstar on Channel 5 either. All interesting stuff.

I'm far more interested in Pulev. If there's an heir to the throne, i'm looking at him. Sometimes I get disenchanted at the British boxing scene as we hype up fighters like theres no tomorrow. In reality, the only really elite boxers we have are Froch, Haye and arguably Khan.

[Ray Corso]

Boxing needs good preliminary fighters too!! Not everyone is a main event fighter! Every show needs some 4 round youth in there and a few 8's and a good 10 round semi event. Even big pay per views have an under card, so why trash everyone that looses when they move up??? Think about it! Ray