Why is it that so many British "favourites" struggle in America against Americans?

Joe Calzaghe vs. Bernard Hopkins - Calzaghe's 2nd last fight whilst moving up in weight.

Joe Calzaghe vs. Roy Jones Jr. - Calzaghe's last fight and he won convincingly.


Clinton Woods vs. Antonio Tarver - Tarver was the first man to stop Roy Jones...

Naseem Hamed vs. Kevin Kelly - Hamed put on a show and ended up knocking Kelly out, he wasn't a 'big' favourite and it was his first big fight in the states.

Ricky Hatton vs. Luis Collazo - Hattons first fight at Welter... Hatton was at his best at 140.

Amir Khan vs. Lamont Peterson - Khan won that fight in most peoples eyes, dropped Peterson then it turned out Peterson was on the juice.


Carl Froch vs. Glen Johnson - Froch convincingly beat Johnson.

 

1. Everyone looks bad against Hopkins. Hopkins is very good.
2. Calzaghe was old. Still beat Jones comfortably.
3. Tarver was better than Woods
4. Hamed was too ****y and against a good fighter that's what happens.
5. Hatton wasn't suited to 147, was notoriously undisciplined between fights. Collazo was good, slick and hard to beat and look good against.
6. Khan struggles against pressure and is poor on the inside. Peterson might have been on PED's.
7. Johnson is extremely tough, experienced, wily and has a good defense, right hand and countering ability. Combine that with the fact that Froch is quite slow and poor defensively and you end up with a close(ish) fight.
8. Taylor was simply a faster, better boxer than Froch. His chin and mental/physical stamina let him down.
9. Ward is simply a much faster, better boxer than Froch.
10. Khan wasn't the most defensively aware back then and Garcia has a huge left hook and is pretty good at timing it.

IMO the reason Brits sometimes struggle against some of the Americans is because they are usually fighting better fighters than they are used to facing and/or different styles.

 

It's a mixture. There are plenty of British fighters that have gone across the pond and performed well against the odds: Honeyghan vs Curry, Brook vs Porter, Benn vs Barkley.

Sometimes the yanks play games, too. Turpin vs Robinson II they didn't let Turpin train and accused him of ****; Hamed vs Kelly they kept Hamed dancing on his ring walk for about 10-15 mins to undermine his confidence; Khan vs Peterson was a stitch up in lots of respects (Peterson juiced to the gills, Khan docked points unfairly, questionable decision)

 

nice troll thread man. 10 out of 10 :rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Hatton vs Mayweather is an example of biased refereeing. Floyd is the better fighter and probably would have won anyway but the ref really worked against Hatton there.

 

A combination of above options.

In boxing home advantage is HUGE. Even bigger as football and such sports in my opinion.

 

I do know what you mean. I think mcuh of it is simply down to it being hard to fight well away from home. All the odds are stacked against you - home town decisions, little support, unfamiliarity with surroundings, effects of travel. It ain't easy. That's why promoters seek to get home advantage.

 

Yeah they would have all been destroyed if they fought in Britain

 

For me this is pretty much a thing of the past. American boxers/fighters, mainly African American were better than the UK blokes. However the last couple of years, in my opinion, the UK fighters are world class and the US fighters do not have the superiority anymore. If we see Dirrell /Degale and Dirrell/Groves in the immediate future, these fights will show that. Some UK Boxers still get way overrated but that can be said for many countries.

 

Khan v Petersen was a 'huge' stitch up. That referee was shockingly bad! Having said that Petersen seemed to have a career best night and made it a close fight.