Something I've noticed when talking to you guys on here is a marked difference in the way we judge boxers. It seems to me that Americans tend to focus a great deal more on 'all time' type status and particularly about 'resume', that is to say that you take the view 'Fighter X has beaten better guys than Fighter Y, so X is better, you can't even compare them.' Brits for me seem to focus more on styles and ability, 'Fighter X is faster and stronger than Fighter Y, therefore he wins, easy'.
I can see the merits of both views. On the one hand after a fighters career is over his achievement is defined by his belts wins and losses, and even when he's active you can't put someone with 1 good win ahead of someone with 20 on the P4P list. On the other hand, when predicting the outcome of any given fight, who a fighter has beaten actually tells us nothing about how he will do against his next opponent, its just a piece of history written on a bit of paper. In this case you have to look at how the two fighters match up styles and skills wise, after all, a great young prospect can clearly be better than his famous opponent with the illustrious career, even in his very first fight. The skill differential can be obvious and its just a matter of waiting for it to be demonstrated in the ring.
So what do you think? Which is better, and why is it like this? Is it something to do with British and American sporting culture, or is it just each set of guys picking the method that suits them best?
I think the british stick with their guys a lot more. Like say if Khan has a bad performance, brits will stick with him.
I've been rooting against Khan in every fight of his I have ever watched. Willie Limond and Michael Gomez nearly got the job done for me :boxing:
I have to call bullshit on this one.
Just about everybody on this board rates Winky and for the majority of his career he did a tour of Europe and beat anybody he could get a fight with.
And he wasnt rated highly at all till he beat Mosely
I think the british stick with their guys a lot more. Like say if Khan has a bad performance, brits will stick with him. If Berto has a bad performance, many people write him off.
British are a lot more vocal abou their fighters I think. Not as much as the pinoys though.
I know I have addressed this is another thread but I do think there are definately different perspectives. I am from Australia but much of my boxing education has been through watching American broadcasts.
Also, expect several posts saying that Europeans think this way because all their fighters have shite resumes, you kow its coming.
Ha! Thought you were American! Anyway its not just you, I think it definitely is like that. As for the shite resumes thing, yes I am fully expecting it. Seems some have already misconstued this as a hate thread.
I know I have addressed this is another thread but I do think there are definately different perspectives. I am from Australia but much of my boxing education has been through watching American broadcasts.
Also, expect several posts saying that Europeans think this way because all their fighters have shite resumes, you kow its coming.
17y ago
Do Americans And Brits Think Differently About Boxing? | BoxingScene Community