Do u americans think that we british fans hype up ...

[ryanman]

Too many beers.

comparing hatton to lacy

Hatton got beat by the 2 best fighters of the last 15 years. Lacy got beat by jermain taylor

Who in turn beat one of the greatest Middleweights of all time twice in his own weight class. Your point being? Lacy has only lost to Calzaghe, Taylor, and Roy Jones Jr. Two hall of famers and one guy who beat a Hall Of Famer and the greatest in his weight division(or top three) twice and he lost to Taylor and Roy after his shoulder injury and he never looked the same since that injury either. Hattons excuse is what? The ring post ruined him?

So I don't see what you're getting at

Erm, i'm not sure Hatton needs to make excuses for his 4 'world' titles. So he wasn't the best fighter in the world. but i don't think anyone really ever thought he was. People thought he was damn good...and he was.

[ryanman]

The reality is that the majority of the British public would say we are shit at sport. The general attitute is far too negative.
A few stats -
The most f1 drivers titles of any nation,
Football team ranked 7th (of 21
Rugby team that has reached last two world cup finals
Numerous boxing world champs
4th in medal table at Olympics.
Cricket team that has won 2 of the last 3 Ashes.
By far the dominant force in track cycling.

Not to mention the world beaters we have in squash, triathlon, darts, snooker, swimming etc etc.

I'm not saying Britian is the most successful sporting nation, but we are far better than the miserable, negative British public would say.
For example, Australia are our main sporting rivals, now if you asked the british public who was the better sporting nation id say 80% would say Australia. Yet we have beat them in last two rugby world cups, beat them in 2 of last 3 Ashes, beat them at 2008 Olympics. (im not mentioning football here as they don't reallt take it seriously). I could list loads of sports that the British beat them at, yet the only sports you could make a case for them are rugby, cricket and swimming. Ive already shown how the first two are debateable, so that leaves swimming. And we can give them that.

[ryanman]

The reality is that the majority of the British public would say we are shit at sport. The general attitute is far too negative.
A few stats -
The most f1 drivers titles of any nation,
Football team ranked 7th (of 21
Rugby team that has reached last two world cup finals
Numerous boxing world champs
4th in medal table at Olympics.
Cricket team that has won 2 of the last 3 Ashes.
By far the dominant force in track cycling.

Not to mention the world beaters we have in squash, triathlon, darts, snooker, swimming etc etc.

I'm not saying Britian is the most successful sporting nation, but we are far better than the miserable, negative British public would say.
For example, Australia are our main sporting rivals, now if you asked the british public who was the better sporting nation id say 80% would say Australia. Yet we have beat them in last two rugby world cups, beat them in 2 of last 3 Ashes, beat them at 2008 Olympics. (im not mentioning football here as they don't reallt take it seriously). I could list loads of sports that the British beat them at, yet the only sports you could make a case for them are rugby, cricket and swimming. Ive already shown how the first two are debateable, so that leaves swimming. And we can give them that.

That should read 2 1 8. not 21smiley face with glasses.

[skel1983]

The reality is that the majority of the British public would say we are shit at sport. The general attitute is far too negative.
A few stats -
The most f1 drivers titles of any nation,
Football team ranked 7th (of 21
Rugby team that has reached last two world cup finals
Numerous boxing world champs
4th in medal table at Olympics.
Cricket team that has won 2 of the last 3 Ashes.
By far the dominant force in track cycling.

Not to mention the world beaters we have in squash, triathlon, darts, snooker, swimming etc etc.

I'm not saying Britian is the most successful sporting nation, but we are far better than the miserable, negative British public would say.
For example, Australia are our main sporting rivals, now if you asked the british public who was the better sporting nation id say 80% would say Australia. Yet we have beat them in last two rugby world cups, beat them in 2 of last 3 Ashes, beat them at 2008 Olympics. (im not mentioning football here as they don't reallt take it seriously). I could list loads of sports that the British beat them at, yet the only sports you could make a case for them are rugby, cricket and swimming. Ive already shown how the first two are debateable, so that leaves swimming. And we can give them that.

