Different things seem to impress fans from certain countries

mitchell had a game plan, stuck to it and looked great. i'm english and would rather see a good match in terms of ability and a KO, rather that a pi$$ poor warren style match up, that just makes one boxer looked good in order to generate ticket sales and a boxers profile.

I think the difference is styles. Maybe people won't like the Kevin Mitchell style so much as Khan's. Going on that fight alone, Mitchell is not very exciting to watch. He did what he had to do -- avoid bombs -- and I give credit for pulling off the game plan, but his style irritates me and he irritates me as a person. :lol1: I realize I might be being totally unreasonable here, but I still don't rate Mitchell very highly. Honestly, I think his last fight says more about Prescott's lack of skill than it says about Mitchell's skill. You're just a regionalist Samurai. Regionalist against Essex. Tut tut. I thought Kev looked good, he was never going to bomb Prescott out, he looked 3 weight classes smaller than the Columbian Freakaloid.

in safe too say that the americans find it hard too be impressed by british fighters,i know it sounds stupid,hell it is stupid,but its true but its cool real boxing fans arent bothered about nationality and their are a few on here,you just have too ignore the haters i suppose There is that too. To generalise it is true. We'll send cannon fodder over to the states like Gary Lockett and Michael Jennings and some posters on here with absolutely no rhyme or reason will pretend that we hyped them up. Even though both are just good domestic fighters who aren't anywhere near world class. Then when they get stopped they are written off a bums - they're not bums. There is also ignorance over.....a British style. There is no British style of fighter.

I don't think Kevin Mitchell looked that great to be honest with you.

I came to this conclusion after the Khan fight and the extremely positive (certainly on this board) reaction he recieved from our American cousins. Does the American fight fan value knockouts more than anyone else? Because as a Khan fan, he didn't really show me too much I didn't already know. Apart from the way he didn't just spoil his own work after he had Salita hurt. I knew Khan could punch when he sat down on his punches. I knew Khan was unbelievably fast. I knew Khan was accurate. I knew all these things. He's displayed them all before, before Prescott, and before Freddie Roach. He's shown them against fighters like Michael Gomez and Graham Earl and we can't for definete say that Salita is better than either of those two men. On the undercard. Kevin Mitchell managed to emerge from fighting Breidis Prescott with Prescott managing to land just 11% of his punches and most of those landed to the body. Kevin Mitchell was a guy that so far in his career had only showed an appetite for war and would take and give punishment. He was a front foot fighter, he never took a backward step. When he got hurt it was a red rag to a bull - he'd start swinging for the cheap seats. Cue, the Prescott fight and a change to boxing off the backfoot for large periods and -Prescott couldn't hit him with anything. And, when he did. What happened?......nothing, absolutely nothing. Not a blink, not a grimace. Nothing. I can't help but feel Kevin showed us far far more than Amir Khan did. I guess this is a global forum, so Kevin might end up getting more praise in the British boxing publications. But Mitchell to me was more impressive. He showed an ability to stick to a gameplan. An iron chin. A great defence. A big heart to take risks to get inside and land bombs on his man and ultimately back up and batter the bigger man. All this in his first fight at a new weight against the biggest guy in the division. Anyway. It's understandable as there is more hype about Khan, but he got more praise than I expected. I guess Americans really love those knockouts. British fans tend to value heart over most things like the Mexicans. What are the characteristics other nations? I think the difference is styles. Maybe people won't like the Kevin Mitchell style so much as Khan's. Going on that fight alone, Mitchell is not very exciting to watch. He did what he had to do -- avoid bombs -- and I give credit for pulling off the game plan, but his style irritates me and he irritates me as a person. :lol1: I realize I might be being totally unreasonable here, but I still don't rate Mitchell very highly. Honestly, I think his last fight says more about Prescott's lack of skill than it says about Mitchell's skill. 100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

in safe too say that the americans find it hard too be impressed by british fighters,i know it sounds stupid,hell it is stupid,but its true but its cool real boxing fans arent bothered about nationality and their are a few on here,you just have too ignore the haters i suppose

As a generalisation what do Puerto Ricans value in their fighters

Turkish also like durability as overcoming and conquering your opponent for 12 rounds, but the most usual fans like a war and a sudden KD or a KO

i dont know about most people here but i was impressed with both performances , kevin's for the reasons the ts has stated , sticking to a gameplan , being able to push the bigger man back etc. I always expected khan to win but not in the the first round. The reason i think most americans are impressed with khan's win moreso than kevin's is that khan's last two fights have gone to decisions due to khan moving and throwing weak flurries (due to not sitting down on his punches) . When i was looking at most comments before the fight quite a few americans were picking khan to win a lopsided decision or by late stoppage. This may be due to the fact that a lots of people thought roach had changed khan to a safety first fighter and he would just box dimitriy but he impressed beacause of the combination of power and speed that hadn't shown in his last two performances.

I thought mitchell was brilliant, iv always believed in him and I think he will be a world champ. In terms of performance its hard to judge because how quickly khan won, if he had boxed cirlces around salita and then knocked him out (which would have happened had salita been able to stay on his feet) then he probably would have had the performance of the night. I do believe american's in particular put waaaay too much emphasis on knock-outs, and are guilty of over-rating big punchers. American crowds often get too impatient with skillful boxers also, but there are plenty of great american fans, I am british but I love watching technical boxers with fluent combination punching, 2 of my fav over the last few years are miguel cotto and juan manuel marquez.

