Why Don't the Brits have a Lockett Bandwagon Already?

[P4P Opinion]

This is what people resort to in the face of indisputable facts...

Do you understand the what the words 'indisputable' and 'fact' mean? Don't ever tell me or anyone else that your xenophobic ramblings are ever more than subjective. Stop insulting the intelligence of this whole forum.

[1g5a22]

$in was just the fastest out of a slow bunch.

I mean, look at his parents:



The one on the right is his mum.

good one

[1g5a22]

secretly he is hugh grants groupie........

[BetterCallSaul]

secretly he is hugh grants groupie........

I heard somewhere that Hugh Grant betrayed his trust and tickled his helmet. This would explain his apparent hatred for anything British.

[J_CON]

Lockett has no chance and will probably die.

[BetterCallSaul]

Lockett has no chance and will probably die.

He has no chance but I doubt he will die. Maybe cry?

[Gojira]

$in was just the fastest out of a slow bunch.

I mean, look at his parents:



The one on the right is his mum.

i bet he wished he never made that thread now.

[1g5a22]

I heard somewhere that Hugh Grant betrayed his trust and tickled his helmet. This would explain his apparent hatred for anything British.

yah his names kelvin aged 34, lives with his mum, wears turn up trousers, thick black spectacles,has a tinge of red in his hair and weezes uncontrollably when he is asked to step into the daylight...

[Clegg]

I hate to say it but I kinda agree with the guy. For the most part most UK fighters are protected and fight lesser talent. They also have some shady judges but not as bad as some other countries. UK fighters (the good ones) should really consider stepping up their game early in their career to prepare them for the big fights. I dont have a problem with people making money but he does kinda make a point.

The vast majority of Americans take no interest in the British domestic scene. This means that they have no awareness of most British fighters, so that when they look at the record of a British fighter that they do know, all they see is names that they're unfamiliar with. They then assume that if they haven't heard of the opponent, he must be a bum.

Lockett is a case in point. He's avenged his only defeat. There is no reason at all for people to assume that he has no chance against Kelly Pavlik if they have never seen him fight.

Don't get me wrong, I think he'll lose to Pavlik and it'll be one sided, but I think that based upon having actually seen him fight and having seen his opponents fight other people.

It's very similar to the Calzaghe-Lacy scenario: "Who is this overprotected Euro***? Lacy could KO a brick wall. Lacy KO1 Calzaghe". Pavlik is better than Lacy and Calzaghe is better than Lockett, but the principle is the same: unless a boxer has 15 KO losses, don't judge them unless you've actually seen them fight.

Also consider a former Gary Lockett opponent: Ryan Rhodes. He is the youngest ever boxer to win a Lonsdale belt outright. He fought for a world title at a young age and lost on points after a competitive fight. But that was the most he has ever achieved. So British fighters are sometimes pushed too far, too soon.

I also want to say...who cares if a prospect hasn't fought top opposition? That's why they're a prospect! It's the champions who face hand-picked opponents rather than dangerous challengers who are the problem.

[1g5a22]

The vast majority of Americans take no interest in the British domestic scene. This means that they have no awareness of most British fighters, so that when they look at the record of a British fighter that they do know, all they see is names that they're unfamiliar with. They then assume that if they haven't heard of the opponent, he must be a bum.

Lockett is a case in point. He's avenged his only defeat. There is no reason at all for people to assume that he has no chance against Kelly Pavlik if they have never seen him fight.

Don't get me wrong, I think he'll lose to Pavlik and it'll be one sided, but I think that based upon having actually seen him fight and having seen his opponents fight other people.

It's very similar to the Calzaghe-Lacy scenario: "Who is this overprotected Euro***? Lacy could KO a brick wall. Lacy KO1 Calzaghe". Pavlik is better than Lacy and Calzaghe is better than Lockett, but the principle is the same: unless a boxer has 15 KO losses, don't judge them unless you've actually seen them fight.

Also consider a former Gary Lockett opponent: Ryan Rhodes. He is the youngest ever boxer to win a Lonsdale belt outright. He fought for a world title at a young age and lost on points after a competitive fight. But that was the most he has ever achieved. So British fighters are sometimes pushed too far, too soon.

I also want to say...who cares if a prospect hasn't fought top opposition? That's why they're a prospect! It's the champions who face hand-picked opponents rather than dangerous challengers who are the problem.

that my friend ends this thread..

good one.