Some shit sports you mentioned mate, Darts, Snooker and Squash?? How many countires take them sports seriously, we did win the ashes but we also lost the last ashes in Australia 5-0 and we were just embarrased 6-1 in the one day internationals and made to look silly in the ICC event by the Australians again.

Also Australias population is over a third less than the Uk.

We are decent at some sports but we should be with the amount of inferstructure we have in place, in reality we are a disgrace if you look at the bigger picture, lets take Tennis for instance we have 1 player in the top 100, where as other nations who again are smaller in poulation have 5+players in the top 100 and all these nations work on a budget which is much less than a quater that we invest to produce champions, the same with cycling I would say that is the main sport where we are getting out results that the amount of money invested should do.

But like I say overall we underachieve in most sports when you consider the amount of money we invest.

[ryanman]

The reality is that the majority of the British public would say we are shit at sport. The general attitute is far too negative.
A few stats -
The most f1 drivers titles of any nation,
Football team ranked 7th (of 21
Rugby team that has reached last two world cup finals
Numerous boxing world champs
4th in medal table at Olympics.
Cricket team that has won 2 of the last 3 Ashes.
By far the dominant force in track cycling.

Not to mention the world beaters we have in squash, triathlon, darts, snooker, swimming etc etc.

I'm not saying Britian is the most successful sporting nation, but we are far better than the miserable, negative British public would say.
For example, Australia are our main sporting rivals, now if you asked the british public who was the better sporting nation id say 80% would say Australia. Yet we have beat them in last two rugby world cups, beat them in 2 of last 3 Ashes, beat them at 2008 Olympics. (im not mentioning football here as they don't reallt take it seriously). I could list loads of sports that the British beat them at, yet the only sports you could make a case for them are rugby, cricket and swimming. Ive already shown how the first two are debateable, so that leaves swimming. And we can give them that.

Some shit sports you mentioned mate, Darts, Snooker and Squash?? How many countires take them sports seriously, we did win the ashes but we also lost the last ashes in Australia 5-0 and we were just embarrased 6-1 in the one day internationals and made to look silly in the ICC event by the Australians again.

Also Australias population is over a third less than the Uk.

We are decent at some sports but we should be with the amount of inferstructure we have in place, in reality we are a disgrace if you look at the bigger picture, lets take Tennis for instance we have 1 player in the top 100, where as other nations who again are smaller in poulation have 5+players in the top 100 and all these nations work on a budget which is much less than a quater that we invest to produce champions, the same with cycling I would say that is the main sport where we are getting out results that the amount of money invested should do.

But like I say overall we underachieve in most sports when you consider the amount of money we invest.

Yea i just threw them in as other examples. I'd say we do pretty well at all the sports we take seriously, and do well in quite a few that we don't. I used Australia as a comparison partly because they are are main sporting rivals and also because most of the British public would say they are better, but the facts don't really support that. Given our population we should be better than them for sure, and id say we are. As for the cricket when it comes to England-Australia the Ashes is everything. They would swap their ODI wins for the Ashes 100 times out of 100. I agree with you on the tennis one - British tennis has been a disgrace for a long time. But then again you could say that there are only two nations with a male player ranked higher than us.

[cpcompany]

The reality is that the majority of the British public would say we are shit at sport. The general attitute is far too negative.
A few stats -
The most f1 drivers titles of any nation,
Football team ranked 7th (of 21
Rugby team that has reached last two world cup finals
Numerous boxing world champs
4th in medal table at Olympics.
Cricket team that has won 2 of the last 3 Ashes.
By far the dominant force in track cycling.

Not to mention the world beaters we have in squash, triathlon, darts, snooker, swimming etc etc.

