Do Americans And Brits Think Differently About Boxing?

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?