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

[abadger]

that my friend ends this thread..

good one.

Second that, as usual, a terrific post from Clegg.

[1g5a22]

Second that, as usual, a terrific post from Clegg.

agreed....

[Guest]

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.

I'm not sure why anyone should care about unknown British bums when your very best just can't cut it at a world class level...

[anubis]

IBO...

The IBO rankings are actually not that bad, they rank everyone, and the formula that they use is pretty good. They're not like the 4 major organizations who don't rank the other champs, or a lot of other top fighters, leading to guys like Berto being #1 contenders. Look at their WW rankings for instance:

1. Floyd Mayweather Jr
2. Miguel Cotto
3. Shane Mosley
4. Carlos Quintanna
5. Paul Williams
6. Antonio Margarito
7. Joshua Clottey
8. Isaac Hlatswayo
9. Kermit Cintron
10. Andre Berto
11. Luis Collazo

You could argue a few spots, but overall not that bad.

[Clegg]

I'm not sure why anyone should care about unknown British bums when your very best just can't cut it at a world class level...

Well I guess you win this argument, if only the UK is had the recognised champion in 4 different weight classes I might stand a chance, but oh well.

By the way the point of my post seems to have gone over your head.

[BetterCallSaul]

I'm not sure why anyone should care about unknown British bums when your very best just can't cut it at a world class level...

Why do people think that fighting American's is the pinnacle of the sport? The simple fact is that Money = Power, which essentially means that it is hard for good british fighters to fight American fighters on a more regular basis because there is not enough money on the table. How many American champions are willing to fight Britains best when they are in the prime of their careers? Roy Jones and Bernard Hopkins declined Calzaghe's approaches a number of years ago, and it was all down to money. Even then if the fight went ahead it would have been staged in America which is another advantage for the home fighter. Now Calzaghe is the top man, Jones still wants the biggest slice of the money and probably wants the fight in America too, which will probably lead to the fight not happening. Everything leads to a British fighter already having an uphill struggle to fight in a title fight, let alone win one.

All in all, I believe the sanctioning bodies are to blame for the disparity between different fighting regions. The ranking system needs revising, mandatorys should HAVE to be fought within 3 months, and title fights should not be made unless somebody is the top challenger in that division. I want to see the top guys fighting the top guys. What Mayweather has been able to get away with is disgraceful to boxing. Cotto should have fought him a long time ago, and as far as im concerned, if he is avoiding his top challenger his belts should be stripped or his future fights with Hatton and De La Hoya should not be sanctioned or should not be promoted as title fights.

Or I might be wrong and the U.S.A has some unknown boxing gene the world does not know about?

[Addition]

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.

Quality post which !! $!N has no answer to.

[Guest]

Well I guess you win this argument, if only the UK is had the recognised champion in 4 different weight classes I might stand a chance, but oh well.

By the way the point of my post seems to have gone over your head.

Sorry, winning titles in the weakest divisions isn't that impressive. The most competitive divisions in all of boxing don't have a single Brit anywhere near the top 10...

[Addition]

Sorry, winning titles in the weakest divisions isn't that impressive. The most competitive divisions in all of boxing don't have a single Brit anywhere near the top 10...

Amir Khan is ranked in the top 10 in the Lightweight division

Dumbass.

[Clegg]

Sorry, winning titles in the weakest divisions isn't that impressive. The most competitive divisions in all of boxing don't have a single Brit anywhere near the top 10...

Initally this was a discussion about lower level British fighters. When you realised you couldn't win that you tried to change it to a discussion about British fighters at the 'world class' level. Now that you can't win that one you're attempting to argue that what really matters is whether or not there are British fighters in the top 10 of the 'most competitive' divisions, which has nothing at all to do with the original topic.

Is it worth me pointing out that Hatton would be ranked in the top 10 at 147 at Khan is ranked in the top 10 at 135? Probably not, as you'll randomly bring up the topic of why no UK-based flyweights are in the top 3 p4p or some such crap.

All of this because you couldn't accept the fact that watching a fighter is often the best way of assessing their ability.