Burns v Gonzalez

Post Reply
broomy7s
Cruiserweight
Posts: 971
Joined: 19 May 2011, 07:53

Burns v Gonzalez

Post by broomy7s »

Confirmed. It's his mandatory. Thoughts? Don't think it's to bad tbh for a tune up fight.
Deno1986
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5349
Joined: 25 Jul 2009, 06:58

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by Deno1986 »

It's his mandatory so can't be too harsh on choice of opponent but Gonzalez's record is extremely padded. If it's a warm up for either Vazquez or Broner I don't have any problems with it.

Gonzalez' record: http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer
black panther
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4098
Joined: 11 Dec 2003, 07:06

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by black panther »

He's undefeated but hasn't fought anyone within perhaps even the top 50 at lightweight. After this fight Burns needs a genuine top ten lightweight: Vasquez, Demarco, Broner....maybe not Abril though. He isn't half a spoiler!
mickey1975
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 23181
Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by mickey1975 »

Its a poor fight. An easy Burns win. I am starting to worry about these Matchroom top of the bills. No doubt they will justify it by putting on a 50/50 fight three fights down the bill.
Crazyboy
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1246
Joined: 12 Nov 2010, 11:56

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by Crazyboy »

I'm one of Burns's biggest fans and he has done everything right so far in terms of the people in front of him but i am getting a tad fed up tbh.

It must be a tune up fight surely? because if it isn't...where does he go next? (assuming he wins which i think he will)
mullenman
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1124
Joined: 23 Oct 2012, 11:10

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by mullenman »

boxing is gone shit

how is that fella mandatory challenger for a world title

another easy win for the matchroom boys

(bellews fight is the only near 50-50 fight they have topped the bill with this year)
ShadrachSimmo
Cruiserweight
Posts: 4738
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 05:42

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by ShadrachSimmo »

His level of opposition isn't great. There's a few old fringe contenders on there but I'd fancy Burns to beat him handily.
dberry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3350
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 02:15

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by dberry »

MachoMan09 wrote:
ShadrachSimmo wrote:His level of opposition isn't great. There's a few old fringe contenders on there but I'd fancy Burns to beat him handily.
That's Burns dealt with, what do you think of the other guy's record?
Wow, Kevin Mitchel and Mickeal katsidis under his belt, you are a hard task master.
billy nelson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1966
Joined: 12 Apr 2010, 12:49

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by billy nelson »

Ricky needed to fight this guy he's the mandatory
Dan Dares
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1584
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 16:33

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by Dan Dares »

What's the rush? My view is that Burns hasn't been active enough against top quality opposition to be jumping in with top quality opposition at the start of a new promotional deal. It would be foolish for both sides.

In immortal words of Sheena Easton, I reckon Burns should 'take his time, looking for the right one' and you couldn't blame him for wanting to add a few more quid to the supposed 'near 750K' that he's earned as WBO world champion so far.

It is utterly ridiculous how this guy was conveniently made mandatory WBO challenger, but then that's sanctioning bodies for ya.
whiskey
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11956
Joined: 27 Mar 2007, 14:52

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by whiskey »

I cant see whom else they would have gotten in?

Didnt this guy smash Layrea , faster than Burns did ?
DMA1987
Cruiserweight
Posts: 2927
Joined: 04 Jun 2011, 17:05

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by DMA1987 »

The Dark Destroyer wrote:How does he suddenly 'have' to fight his mandatory? Why couldn't they get the Vazquez fight still, it isn't like he has anything coming up, is it?

The people saying he has to fight a big fight next and naming Broner are mad, the fight has gone. There are bigger fights, with bigger money out there for him at 140 and 147. I doubt we'll ever see him at 135 again.
Apparently he would have been stripped if he looked elsewhere.
black panther
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4098
Joined: 11 Dec 2003, 07:06

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by black panther »

I don't think it's a coincidence that the WBO are based in Puerto Rico and this Puerto rican chap is the mandatory. I do believe Burns would have been stripped had he not faced this guy.
ShadrachSimmo
Cruiserweight
Posts: 4738
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 05:42

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by ShadrachSimmo »

John Simpson is on the bill too. Didn't know he was with matchroom.
Black Sam Bellamy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1476
Joined: 25 Sep 2008, 13:51

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by Black Sam Bellamy »

So Burns has turned his back on a unification fight with Miguel Vasquez to fight Jose Gonzalez a month later ? Time to step up Ricky and show yourself a champion !
handsofstone
Cruiserweight
Posts: 23241
Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by handsofstone »

Lets just let Ricky get this Gonzalez mandotary out the way first then we can see what happens next,i,ll give Burns the benifit of the doubt on all the previous shennanigans thats been going on lately,just by his track record and character outside the ring he,s a warrior and old school i think its more likely that the powers above are a little hesitant in matching him with the elite but lets wait till after this fight to see what direction he takes but what i will say is that after Jose Gonzalez it must be either Adrien Broner,Miguel Vazquez,Richar Abril or at very least a World champ from another weight division but there isnt really any names down at super featherweight so preferably one of the lightweights
magnus
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1178
Joined: 13 Dec 2004, 08:59

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by magnus »

The Dark Destroyer wrote:How does he suddenly 'have' to fight his mandatory? Why couldn't they get the Vazquez fight still, it isn't like he has anything coming up, is it?

