By Adam Liaolo: This is no slight on American fighters before i start, some of my favorite fighters, and virtually every boxing fan in the world has a US fighter on their list. The country gave us Sugar Rays Robinson and Leonard, Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis, not to mention modern day greats such as Bernard Hopkins, Shane Mosley and Roy Jones Jnr. The list is endless and too impressive to even consider debating.

But neither is this article going to be bigging up and loving European and Hispanic fighters merely for the sake of a trans-Atlantic slanging match or whatever. What i want to argue is whether being American gives you that extra 5% of hype, marketability and skill analysis over fighters of different creed or culture. Let’s get this right off the bat, the US promotes fights and fighters like no other country in the world, period. But the question is, does this give US boxing fans a sense of arrogance or snobbery when it comes to rating other countries fighter’s?

It seems that whets good for the goose, isn’t good enough for the gander. Being knocked out or beaten convincingly when you’re still developing as a fighter for a European, Amir Khan, is a big no-no. But for a US fighter, losing early has no bearing. Bernard Hopkins lost his first ever fight at light-heavyweight. Were people who watched that, with their clairvoyant powers, still convinced he was going to be the fighter he was today?

There’s not a man alive who thought that, but Bernard’s character and will to learn got him to where he is, and nobody but nobody could have told me that B-Hop was still destined to be great after the Mitchell fight. Even after B-Hop fought Jones Jr., who could honestly say he was going to go undefeated for 10 years as middleweight champ and beating some of the best pound-for-pound fighters of the past 20 years? He undoubtedly had talent, but who could have foreseen THAT much talent? Hind-sight is a beautiful thing, people claiming they knew it all along.

Impressive records with a few soft-touches in, ala Joe Calzaghe, again is a big no-no. But let’s have it right, Roy Jones Jr. didn’t have to fight so many tomato cans like Richard Frazier, Eric Harding and David Telesco. Clinton Woods was never going to be great, he had an impressive record on paper but a fighter of Jones’ talent exposed him for what he was. Tarver was the same, Tarver barely had 20 wins on his record before he was being touted as a great and what happened to him.

For every argument against a non-American, there’s an American fighter guilty of something similar. Yes, there are disgraces like Sven Ottke and Dennis Inkin, but they are their own men, you cannot tar every European with that brush. Talent is talent, but if you don’t have the natural athleticism and skills of Roy Jones Jr. to make good fighters look average then the long steady learning curve of Bernard Hopkins beckons, if you’ve got the mental strength to do it that is. Britain has some seriously talented young boxers, and they showed their improvements and maturity with every fight.

Frankie Gavin, Nathan Cleverly, Tyson Fury, Amir Khan, Kevin Mitchell to name but a few, the only difference between them and Timothy Bradley, Devon Alexander, Chad Dawson and Tavoris Cloud for example, is that the Americans are further along in their development. Who says Dawson is going to be great? He isn’t great now, he has potential to get there but it is no guarantee. He has no less natural ability than Amir Khan, but he is further long in his development as a champion than Amir.

The way Bradley is talked about, he’d have survived the tank at Tiananmen Square just with his work-rate. He’s a well rounded good fighter and I expect to see him in some great fights, but as quickly as you can rise, you can fall. There are no certainties in boxing. It is about the quality of the fighters, not the quantity. If I had 10 times the population of a small island I’d expect more of any kind of person, never mind exceptional athletes. Hind-sight is a wonderful thing, but star-spangled clairvoyance does not exist.