Do British boxers fail at the highest level?

Before i begin to give my reasons we have to take in to consideration that the UK is tiny compared to the US, and as a result will produce much fewer boxers, reducing he chance of our guys being as good as their guys, or of those from other nations.

There's no question we've produced some very good boxers and many deserving champions but Calzaghe and Lewis aside we always seem to fall flat at the very top.

We had Haye who to his credit was the deserving number one at cruiserweight, but by his own admission his heart was at HW. he became champion, knocked a couple of guys out and got the world talking about heavyweight again but when it came to it he was no match for Wladimir.

Hatton was the number one LWW, but he wanted to be the best in the world and should be commended for that. we got caught up in it and many gave him a chance of beating mayweather but he came up short - as everyone else has against floyd. same with manny. if it wasnt for those 2 there is the chance he'd be p4p best but who here would say he would beat the likes of cotto and even marquez?

Khan - the latest golden child of british boxing has proved for all his natural ability, he's still lacking certain fundamentals and would come short against the best. he's only young and can still learn.

Murray - he was unbeaten for a very long time, but perhaps he is suited to euro level after his last couple of fights.

Mitchell - yes he's impressive, but on his big night he failed against katsidis. being blown away in a couple of rounds.

Chisora - yes he won his last fight, we all know it, but he was soundly beat by fury and is lacking at the highest level. he just doesnt have the size or power.

Burns - hes fantastic but doesnt seem to have the power to trouble the best. he's skillful and has a heart of a lion but would be be able to beat the top people in his division?

fury - has been rocked in his last few fights. very few would have him being the best in the division even when the brothers retire. with the likes of mitchell and wilder coming through especially.

even the older fighters - benn and eubank never fought the likes of rjj so cant be considered the best.
bruno - come on.

it brings us to froch - he has his night tonight to prove he is the very best in the SW division. history could suggest he'll come up short on his big night. let's hope not. froch is world class and a brilliant champion - but is he the best?

not to mention hamed - we all love him, come on he was bloody good. but against the top mexicans? he gave it a shot and didnt seem to want any of it again.

Just from reading the title I thought "Rubbish! Calzaghe... Lewis... umm..."

Apart from those two (who you clearly mentioned as exceptions to the rule) our boys have fallen short at the very top recently. But I don't think that's a uniquely British thing. You mentioned Cotto and Marquez, but one is Puerto Rican and the other Mexican! Which other nation has really had numerous, completely top-of-the game greats in recent years (From Lewis to present day)?

Outside of RJJ and FMJ I'm not sure which other Americans were the undisputed best for a decent period? Perhaps Hoppo at Middle...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Ring_world_champions

fighters like m. hatton, murray, mitchell, jennings, rees, lockett were never world class in the first place and only got shots because of there promoters contacts so slighty harsh on them when they fall short.

for me calzaghe, hatton, froch, lewis all proven them selves at the highest level. hatton only got beat by two of the greatest fighters of this generation. think he would have beat cotto if they met. never seen the fuss behind cotto the guy is so easy to hit. see a hatton fight going like marg 1

think your being harsh on benn, eubank and bruno (mentally unstable as he was mcall was still a top level fight when bruno beat him for the title)

if your saying british fighters fail at the top against the likes of rjj, pacman, mayeather, tyson then i would agree but i would like to see who else beats these as they are atg's

All depends how you define 'highest level' Not so long ago didn't Britain have about 7 current world champs (yes I know one was Gavin Rees), of which 3 would have been the best in their division. If you are saying 'highest level' is beating the all time greats then I'd agree, but if its about fighting for and winning world titles then I think we do ok, especially for an island with a fairly limited population..

agreed with these points, al good and valid.

the heighest level mean beating the best in the division and for me, there arent too many british fighters who have done that.

they often seem to lose when they get a chance to become top dog, with a few exceptions. i am in no way disrespecting their efforts, we've had lots of very, very good fighters.

In that case I think its a fair point. I'd agree with the post from chelski however that I can't think of that many other nations who have had greater success over the last 10 years...

Mexico, US...I'm sure someone will tell me their are many others!

