Do we tend to underestimate our own fighters?

I think out fighters are usually matched soft then make a big jump up in class.

Suspending disbelief with no hard evidence to draw on is fair IMO.

 

From an outsiders view, Brits tend to underestimate their sub-top fighters and overestimate their top fighters.

 

For every Ricky Burns there is a Jennings or Lockett. I think a lot of it has to do with Sturm being on the slide and being on roughly the same level as our top domestic boys and Martinez is a quality fighter just too small for the weight. Our current crop of Middleweights would have been in big trouble if they ran into a Hopkins or even a Pavlik or Abraham in their Middleweight Primes. Not that I'm being overly negative would be buzzing if one of them could win a title.

 

Yeah we do, I think sometimes it's justified but i get impression maybe we underrate out scene. Unlike our football where we have according to many 'best league in world'. Our boxing scene has a fair bit of quality.

Back in the day a European title fight was a big deal and tough test, nowadays our boys look the favorites and normally win or get jobbed!.

 

It's an interesting subject.

I've got a few ideas on this.

Firstly, I think we overestimate the importance of a successful amateur career when it comes to translating that success to the paid ranks. For instance, we've been fed a lot of hype in respect of DeGale, Gavin, Price, Saunders, Jeffries etc in the past four years because of their achievements in the amateurs. However, each of them has been outshone in this period by a domestic rival that had less success, and none of them are really getting anywhere very quickly.

If you look at our top five fighters of the past decade - Calzaghe, Hatton, Khan, Haye and Froch, only Khan was a particularly celebrated amateur, in part because he was only a kid and won a silver at the Athens games.

Second, Flea makes a good point that the level of matchmaking in a fighter's ''prelim'' fights is too weak, and when the opportunity at the top level comes they are found wanting, either because they simply aren't good enough or because their potential has been stifled because of their ability to blow away mediocre opponents one after the other.

As a general theme though I think we are too quick to praise fighters from abroad with pretty looking records, 20-odd - 0 with a 50%+ KO ratio and discount our own fighters going in against them. Here I'm talking the likes of Lacy, Broner, Abraham etc.

 

/thread

 

I'm not sure those those amateur examples are the best BB. Calzaghe is the only fighter to ever win 3 ABA titles at 3 diffferent weights, Haye is World Amateur Sliver medalist and Froch is a World Amateur Bronze medalist.

 

I really do tend underestimate British fighters, especially at the top.

For instance, I remember when Toney stated he could beat Benn and Eubank on the same night, and I did not think for one second he could not.

Of course nearly twenty years of hindsight, clearly shows that to be an absolute ridiculous assumption. But my mindset was; be it Jones, Toney or McClellan, the moment Benn or Eubank stepped in the ring with them, the Brits would be humiliated.

 

I didn't know Froch got that far......

Haye I was aware of, probably not the best example.

I'll stick with Calzaghe though because amateur boxing actually resembled boxing in the early 90's. Not this insomnia curing shite we have now, that only encourages bad habits.

My main point really, that aside, is that we (generally speaking) place too much value on the amateur accomplishments when it comes to rating fighters, either that or the hype machine does and we get it forced down our throats.

Quigg is an example of a lad who had very little amateur experience (in Queensbury Rules) and went straight into the pros and looked the goods from a very early stage.

Not sure what his background is, might be Muay Thai given the way that he sometimes squares up a touch.

 

To me Martinez has always been massively overrated. I thought he would beat Barker but I couldn't see a reason why it would be the shut out some were anticipating. Also, I see Martinez benefiting from the fact Boxing has regressed so much. I mean there is no way he would of been rated as high up the P4P rankings 20 years ago, simply cause there was better talent around, meaning fighters like Pavlik wouldn't of got near the Middleweight Championship of the world.

I see Sturm as one of those above Euro level fighters, but somewhere in the middle of World Class rather than near the top or bottom. He is a Kotelnik level type fighter imo, or possibly a little bit higher, but nothing special.

 

Can't really argue with that, I think that's a fair comment based on recent years. Our view of our top level fighters is beginning to be more realistic though I think, for example most of us knew Haye wouldn't beat Wlad and most are picking Ward to beat Froch. There are a few idiots in the General Forum who give the impression that Brits are delluded but they're thankfully in the minority.

 

:deal All of this.

In another era Martinez would not have matched Mundine, Briscoe or Carter.

As for Pavlik, I reckon he'd have struggled to place above Eugene Hart.

If you let Willie The Worm loose today peeps would call him 'P4P'. Massive technical regression across the board in recent years.