I'm not saying Britian is the most successful sporting nation, but we are far better than the miserable, negative British public would say.
For example, Australia are our main sporting rivals, now if you asked the british public who was the better sporting nation id say 80% would say Australia. Yet we have beat them in last two rugby world cups, beat them in 2 of last 3 Ashes, beat them at 2008 Olympics. (im not mentioning football here as they don't reallt take it seriously). I could list loads of sports that the British beat them at, yet the only sports you could make a case for them are rugby, cricket and swimming. Ive already shown how the first two are debateable, so that leaves swimming. And we can give them that.

Some shit sports you mentioned mate, Darts, Snooker and Squash?? How many countires take them sports seriously, we did win the ashes but we also lost the last ashes in Australia 5-0 and we were just embarrased 6-1 in the one day internationals and made to look silly in the ICC event by the Australians again.

Also Australias population is over a third less than the Uk.

We are decent at some sports but we should be with the amount of inferstructure we have in place, in reality we are a disgrace if you look at the bigger picture, lets take Tennis for instance we have 1 player in the top 100, where as other nations who again are smaller in poulation have 5+players in the top 100 and all these nations work on a budget which is much less than a quater that we invest to produce champions, the same with cycling I would say that is the main sport where we are getting out results that the amount of money invested should do.

But like I say overall we underachieve in most sports when you consider the amount of money we invest.

I doubt we take Tennis very seriously. I grew up in the north east of England, and didnt know a single person who played tennis outside of PE lessons in school. I couldnt even tell you if there is even a tennis club in Northumberland, Tyne and Wear or Durham, and thats a hell of a big area.

[awdleyfuturehalloffamer]

Every country hypes up their fighters. I think it's natural. I kind of enjoy some british fighters. I'm preferential to action fighters of any country.

[skel1983]

The reality is that the majority of the British public would say we are shit at sport. The general attitute is far too negative.
A few stats -
The most f1 drivers titles of any nation,
Football team ranked 7th (of 21
Rugby team that has reached last two world cup finals
Numerous boxing world champs
4th in medal table at Olympics.
Cricket team that has won 2 of the last 3 Ashes.
By far the dominant force in track cycling.

Not to mention the world beaters we have in squash, triathlon, darts, snooker, swimming etc etc.

I'm not saying Britian is the most successful sporting nation, but we are far better than the miserable, negative British public would say.
For example, Australia are our main sporting rivals, now if you asked the british public who was the better sporting nation id say 80% would say Australia. Yet we have beat them in last two rugby world cups, beat them in 2 of last 3 Ashes, beat them at 2008 Olympics. (im not mentioning football here as they don't reallt take it seriously). I could list loads of sports that the British beat them at, yet the only sports you could make a case for them are rugby, cricket and swimming. Ive already shown how the first two are debateable, so that leaves swimming. And we can give them that.

Some shit sports you mentioned mate, Darts, Snooker and Squash?? How many countires take them sports seriously, we did win the ashes but we also lost the last ashes in Australia 5-0 and we were just embarrased 6-1 in the one day internationals and made to look silly in the ICC event by the Australians again.

Also Australias population is over a third less than the Uk.

We are decent at some sports but we should be with the amount of inferstructure we have in place, in reality we are a disgrace if you look at the bigger picture, lets take Tennis for instance we have 1 player in the top 100, where as other nations who again are smaller in poulation have 5+players in the top 100 and all these nations work on a budget which is much less than a quater that we invest to produce champions, the same with cycling I would say that is the main sport where we are getting out results that the amount of money invested should do.

But like I say overall we underachieve in most sports when you consider the amount of money we invest.

I doubt we take Tennis very seriously. I grew up in the north east of England, and didnt know a single person who played tennis outside of PE lessons in school. I couldnt even tell you if there is even a tennis club in Northumberland, Tyne and Wear or Durham, and thats a hell of a big area.

Trust me mate Tennis is one of the biggest invested sports in the country, meaning one of the biggest waste of money the government invests.

[Mark TKO]

not read all this thread as at work - and unfortunately have stuff to do !

