In Europe is it that big of a deal to beat a Mexican or African American fighter?

I bet it was in the sense of crowd attendance and PPV im sure, but beating (a limited) LSC made him a star and p4p to some... Santa Cruz was considered a better fighter than Quigg, but talk of PFP probably comes from the run he's on rather than one opponent. Unbeaten in 23 bouts, two weight world champ, good wins in the UK & US, quite a skilled boxer too so it's not that unusual he's talked about in those terms. Personally I haven't given it much thought.

If they are obviously good it is but no one cares about a win just because of race or nationality, unless its on an internet message board then it seems to be cause for a celebration although everyone seems to do that on the internet

it is more that beating a good champion overseas is reverred a little more. Fury's win over 'European' Klit is seriously good win. I'd hold that as being the best result by a British fighter in my lifetime -. With Mexicans I am not sure how many big fights there has been between the two nations that are genuinely 50/50's in recent times - the fight at the weekend and Naz/Barerra - we've provided canon-fodder for Canelo in the main. Likewise the Mexicans that travel to the UK are fairly limited e.g. like a Periban against DeGale. The same with Americans The really good ones don't really travel. Tim Bradley is the best American to come over here in the last decade that I can think of. So when a big fight happens between a top American or Mexican I am inclined to give the Brit a lot more credit than average because usually they will have had to make a lot of sacrifices to get the fight over the line in the first place. Very respectable answer.

it is more that beating a good champion overseas is reverred a little more. Fury's win over 'European' Klit is seriously good win. I'd hold that as being the best result by a British fighter in my lifetime -. With Mexicans I am not sure how many big fights there has been between the two nations that are genuinely 50/50's in recent times - the fight at the weekend and Naz/Barerra - we've provided canon-fodder for Canelo in the main. Likewise the Mexicans that travel to the UK are fairly limited e.g. like a Periban against DeGale. The same with Americans The really good ones don't really travel. Tim Bradley is the best American to come over here in the last decade that I can think of. So when a big fight happens between a top American or Mexican I am inclined to give the Brit a lot more credit than average because usually they will have had to make a lot of sacrifices to get the fight over the line in the first place.

Frampton-Quigg was a much bigger fight here. I bet it was in the sense of crowd attendance and PPV im sure, but beating (a limited) LSC made him a star and p4p to some...

i noticed its a big deal when an American loses...a lot, not all, are petty about stupid sh1t like that unfortunately, probably 90% of those petty cunts have accounts here True and thats what I am trying to get at. You get it but others dont.

I scored Brook-Porter 116-112, that was me being generous. Porter landed about 4 good shots over 12 rounds. Brook utterly nullified him, did all the effective, clean work and won the fight comfortably. Porter had no success, holding and hitting around the back of the head was all he had. Honestly I can hear and understand your argument of that score, I could evn agree with you BUT at the same time I could hear an argument that it was a draw or close win for Porter too. The fight made Brook supposedly the best WW in boxing but why?

So beating Scott Quigg to unify a title was the same in Europe as Frampton beating LSC? Frampton-Quigg was a much bigger fight here.

There's honestly no difference. It only matters when you beat up a champion of repute, which is as it should be really. So beating Scott Quigg to unify a title was the same in Europe as Frampton beating LSC?

In the case of Froch, its not like he did anything that hadnt been done before. And as for Brook, NSB is notorious for fights becoming won by wider margins as time passes. Split and majority decisions turn into schoolings after a while. I also dont think people realize how close Porter vs Brook was, it was about as close as Brook vs Julio Diaz 1. I scored Brook-Porter 116-112, that was me being generous. Porter landed about 4 good shots over 12 rounds. Brook utterly nullified him, did all the effective, clean work and won the fight comfortably. Porter had no success, holding and hitting around the back of the head was all he had.

Doesn't mean anything. Froch beating Taylor was great because of how he did it, but it's way down the list of his best wins. Brook beating Porter was also great because of the hype, but race is irrelevant. In the case of Froch, its not like he did anything that hadnt been done before. And as for Brook, NSB is notorious for fights becoming won by wider margins as time passes. Split and majority decisions turn into schoolings after a while. I also dont think people realize how close Porter vs Brook was, it was about as close as Brook vs Julio Diaz 1.

There's honestly no difference. It only matters when you beat up a champion of repute, which is as it should be really. Absolutely agree. But on NSB that is not the case more times than not. Goes both ways though.

Doesn't mean anything. Froch beating Taylor was great because of how he did it, but it's way down the list of his best wins. Brook beating Porter was also great because of the hype, but race is irrelevant.

There's honestly no difference. It only matters when you beat up a champion of repute, which is as it should be really.