The people saying he has to fight a big fight next and naming Broner are mad, the fight has gone. There are bigger fights, with bigger money out there for him at 140 and 147. I doubt we'll ever see him at 135 again.
No idea. I'm sure it's nothing to do with changing promoter, from one who has a long-standing "relationship" with the WBO, to one that doesn't. No idea at all.
dondada
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8872
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 10:55

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by dondada »

magnus wrote:
The Dark Destroyer wrote:How does he suddenly 'have' to fight his mandatory? Why couldn't they get the Vazquez fight still, it isn't like he has anything coming up, is it?

The people saying he has to fight a big fight next and naming Broner are mad, the fight has gone. There are bigger fights, with bigger money out there for him at 140 and 147. I doubt we'll ever see him at 135 again.
No idea. I'm sure it's nothing to do with changing promoter, from one who has a long-standing "relationship" with the WBO, to one that doesn't. No idea at all.
:lol:

Hearn interestingly alleges that the Vazquez fight was never sanctioned by the WBOgus.
dondada
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8872
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 10:55

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by dondada »

Ooh, best not get into what I believe. It's enough of a pain in the arse when you actually know something, never mind just believe it :lol:
dondada
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8872
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 10:55

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by dondada »

The Dark Destroyer wrote:
dondada wrote:Ooh, best not get into what I believe. It's enough of a pain in the arse when you actually know something, never mind just believe it :lol:
If the fight wasn't sanctioned why haven't you wrote an article about it?
I don't know if it was sanctioned or not. But to answer to your question (notwithstanding the fact that I simply don't have time) firstly, there's a big problem in that the only people who could really confirm it, i.e. the WBO, aren't known for the robustness of their governance procedures. I once contacted them and was told that they had no intention whatsoever of sanctioning Fighter X for a world title. Then when they did shortly later, I asked them what on earth was going on. They simply explained they had changed their minds :lol:

Even if I could be arsed to look into it - which I certainly can't - the reward/ballache ratio of publication just wouldn't be worth it.
zero
Cruiserweight
Posts: 439
Joined: 16 Aug 2011, 16:30

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by zero »

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:So Burns has turned his back on a unification fight with Miguel Vasquez to fight Jose Gonzalez a month later ? Time to step up Ricky and show yourself a champion !
I just love people like you jumping in before you have even bothered to investigate the reasons. This mandatory fight was possibly going to purse bids in Puerto Rico...ffs..!!

Just remember Burns is not with WBO Fwank anymore...
lefthook82
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1837
Joined: 07 Mar 2008, 04:33

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by lefthook82 »

Thats odd. There was no talk of him being stripped for fighting vasquez instead of Gonzalez beforehand. Since when did the WBO become the IBF in mandatory strictness?
magnus
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1178
Joined: 13 Dec 2004, 08:59

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by magnus »

lefthook82 wrote:Thats odd. There was no talk of him being stripped for fighting vasquez instead of Gonzalez beforehand. Since when did the WBO become the IBF in mandatory strictness?
I refer you to my previous post in this thread, and the post immediately before yours.
Black Sam Bellamy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1476
Joined: 25 Sep 2008, 13:51

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by Black Sam Bellamy »

zero wrote:
Black Sam Bellamy wrote:So Burns has turned his back on a unification fight with Miguel Vasquez to fight Jose Gonzalez a month later ? Time to step up Ricky and show yourself a champion !
I just love people like you jumping in before you have even bothered to investigate the reasons. This mandatory fight was possibly going to purse bids in Puerto Rico...ffs..!!

Just remember Burns is not with WBO Fwank anymore...
Zero, if he had fought on the April 20th bill, he would not have been stripped. And it's a better fight for surely more money.
btahthezone
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 74
Joined: 26 Apr 2012, 20:12

Re: Burns v Gonzalez

Post by btahthezone »

Lets be honest, Burns has not fought since beating Mitchell and this is a mandatory against a fighter whose record is padded but what is the problem as not only does this help Burns get in the ring and get busy but it could also build up for a nice fight in the Autumn against Broner (who i believe wins the welterweight championship and does not return to the division), Vasquez, Abril and many of the other champions who are rated in the division.

I believe Burns to be in the top 3 and Vasquez is the fight for him as if Broner steps up will leave him number one lightweight and surely a move up to light welterweight is an option for Ricky.
Post Reply