But personally I don't overhype our fighters and like Big H admit when they have their shortcomings. The only exception I made to this was when I went over to Hatton v PBF. When the fight was announced I gave Hatton 25% chance of winning but got carried away in the hype and started saying how he was going to take Floyd - to this day I don't know what came over me and apologize !

I like Haye but think Vitali and Wlad would destroy him (though he has a chance if he lands on Wlad). I always knew Benn was one punch from defeat - what did US fans make of Benn ? Never really knew.

And Naz - I picked Barrera and knew he wasnt as good as he thought

And also Brit fighters aren't always backed by a majority of their countrymen eg Eubank (early 90s), Naz, Audley and currently Khan.

On saying all that Tyson Fury is a god and the most ferocious fighter I have ever seen - he is going to easily hammer all non-British opponents he will ever face. Fact !

[amat]

Yeah well some are hyped up more then they probably should be but people always forget the context of the time. Like Big H mentioned, Lacy from Calzaghe on isn't entirely representative of who he was. He lost it through injuries, for whatever reason (he said he had a personal matter, IDK) he bottled it and has looked like shit since.

People rag on OumaFan for his name and think wow what a mediocre fighter but there was a time where people picked Ouma to potentially beat everyone else at 154. Before he got upset BIG TIME by Karmazin, he was a guy people thought might be THE MAN at 154. Of course we all know he didn't have that longevity but it just frustrates me that people will read Boxrecs of Ouma and Lacy and just not be able to see the overnight (months) shift into just a different (shot) fighter.

Hattonthehammer, again you just befuddle me with your statements. Can we add a fact checker to the board? Lacy DEFINITELY knew who Calzaghe was. Do you even remember the buildup to that one? The night he beat Reid, he called out Joe Calzaghe immediately afterward. In fact it was after that fight that they signed to fight but Calzaghe insisted on going through with the Evans Ashira (a ridiculous opponent) fight and broke his right hand which forced him out of the fight. Lacy was pissed and said he would never sign to fight in England again and a lot of us (me included) were sure that the fight would never come to fruition due to Calzaghe never fighting outside of his country. He DEFINITELY knew who Calzaghe was and this was a HUGE fight, you just must have missed that.

As for Brits hyping there fighters, yeah they do it but it makes sense. Of course Brits are going to talk about the fighters that they actually see, it's just that the rest of the world has a perpentuancy to write you guys off as irrelevant. Too much, I'm not sure. More then anyone else, definitely. Had Andre Ward or Andre Dirrell turned pro in 2004 in England rather then America then they would have been shoved down our throats from day 1. How much has come up about Khan in the time these guys have been pro?

As it is, they came up in America and are just now getting serious play from the boxing community. I prefer it here, I think a boxer should be able to disappear in his own backyard if he needs to. Being a prized amateur turning pro in England is a very rough assignment, kind of like playing beside Jeter in the Yankee infield. You're kind of in a lose-lose situation because you are going to endure growing pains in the ring no matter who you are as a professional so it's nice that guys like Ward and Dirrell have been able to lay low. In Ward's case, that was a huge deal for his management team who wanted him to only worry about boxing and his family with no outside distractions. In the case of someone like Amir Khan or, more tragically, Darren Sutherland it really is a lose-lose situation.

I personally think it's great that you guys came out in such numbers for Hatton, probably a bit disillusioned if you thought Hatton would take it but whatever.

[AdamGB]

The reality is that the majority of the British public would say we are shit at sport. The general attitute is far too negative.
A few stats -
The most f1 drivers titles of any nation,
Football team ranked 7th (of 21
Rugby team that has reached last two world cup finals
Numerous boxing world champs
4th in medal table at Olympics.
Cricket team that has won 2 of the last 3 Ashes.
By far the dominant force in track cycling.

Not to mention the world beaters we have in squash, triathlon, darts, snooker, swimming etc etc.

