Blind patriotism (when will they ever learn?)

well frank warren was right, but he said it probably cause he hates hatton

 

Its easy to be an after timer and say how easy it was always gonna be for Pac. But that **** aint the truth. Most people saw this as a close one and almost nobody predicted what actually happened.

 

KEN BUCHANAN - Former lightweight world champion



"Ricky has been a great ambassador for British boxing for many years and I'll put a couple of bob on him but you can't change Ricky, he's set in how he boxes."


"He goes forward, he's a pressure fighter and against Pacquiao he'll do what he's always done - and Pacquiao, who's a tremendously talented fighter, will be too fast for him."



Good call Ken Buchanan :good

 

RICHIE WOODHALL - Former super-middleweight world champion

"I think Pacquiao will cause Hatton all sorts of problems but he hasn't got Floyd Mayweather's speed or skills and Hatton's still the best light-welterweight in the world.

"Pacquiao's fast but he's busy and in your face and that should suit Hatton down to the ground. It will be Hatton's hardest fight ever but he'll have too much."

Good call.

 

Warren only becomes objective when he's not promoting that fighter anymore. **** him. If he still had Ricky theres no way in hell he'd be saying his finished or wasnt capable of beating Pac of PBF.

 

Who the hell cares who predicted what?

Let's not act like it was only people in the UK predicting a Hatton win.

I love how so many people use hindsight to try and make themselves look like they know what they're talking about.

Fact is, few people predicted an early beat down. From ALL countries (except Philipinnes)

 

I posted this a few days ago, but it's worth repeating ...

I think this has more to do with the way the British press works than being inherently biased, actually.

People from other countries may not be aware of it, but the UK press is one of the most cynical in the western world. They take any angle they can and play both ends against the middle in order to whip up stories out of nothing. They've been doing it for generations and are usually very successful at it.

You see, if any mainstream British boxer or boxing correspondent would have said what they were really thinking ("Pac will probably win"), at least three of the major papers would have carried stories saying "X says Hatton has no chance!". If they'd tried to explain it by saying "Hatton keeps his head too still and leaves himself to open to counter-punches" (which is fair enough), the story would read "Useless technique gives Hatton no chance, says X!!".

This is just the first stage. The second stage is then taking the story to Hatton's camp and saying "Look what so-and-so's said about you; would you say it's unfair?" -- which, of course, they would. This becomes "X is an idiot, says Hatton". And it keeps on snowballing from there.

In short: the publicity cost of getting the prediction wrong is very minor compared with the potential shitstorm the media could kick off if you make your answer exploitable. So most people just smile and give them the bland, patriotic bull****. You have to read between the lines. For example, Calzaghe never came out directly in favour of Hatton, he just talked in a positive tone of voice about how "Hatton could win" while never really saying that he thought he would.

 

The thing is you kind of feel you have to say your fellow countryman will win or it will be perceived badly.

I am sure over half of those REALLY thought hatton would be slaughtered.

 

God, I get sick of this sh*te. "It's the media", 'They' say (they always meaning the media), the media playing things up.

I've been a journalist in the UK for the best part of a decade, I can tell you from the quality press side at least that this sh*te about how the media works is nonsense. I suspect you have no more insight into it than I have of being a computer programmer or a horse trainer.

there are screwed up things in journalism - and you might have something that a sense of conflict is the core of any great story - but the idea that the press conspire in some way shows a lack of understanding of how story gathering and standing the facts up actually work.

As for being one of the most cynical, maybe. I do believe it lacks the rigour of some of the US equivalent, but we have to deal with some of the most outrageous libel laws in western media.

the number of accurate stories that can't be written is ridiculous.

If you feel I'm taking this out on you, I apologise. But the attacks on how the media works are now simply being rolled outs as excuses for anything anyone disagrees with.

 

1.) Nobody's talking about the quality press, pookie. The quality press generally aren't the problem, so untwist your panties.

2.) I used to work for a tabloid, so shut your cake-hole. One of my jobs was doctoring photographs. I suspect I know more about what goes on there than you.

I see this "Oh, noes! Someone's having a go at the media! And it's just not like that" knee-jerk reactions from so many quality journalists. It's understandable, but your little patch of 'good journalism' is not particularly over-represented in the sales figures. Over-protest much?

 

Why is it bad for the British to back their own countryman, but acceptable for other other countries to do the same?

 

Before the fight, everybody in Great Britain was for Ricky.

 

Did Ricky Hatton once steal your lunch money or something?

 

I wasn't. I thought Hatton would give Pac lots of trouble early, but fade when he got tired and then get TKO'd because he cant take a punch anymore.