So the Flanagan hype-train got derailed by [a] Hooker ; A good case of cherrypicking gone wrong

[apollo creed]

I didn't thought that Flanagan was so weak. I mean Hooker looked like a good example of an easy cherrypicked opponent for a title fight. Not to mention that the fight was on Terry's home turf.

[jamamb]

he had a hype train?

[Enlightened-One]

I didn't thought that Flanagan was so weak. I mean Hooker looked like a good example of an easy cherrypicked opponent for a title fight. Not to mention that the fight was on Terry's home turf.

So you're saying that a relatively unknown fighter called Terry Flanagan cherry-picked an unbeaten world-rated opponent that spars with the likes of Terence Crawford and Errol Spence Jr, whilst competing for a vacant WBO world title, where the outcome of their fight could have gone either way?

I assume that English isn't your native language, since you clearly don't know what the phrases "hype train" and "cherry picking" mean?

[Counter-puncher]

he had a hype train?

[apollo creed]

Before Flanagan fought Hooker people were like : " Hooker who got a split decison gift against Perez / Hooker is looking like a corpse at the weigh in / Easy UD for Flanagan, etc"

After Flanagan got beaten, the same people : " Who was Flanagan ? / That brit level fighter ? / That slick american 'world rated' fighter did what he supposed to do "

[SenorPipino]

Before Flanagan fought Hooker people were like : " Hooker who got a split decison gift against Perez / Hooker is looking like a corpse at the weigh in / Easy UD for Flanagan, etc"

After Flanagan got beaten, the same people : " Who was Flanagan ? / That brit level fighter ? / That slick american 'world rated' fighter did what he supposed to do "

Flanagan was a lopsided 1-8 favorite.

Hooker absolutely didn't do what he was expected to do---which was to lose clearly.

Most people in boxing didn't feel that Flanagan was anything special. But their opinion of Hooker was even lower.

[apollo creed]

Before Flanagan fought Hooker people were like : " Hooker who got a split decison gift against Perez / Hooker is looking like a corpse at the weigh in / Easy UD for Flanagan, etc"

After Flanagan got beaten, the same people : " Who was Flanagan ? / That brit level fighter ? / That slick american 'world rated' fighter did what he supposed to do "

Flanagan was a lopsided 1-8 favorite.

Hooker absolutely didn't do what he was expected to do---which was to lose clearly.

Most people in boxing didn't feel that Flanagan was anything special. But their opinion of Hooker was even lower.

I agree.

[gilgamesh]

I don't know how much hype there was exactly. Flanagan always looked quite beatable to me, but I honestly didn't think Hooker was gonna be the guy to do it.

[chuck9788]

I don't know how much hype there was exactly. Flanagan always looked quite beatable to me, but I honestly didn't think Hooker was gonna be the guy to do it.

I had concerns when Flanagan had some difficulty with Petr Petrov (decision win). Those concerns only grew when Petrov was recently easily blasted out by undefeated prospect Ivan Baranchyk.

[Mexi-Box]

I don't know how much hype there was exactly. Flanagan always looked quite beatable to me, but I honestly didn't think Hooker was gonna be the guy to do it.

I had concerns when Flanagan had some difficulty with Petr Petrov (decision win). Those concerns only grew when Petrov was recently easily blasted out by undefeated prospect Ivan Baranchyk.

Hard to tell if it was because Baranchyk has improved massively or Petrov was just too small. Could be both, but Baranchyk looked average against Ramos.

By the way, I was shocked that Flanagan got beat. Hooker is beyond average. Flanagan must be a lot worse than I thought.

[jamamb]

ppl picked flanagan because hooker had looked like crap and flanagan really hadnt had glaringly bad performances like hooker vs perez. i dont know how that means there was a flanagan hype train, hardly even brits cared much about him, just a really bland boxer and personality.

[apollo creed]

I don't know how much hype there was exactly. Flanagan always looked quite beatable to me, but I honestly didn't think Hooker was gonna be the guy to do it.

I had concerns when Flanagan had some difficulty with Petr Petrov (decision win). Those concerns only grew when Petrov was recently easily blasted out by undefeated prospect Ivan Baranchyk.

Hard to tell if it was because Baranchyk has improved massively or Petrov was just too small. Could be both, but Baranchyk looked average against Ramos.

By the way, I was shocked that Flanagan got beat. Hooker is beyond average. Flanagan must be a lot worse than I thought.

Yup.

[Taansend]

Wasn't the fight for a vacant title?

How was it cherry picking?