I'm not saying Britian is the most successful sporting nation, but we are far better than the miserable, negative British public would say.
For example, Australia are our main sporting rivals, now if you asked the british public who was the better sporting nation id say 80% would say Australia. Yet we have beat them in last two rugby world cups, beat them in 2 of last 3 Ashes, beat them at 2008 Olympics. (im not mentioning football here as they don't reallt take it seriously). I could list loads of sports that the British beat them at, yet the only sports you could make a case for them are rugby, cricket and swimming. Ive already shown how the first two are debateable, so that leaves swimming. And we can give them that.

Some shit sports you mentioned mate, Darts, Snooker and Squash?? How many countires take them sports seriously, we did win the ashes but we also lost the last ashes in Australia 5-0 and we were just embarrased 6-1 in the one day internationals and made to look silly in the ICC event by the Australians again.

Also Australias population is over a third less than the Uk.

We are decent at some sports but we should be with the amount of inferstructure we have in place, in reality we are a disgrace if you look at the bigger picture, lets take Tennis for instance we have 1 player in the top 100, where as other nations who again are smaller in poulation have 5+players in the top 100 and all these nations work on a budget which is much less than a quater that we invest to produce champions, the same with cycling I would say that is the main sport where we are getting out results that the amount of money invested should do.

But like I say overall we underachieve in most sports when you consider the amount of money we invest.

I doubt we take Tennis very seriously. I grew up in the north east of England, and didnt know a single person who played tennis outside of PE lessons in school. I couldnt even tell you if there is even a tennis club in Northumberland, Tyne and Wear or Durham, and thats a hell of a big area.

The problem is that it's a posh man's sport. There's probably some kid sat in his bedroom in cowgate or byker right now who has the potential to be a world class tennis player... Because he din't go to Royal Grammar School etc or have rich mummy and daddy pay from him to join a toff's club in Jesmond - he'll never have it developed.

I never even played Tennis in School...

As far as I am aware there are clubs in the North East, but unless your name is gerald and you're an executive for P&G you won't know about them.

[eagle]

The reality is that the majority of the British public would say we are shit at sport. The general attitute is far too negative.
A few stats -
The most f1 drivers titles of any nation,
Football team ranked 7th (of 21
Rugby team that has reached last two world cup finals
Numerous boxing world champs
4th in medal table at Olympics.
Cricket team that has won 2 of the last 3 Ashes.
By far the dominant force in track cycling.

Not to mention the world beaters we have in squash, triathlon, darts, snooker, swimming etc etc.

I'm not saying Britian is the most successful sporting nation, but we are far better than the miserable, negative British public would say.
For example, Australia are our main sporting rivals, now if you asked the british public who was the better sporting nation id say 80% would say Australia. Yet we have beat them in last two rugby world cups, beat them in 2 of last 3 Ashes, beat them at 2008 Olympics. (im not mentioning football here as they don't reallt take it seriously). I could list loads of sports that the British beat them at, yet the only sports you could make a case for them are rugby, cricket and swimming. Ive already shown how the first two are debateable, so that leaves swimming. And we can give them that.

As for putting Australia as Britains major sporting rival well it s little weird that u would compare your countrys of 80 million against ours of 20 million. Thats like comparing The UK with the USA.

Yes u have won 2 of the last 3 Ashes, but its also 2 of the last 11 i believe. In those last 3 series the actual test wins are 8-4 Australias way and u cant really say the England cricket team is better til they win in Australia. What happened last time they played there? Add the fact Australia are current World Cup champions and Champions trophy winners it isnt even debateable who the better cricket side is really.
Australias main sport is Aussie Rules so that takes loads of our best athletes. Rugby League is similiar which except for a bad world cup final Australia is dominant. The last time we played england in Football we won 3-1 and also made the second round of the last world cup. Australia on world rankings has 10 of the top 100 golfers, good surfers, and won 2 gold medals at the last Athletics world championships. Netball world champions, better Motorcycle racers and both on and off road. Our mens and womens basketball teams have had far more success than Britains. Cadel Evans just won the world road racing championship in cycling and we have the top 2 ranked womens triathletes.