Id also agree, with no disrespect to the many british fighters who have fought for world titles this year, that the vast majority should perhaps not have been fighting at that level in the first place, Khan, Haye and Froch exempt

Surely you can say that of any fighter who doesn't go undefeated during their career?

Most boxers fail at the highest level. There aren't many spaces available up there.

Cant judge fighters by their nationality. Every match is circumstancial.

In the sense that if we are disputing who is the number #1 we don't come out on top. Bradley and khan were #1 & #2 at the weight but khan lost were bradley didn't. Froch and ward are #1 & #2 and froch has been beat by kessler and isn't a favourite tonight. Haye and Wlad/Vitali where #1/#2/#3 and haye was schooled. Hatton vs mayweather was a little bit unfair as mayweather is special but hatton couldn't come out on top.

Its hard to say we fail at the hardest level as we aren't the only country to do so. Only a select few go life unbeaten so many will lose along the way. History wise i think we don't have as many brilliant fighters like america, mexico, puerto rico etc but we are above others

theclawsgonnagetya wrote:All depends how you define 'highest level' Not so long ago didn't Britain have about 7 current world champs (yes I know one was Gavin Rees), of which 3 would have been the best in their division. If you are saying 'highest level' is beating the all time greats then I'd agree, but if its about fighting for and winning world titles then I think we do ok, especially for an island with a fairly limited population..

Please correct that to 7 belt holders. Who was universally recognised as the best in the division? Calzaghe and who else?

azania wrote:

theclawsgonnagetya wrote:All depends how you define 'highest level' Not so long ago didn't Britain have about 7 current world champs (yes I know one was Gavin Rees), of which 3 would have been the best in their division. If you are saying 'highest level' is beating the all time greats then I'd agree, but if its about fighting for and winning world titles then I think we do ok, especially for an island with a fairly limited population..

Please correct that to 7 belt holders. Who was universally recognised as the best in the division? Calzaghe and who else?

From memory..At the end of 2007 Haye and Hatton were also the Ring Champs in their respective divisions. And whilst I agree that the other 4 weren't world beaters, they were 'belt holders', and as such technically World Champs. The farcical nature of the belt system in boxing is an altogether different debate however...

Crumbs. Forgot haye.

OasisBFC wrote:Before i begin to give my reasons we have to take in to consideration that the UK is tiny compared to the US, and as a result will produce much fewer boxers, reducing he chance of our guys being as good as their guys, or of those from other nations.

There's no question we've produced some very good boxers and many deserving champions but Calzaghe and Lewis aside we always seem to fall flat at the very top.

We had Haye who to his credit was the deserving number one at cruiserweight, but by his own admission his heart was at HW. he became champion, knocked a couple of guys out and got the world talking about heavyweight again but when it came to it he was no match for Wladimir.

Hatton was the number one LWW, but he wanted to be the best in the world and should be commended for that. we got caught up in it and many gave him a chance of beating mayweather but he came up short - as everyone else has against floyd. same with manny. if it wasnt for those 2 there is the chance he'd be p4p best but who here would say he would beat the likes of cotto and even marquez?

Khan - the latest golden child of british boxing has proved for all his natural ability, he's still lacking certain fundamentals and would come short against the best. he's only young and can still learn.

Murray - he was unbeaten for a very long time, but perhaps he is suited to euro level after his last couple of fights.

Mitchell - yes he's impressive, but on his big night he failed against katsidis. being blown away in a couple of rounds.

Chisora - yes he won his last fight, we all know it, but he was soundly beat by fury and is lacking at the highest level. he just doesnt have the size or power.

Burns - hes fantastic but doesnt seem to have the power to trouble the best. he's skillful and has a heart of a lion but would be be able to beat the top people in his division?

fury - has been rocked in his last few fights. very few would have him being the best in the division even when the brothers retire. with the likes of mitchell and wilder coming through especially.

even the older fighters - benn and eubank never fought the likes of rjj so cant be considered the best.
bruno - come on.

it brings us to froch - he has his night tonight to prove he is the very best in the SW division. history could suggest he'll come up short on his big night. let's hope not. froch is world class and a brilliant champion - but is he the best?

It's a real good point you've made. I mean I've always said Hatton did fantastic with limited boxing ability but I don't think he would have beaten a Cotto or a Marquez but those fights would have been more competitive than the Mayweather & Pacquaio fights.