I came to this conclusion after the Khan fight and the extremely positive (certainly on this board) reaction he recieved from our American cousins. Does the American fight fan value knockouts more than anyone else? Because as a Khan fan, he didn't really show me too much I didn't already know. Apart from the way he didn't just spoil his own work after he had Salita hurt. I knew Khan could punch when he sat down on his punches. I knew Khan was unbelievably fast. I knew Khan was accurate. I knew all these things. He's displayed them all before, before Prescott, and before Freddie Roach. He's shown them against fighters like Michael Gomez and Graham Earl and we can't for definete say that Salita is better than either of those two men. On the undercard. Kevin Mitchell managed to emerge from fighting Breidis Prescott with Prescott managing to land just 11% of his punches and most of those landed to the body. Kevin Mitchell was a guy that so far in his career had only showed an appetite for war and would take and give punishment. He was a front foot fighter, he never took a backward step. When he got hurt it was a red rag to a bull - he'd start swinging for the cheap seats. Cue, the Prescott fight and a change to boxing off the backfoot for large periods and -Prescott couldn't hit him with anything. And, when he did. What happened?......nothing, absolutely nothing. Not a blink, not a grimace. Nothing. I can't help but feel Kevin showed us far far more than Amir Khan did. I guess this is a global forum, so Kevin might end up getting more praise in the British boxing publications. But Mitchell to me was more impressive. He showed an ability to stick to a gameplan. An iron chin. A great defence. A big heart to take risks to get inside and land bombs on his man and ultimately back up and batter the bigger man. All this in his first fight at a new weight against the biggest guy in the division. Anyway. It's understandable as there is more hype about Khan, but he got more praise than I expected. I guess Americans really love those knockouts. British fans tend to value heart over most things like the Mexicans. What are the characteristics other nations? It's called culture. People are taught to like certain things and many of them are conditioned to it over time. I cannot, for the LIFE of me, understand why certain sports (particularly in the USA) are popular, but they are. The only sports I like are Boxing, strength sports, soccer (football). I absolutely loathe baseball and basketball and (american) football bore me beyond imagining. In Boxing I like boxer punchers. I do not like maulers and I hate clinchers, B-O-R-I-N-G!!! My favorite fighters tend not to be Americans, though Mayweather and Jones are.

I guess your right in a sense. The thirst for KO's definetely effects how fights are judged. Especially in America but also most countries. The fighter who is in perpetual forward motion will pick up cheap rounds. I'll be absolutely fascinated if May/Pac goes 12 to see what the judge do. Because without a punch being thrown and the current ethos of judges in America Pacman has to be the favourite to get the nod in close rounds. You are right that most of the time come forward fighters with get the benefit of the doubt in a close round. The difference with PBF is that even though the other fighter is coming forward PBF's defense makes it so easy to see that the guy is not landing those punches either by missing badly, a clear block of the punch by PBF or PBF rolls with the punch so it doesnt look like a good clean landing punch. In turn PBF counter punches to those missed shots are so clear it doesn't matter that he is not coming forwward or the busier fighter. PBF lands the cleaner and harder looking shots in his fights. If judges truly judge a fight according to rules of boxing you get points for effective aggression not ineffective aggression. You also get points for defense. So with the way PBF makes fights look he is making the fighters aggression look inffective and his defense is great.

Biggest in length. Maybe Funeka? You know what I mean. Well do you mean tallest? Heaviest? or biggest as in star power?

Wait Prescott is the biggest guy in that division? Since when? Biggest in length. Maybe Funeka? You know what I mean.

It doesn't matter what country you are from KO artist will always be more loved and get more exposure than a boxer or any other fighter who doesn't consistently get KO's. Majority of people give more credit to KO punchers because they seem to be more impressed by that than if a fighter a completely dominates fighter b for 12 rounds. Its just the way things are. Both are impressive to me in most cases. I guess your right in a sense. The thirst for KO's definetely effects how fights are judged. Especially in America but also most countries. The fighter who is in perpetual forward motion will pick up cheap rounds. I'll be absolutely fascinated if May/Pac goes 12 to see what the judge do. Because without a punch being thrown and the current ethos of judges in America Pacman has to be the favourite to get the nod in close rounds.

Wait Prescott is the biggest guy in that division? Since when?

I think in general American's enjoy the KO, but who doesn't. As an American, I myself tend to support the boxers that I enjoy to watch. Like Andre Ward for example, many would have found that his victory over Kessler was pretty boring with the holding and such. I found it quite entertaining only because my fighter was winning. I do understand what you are saying with the Mitchell fight and it is a good example. He showed me much more than Khan did and I was expecting to hear great things on this board, nope.

It doesn't matter what country you are from KO artist will always be more loved and get more exposure than a boxer or any other fighter who doesn't consistently get KO's. Majority of people give more credit to KO punchers because they seem to be more impressed by that than if a fighter a completely dominates fighter b for 12 rounds. Its just the way things are. Both are impressive to me in most cases.

Fuck the countries. It's the individuals. you say that. But you can generalise. That's the point of this.

Fuck the countries. It's the individuals.