Britain are no doubt having a good run in sport at the moment due to extra funding coming up to the London olympics. To say the only sport Australia are better at is swimming is just plain fucken stupid. Fuck Britain won one more medal than Australia in the 2008 olympics hardly a big win. Compare them to
Atlanta Australia:41 GB:15
Sydney Australia:58 GB:25
Athens Australia:49 GB:30

Great Britains preoccupation with beating a country a quarter the population borders on pathetic.

And yes our boxers are shite.

[El Kabong]

....I bet you England has better homegrown terrorists than the US does....see you don't suck at everything

[ryanman]

The reality is that the majority of the British public would say we are shit at sport. The general attitute is far too negative.
A few stats -
The most f1 drivers titles of any nation,
Football team ranked 7th (of 21
Rugby team that has reached last two world cup finals
Numerous boxing world champs
4th in medal table at Olympics.
Cricket team that has won 2 of the last 3 Ashes.
By far the dominant force in track cycling.

Not to mention the world beaters we have in squash, triathlon, darts, snooker, swimming etc etc.

I'm not saying Britian is the most successful sporting nation, but we are far better than the miserable, negative British public would say.
For example, Australia are our main sporting rivals, now if you asked the british public who was the better sporting nation id say 80% would say Australia. Yet we have beat them in last two rugby world cups, beat them in 2 of last 3 Ashes, beat them at 2008 Olympics. (im not mentioning football here as they don't reallt take it seriously). I could list loads of sports that the British beat them at, yet the only sports you could make a case for them are rugby, cricket and swimming. Ive already shown how the first two are debateable, so that leaves swimming. And we can give them that.

As for putting Australia as Britains major sporting rival well it s little weird that u would compare your countrys of 80 million against ours of 20 million. Thats like comparing The UK with the USA.

Yes u have won 2 of the last 3 Ashes, but its also 2 of the last 11 i believe. In those last 3 series the actual test wins are 8-4 Australias way and u cant really say the England cricket team is better til they win in Australia. What happened last time they played there? Add the fact Australia are current World Cup champions and Champions trophy winners it isnt even debateable who the better cricket side is really.
Australias main sport is Aussie Rules so that takes loads of our best athletes. Rugby League is similiar which except for a bad world cup final Australia is dominant. The last time we played england in Football we won 3-1 and also made the second round of the last world cup. Australia on world rankings has 10 of the top 100 golfers, good surfers, and won 2 gold medals at the last Athletics world championships. Netball world champions, better Motorcycle racers and both on and off road. Our mens and womens basketball teams have had far more success than Britains. Cadel Evans just won the world road racing championship in cycling and we have the top 2 ranked womens triathletes.

Britain are no doubt having a good run in sport at the moment due to extra funding coming up to the London olympics. To say the only sport Australia are better at is swimming is just plain fucken stupid. Fuck Britain won one more medal than Australia in the 2008 olympics hardly a big win. Compare them to
Atlanta Australia:41 GB:15
Sydney Australia:58 GB:25
Athens Australia:49 GB:30

Great Britains preoccupation with beating a country a quarter the population borders on pathetic.

And yes our boxers are shite.

Ok, that was a good reply. I do actually think Australia are a great sporting nation. And you had out-performed Britain for quite a while, but i think the tables have turned in recent years. I think people got fed up with throwing insane money at sports and seeing little returns, its now far more structured and peformance related. I understand we have a far bigger population and so by rights we SHOULD be better. The point i was making was that the majority of the British public wouldnt think we are better - we have a largely negative attitude.
Also, your point about the 3-1 victory in football is as stupid as my comment that you are only better at swimming, but im sure you already know that.

[El Kabong]

....until he fought someone world class and dangerous and then he got "ruined". So we're back to square one, only in Hatton's comeback, he didn't get injured so he didn't end up like Jeff Lacy