Anyone notice the best Brits take more risks than most US fighters?

[daggum]

Quality over quantity. I consider someone like Josh Taylor from that area a semi-bum. The quality of British boxers has always been questionable. Their bums are MASSIVE down there, our champs are bums over here.

taylor is a semi bum? he has wins over prograis who is #2 right now, postol #4 right now, and baranchyk #6 right now and prograis was #1 when he fought him and postol #2 when he fought him. tank has literally fought one top 10 fighter his entire career which was pedraza at #6. you cant say quality over quantity when you dont really care about that. in fact you care about the complete opposite. next taylor is figthing the #1 guy again while tank is figthing some random guy who got schooled bya 7-0 fighter lol. quality for sure!

[rickJen]

Boxing in America is un-saveable.
The fighters on top are fighting their own individual fights while ignoring each other.
They get the biggest chunk of the budget while the rest only get a miniscule of it.
They are in complete control and nothing can be done about it.
All you can do is pray and see them lose while fighting scraps.

[keithj]

To me it looks like (almost) everyone tries to make the most of their career, and that means doing slightly different things in different locales.

[Zaryu]

Very good point,, I can't think of a current American champion that would fight Errol Spence like Kell Brook did, coming off his first KO loss and moving back down two weightclasses.

[Toffee]

Are you taking the p*** mate?

He fought an 11 year undefeated Klitschko in the away corner in Germany, and also fought a 41-0 Wilder in the away corner America. How is that not taking a risk?

What was he risking? He had nothing on both occasions.

He was a mandatory once. And coming back off a drug, drink and kebab binge the other time when he beat a champion with no notable wins.

So far, when he's had any kind of status he's fought relative unknowns. When he's actually held a belt he's gone inactive.

Fighting for belts when you hold nothing isn't a risk. It's an opportunity.

i give him credit for the Klitschko win, though we never got a conclusion to that match up and I still think Wlad would have avenged. Fury writes his own history though.

[Ray*]

Am not saying this because am a brit, but this is definitely true. I mean you should just look at the american posters on here as a perfect examples of how the mentality is in america when it comes to making fights. They would literally throw in road blocks rather than ask a question in regards to a fight happening.

You see that with Errol Spence v Crawford, instead of not arguing why the fight shouldn't happen, they are asking questions like "Who has Crawford fought or beaten to deserve a Spence fight" or "PPV numbers is difference" ........ I don't think you would see a brit speaking like that, or defending why a fight like that shouldn't happen.

If Josh Taylor was american you wouldn't see him fighting Ramirez in a unification, he would be doing showcase upon showcase fights on PPV for 80 dollars. Whilst being proclaimed the PPV king and superstar with 250K PPV against a Latino boxer on Latino days etc. I mean i have no issue with boxers earning bigger money but you have those who were actually ok with Jermall Charlo ducking Demetrius Andrade for 7m dollars, once of those posters even talked about his mansion in Texas to say "He is doing well for himself".....Like WTF!!!

[DaNeutral.]

Spence said it quite clearly when he said "why should i take fights like Crawford WHEN I CAN TAKE THE EASY ROUTE".

The man stands by his logic and it may even make business sense but those were his words, "WHEN I CAN TAKE THE EASY ROUTE".

They also call it either "playing chess" or "******** on himself". There is always the big risk fighter and these guys wana face them last or not at all.

[Toffee]

Am not saying this because am a brit, but this is definitely true. I mean you should just look at the american posters on here as a perfect examples of how the mentality is in america when it comes to making fights. They would literally throw in road blocks rather than ask a question in regards to a fight happening.

You see that with Errol Spence v Crawford, instead of not arguing why the fight shouldn't happen, they are asking questions like "Who has Crawford fought or beaten to deserve a Spence fight" or "PPV numbers is difference" ........ I don't think you would see a brit speaking like that, or defending why a fight like that shouldn't happen.

If Josh Taylor was american you wouldn't see him fighting Ramirez in a unification, he would be doing showcase upon showcase fights on PPV for 80 dollars. Whilst being proclaimed the PPV king and superstar with 250K PPV against a Latino boxer on Latino days etc. I mean i have no issue with boxers earning bigger money but you have those who were actually ok with Jermall Charlo ducking Demetrius Andrade for 7m dollars, once of those posters even talked about his mansion in Texas to say "He is doing well for himself".....Like WTF!!!

As an outsider there seems to be a culture in the US of making it in sport for the money.

I'm not saying Brits don't want cash, but there seems to be far more sporting integrity.

[Ray*]

As an outsider there seems to be a culture in the US of making it in sport for the money.

I'm not saying Brits don't want cash, but there seems to be far more sporting integrity.

I definitely agree with making it in sport for the money (Hence why am shocked that they should defend a boxer like Tank turning down 5M to fight farmer) or (Charlo turning down 7M to face Boo Boo), when those fighters alternatives were to take lesser fights in money terms. And its not like turning down those offers benefitted those boxers, it benefitted their advisers/managers/promoters due to those guys business interests (AKA their networks). I mean Mayweather and Ellerbe made the "If it makes dollars it makes sense" motto, now it doesn't even have to make dollars, they are willing to fight for 3-5 times less, because it makes sense for their managers/promoters business affiliation.........This is why am impressed with Teo Lopez for showing these older guys how it is done. Especially when the Ali act is there for all these boxers and they fail to utilise it.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

What was he risking? He had nothing on both occasions.

He was a mandatory once. And coming back off a drug, drink and kebab binge the other time when he beat a champion with no notable wins.

So far, when he's had any kind of status he's fought relative unknowns. When he's actually held a belt he's gone inactive.

Fighting for belts when you hold nothing isn't a risk. It's an opportunity.

i give him credit for the Klitschko win, though we never got a conclusion to that match up and I still think Wlad would have avenged. Fury writes his own history though.

No HW has taken riskier matchups than that. What matchups were riskier? He was a considerable betting underdog in both Klitschko and Wilder 1 how is that not taking a risk when you’re expected to lose.

The first Wilder fight was crazy risky. He wasn’t in great shape, he wasn’t prepared in regard to opposition, Fury could have easily continued his comeback tour fighting bums like Seferi but instead he went over to America and fought the most fearsome puncher in the division. I thought he was crazy jumping into that fight and feared he was simply cashing out. I can’t believe you don’t recognise that as a ballsy decision. That’s the riskiest fight a HW has taken in years IMO.