Other than Calzaghe & Lewis we don't have anyone who is really proven at the "elite" level.

Murray is a european level fighter and Fury & Chisora will not beat the elite heavyweight boxers which are Vitali & Wlad.

Now Burns did superbly well to beat Katsidis, someone who causes problems for everyone, but does he have it in him to beat a Marquez (same weight class I believe. We'll have to wait and see with him.

Same with DeGale & Groves. DeGale needs a new trainer for me though.

Khan has too many weaknesses at the moment to challenge the elite. If he works on them he could become a very good boxer but he doesn't possess much power and if he does move up to 147 I don't see him having the power to trouble anyone. And could you imagine if a Victor Ortiz was to fight Khan? Imagine Ortiz landing those shots that Peterson & Maidana landed on him. It'll be Prescott mark II.

For me Froch is the closest thing we have to an "elite" fighter right now. His resume of his last 5/6 fights has been fantastic. One of the best, if not the best, in the world. I really hope he can pull it out the bag.

Not sure Ortiz punches any harder than Maidana whom he lost to by stoppage (polite way of saying he quit).

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not sure Ortiz punches any harder than Maidana whom he lost to by stoppage (polite way of saying he quit).

Oh there is no doubt Ortiz quit. There's something that really irks me about Ortiz. I don't know what it is. I mean the way he quit against Maidana then came out in the post fight interview & said I don't deserve to be getting hit like this, I mean wtf. You're a fighter what do you expect bro. And then after Mayweather KO'd him. I mean I've never seen someone so happy at being KO'd.

But I think Ortiz has the edge in power over Maidana. The guy has genuine KO power in both hands & his hand speed is pretty decent too.

Such things make me think he doesn't beat Khan as easily as some would make out

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Such things make me think he doesn't beat Khan as easily as some would make out

I don't think its easy but I think he does it unless Khan works his balls off on his weaknesses. His defence hasn't improved much since moving to Roach, his inside fighting is still pretty non-existent and the guy constantly wants to test his chin.

The best chin is the one that isn't tested.

Agree with the article

Do British boxers fail at the highest level?

Do the Spanish, French, German, Italian, Swiss, Portuguese, Lithuanian, Moldovian, Peruvian, Australian etc fail? No more than the British but no less than the British either.

A few years ago we had about half a dozen "world" title holders and in a few more years we may have a couple more. The sport is cyclical and the high profile Brits simply lost in a short space of time to better fighters. Chances are that fighters from any other nation would have lost to them as well so I can't see how you can be harsh on these Brits...especially seeing as how three of them (Haye, Khan and Froch) were good enough to actually win a title in the first place...thus blowing your "failure" theory out of the water.

DAVE667 wrote:Do British boxers fail at the highest level?

Do the Spanish, French, German, Italian, Swiss, Portuguese, Lithuanian, Moldovian, Peruvian, Australian etc fail? No more than the British but no less than the British either.

A few years ago we had about half a dozen "world" title holders and in a few more years we may have a couple more. The sport is cyclical and the high profile Brits simply lost in a short space of time to better fighters. Chances are that fighters from any other nation would have lost to them as well so I can't see how you can be harsh on these Brits...especially seeing as how three of them (Haye, Khan and Froch) were good enough to actually win a title in the first place...thus blowing your "failure" theory out of the water.

im not being harsh, and it's not a theory which can be blown out of the water. its simply a question. and one which you didnt answer with any substance.

we just dont seem to have the man that everyone else loses to - bar calzaghe and lewis.
we dont have a mayweather, a hopkins/dawson, bradley, ward.
even the Philippines has 2.
the Ukraine have 2

mexico has had its fair share of boxers who were unbeatable in their day.

people seem to take this as an anti-british topic. it's really not. i hope one day soon we find that boxer.

You can't consider the Ukraine to have two as they are in the same division, sounds simplistic to say but most of the british failures we have are from our fighters testing themselves to the max abroad, do Mayweather, Pacquiao, Bradley amongst various other american fighters do the same.

You could say that Pacquiao fails at the highest level because it's quite to see that Marquez has his number.