BoxRec

Horse wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:You have nothing worth discussing. The only man above Rees who didn't have a title is DeMarco. Now do people think that any man who wants to fight for any of the four titles has to beat Demarco?

As I said, you have a line and just repeat it to try and get a hook...actually is quite tedious.

All the best Horse

Yada, yada, yada. I'm a troll because I don't think Crolla deserves a shot at Burns based on his pretty awful recent form.

That has to be one of the weakest reasons to call someone a troll I have ever seen. Lolz.

So, every fighter who wants a title shot has to fight DeMarco (brilliantly ignored) LOL LOL

DMA1987 wrote:

rapid2 wrote:Bang average fighter.

Nice one mate, thanks for taking part.

LOL

Horse wrote:

ShadrachSimmo wrote:Did you have Rees winning by much last night? I feel a rematch would go the same way. I don't Think "the Rock" has the motivation anymore.(Did he ever have it?)

I had Rees winning by 2 or 3 points.

I had the same for Crolla. Rubber match with Derry is not improbable surely. I just feel Rees, Crolla and Mathews are all around the same level at the moment.

DMA1987 wrote:Give me your lightweight top 10 horse.

No, I won't. It doesn't have Anthony Crolla in it though.

I can see both points,technically if Crollas beating the number 6 in Rees then you could argue that he,s a legitimate challenger,but the fact of the matter is Crolla IMO is only about 5th roughly in UK Lightweight and needs to beat Murray,Mitchell then MAYBE,but i think this argument should be about Burns accepting the fight with Crolla IMO,really Burns should have bigger fish to fry and should take no notice of domestic Lightweights then IF the fighter(Crolla) AND the public clammer for it fair enough,but apart from Crolla sympathisers nobody wants to see Burns defend against him,all due respect

Horse wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:Give me your lightweight top 10 horse.

No, I won't.

Aww come on Horse.

thepocketrocket wrote:Not going to bite any more on this (Though maybe you should contact the Ring and take over, as obviously the global brand had Rees higher), but I will ask you a serious question.

Did you think Ricky Burns deserved his chance when he fought Martinez?

The Ring have Broner as the P4P No. 8 and Brook as the No. 3 welterweight. They are not hugely credible at the moment.

Burns didn't deserve to be mandatory, but he had been exposed less than Crolla has recently.

handsofstone wrote:I can see both points,technically if Crollas beating the number 6 in Rees then you could argue that he,s a legitimate challenger,but the fact of the matter is Crolla IMO is only about 5th roughly in UK Lightweight and needs to beat Murray,Mitchell then MAYBE,but i think this argument should be about Burns accepting the fight with Crolla IMO,really Burns should have bigger fish to fry and should take no notice of domestic Lightweights then IF the fighter(Crolla) AND the public clammer for it fair enough,but apart from Crolla sympathisers nobody wants to see Burns defend against him,all due respect

But there is an argument beating Rees means he earned it. Obviously plenty of arguments as to why he doesn't deserve it too. Putting crolla at #5 UK after last night is a bit of a stretch - that wasn't a passed it Gavin Rees.

Listen, I don't think it'll happen. I don't think that Burns wants the fight, you could tell that. i think the plan was for Rees to take Crolla out (in a good fight to watch) and then fight Ricky Burns. Yesterday fucked that right up for Hearn.

thepocketrocket wrote:So, every fighter who wants a title shot has to fight DeMarco (brilliantly ignored) LOL LOL

No, not being able to beat Mathews should disqualify them though. Ha, ha, ha...

DMA1987 wrote:But there is an argument beating Rees means he earned it. Obviously plenty of arguments as to why he doesn't deserve it too. Putting crolla at #5 UK after last night is a bit of a stretch - that wasn't a passed it Gavin Rees.

Listen, I don't think it'll happen. I don't think that Burns wants the fight, you could tell that. i think the plan was for Rees to take Crolla out (in a good fight to watch) and then fight Ricky Burns. Yesterday fucked that right up for Hearn.

Why would Sky hype up Crolla so much if Hearn wanted Burns vs Rees?

DMA1987 wrote:

handsofstone wrote:I can see both points,technically if Crollas beating the number 6 in Rees then you could argue that he,s a legitimate challenger,but the fact of the matter is Crolla IMO is only about 5th roughly in UK Lightweight and needs to beat Murray,Mitchell then MAYBE,but i think this argument should be about Burns accepting the fight with Crolla IMO,really Burns should have bigger fish to fry and should take no notice of domestic Lightweights then IF the fighter(Crolla) AND the public clammer for it fair enough,but apart from Crolla sympathisers nobody wants to see Burns defend against him,all due respect

But there is an argument beating Rees means he earned it. Obviously plenty of arguments as to why he doesn't deserve it too. Putting crolla at #5 UK after last night is a bit of a stretch - that wasn't a passed it Gavin Rees.

Listen, I don't think it'll happen. I don't think that Burns wants the fight, you could tell that. i think the plan was for Rees to take Crolla out (in a good fight to watch) and then fight Ricky Burns. Yesterday fucked that right up for Hearn.

As i mentioned if Burns had just recently won the title then maybe people would accept it,its just that he,been a champ for 3 years and he doesnt want to be going backwards,let Rees,s loss be a lesson about motivation maybe

Horse wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:So, every fighter who wants a title shot has to fight DeMarco (brilliantly ignored) LOL LOL

No, not being able to beat Mathews should disqualify them though. Ha, ha, ha...

OK...I think I am starting to get you now. You think the Ring rankings are wrong.

Well I respect that, and when your rankings are anything more than some guy on a forum posting his ramblings, then we will live in a world where Gavin rees is not seen as the sixth best lightweight in the world, so beating him means nothing.

Good luck with your rankings Horse, you obviously put a lot of effort into them

handsofstone wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:

handsofstone wrote:I can see both points,technically if Crollas beating the number 6 in Rees then you could argue that he,s a legitimate challenger,but the fact of the matter is Crolla IMO is only about 5th roughly in UK Lightweight and needs to beat Murray,Mitchell then MAYBE,but i think this argument should be about Burns accepting the fight with Crolla IMO,really Burns should have bigger fish to fry and should take no notice of domestic Lightweights then IF the fighter(Crolla) AND the public clammer for it fair enough,but apart from Crolla sympathisers nobody wants to see Burns defend against him,all due respect

But there is an argument beating Rees means he earned it. Obviously plenty of arguments as to why he doesn't deserve it too. Putting crolla at #5 UK after last night is a bit of a stretch - that wasn't a passed it Gavin Rees.

Listen, I don't think it'll happen. I don't think that Burns wants the fight, you could tell that. i think the plan was for Rees to take Crolla out (in a good fight to watch) and then fight Ricky Burns. Yesterday fucked that right up for Hearn.

As i mentioned if Burns had just recently won the title then maybe people would accept it,its just that he,been a champ for 3 years and he doesnt want to be going backwards,let Rees,s loss be a lesson about motivation maybe

I agree. Burns should be fighting other champions. If that means giving up the WBO he should do that. He would certainly be the favourite against Crolla and it considered another marking time fight, when he needs to be making his mark stateside.

thepocketrocket wrote:OK...I think I am starting to get you now. You think the Ring rankings are wrong.

Well I respect that, and when your rankings are anything more than some guy on a forum posting his ramblings, then we will live in a world where Gavin rees is not seen as the sixth best lightweight in the world, so beating him means nothing.

Good luck with your rankings Horse, you obviously put a lot of effort into them

You worship the Ring's ratings do you?

Crolla is not very good. He has very little power, a poor workrate and a questionable chin. Burns will batter him.

Horse wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:But there is an argument beating Rees means he earned it. Obviously plenty of arguments as to why he doesn't deserve it too. Putting crolla at #5 UK after last night is a bit of a stretch - that wasn't a passed it Gavin Rees.

Listen, I don't think it'll happen. I don't think that Burns wants the fight, you could tell that. i think the plan was for Rees to take Crolla out (in a good fight to watch) and then fight Ricky Burns. Yesterday fucked that right up for Hearn.

Why would Sky hype up Crolla so much if Hearn wanted Burns vs Rees?

Why would he offer the Burns fight to the winner of a fight Rees was clearly expected to win if he didn't?

Horse wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:OK...I think I am starting to get you now. You think the Ring rankings are wrong.

Well I respect that, and when your rankings are anything more than some guy on a forum posting his ramblings, then we will live in a world where Gavin rees is not seen as the sixth best lightweight in the world, so beating him means nothing.

Good luck with your rankings Horse, you obviously put a lot of effort into them

You worship the Ring's ratings do you?

Crolla is not very good. He has very little power, a poor workrate and a questionable chin. Burns will batter him.

Maybe Burns will batter him, but the ratings say Rees was highly rated so Crolla has beaten his name and credibility

As I said, keep going with your ratings. It must be frustrating for respected sanctioning bodies and organisations see things completely different from you. It will be easier for you to make a change from the inside, rather than just going on here with a Rees is rubbish and Crolla is worse mantra.

Make a difference Horse

DMA1987 wrote:Why would he offer the Burns fight to the winner of a fight Rees was clearly expected to win if he didn't?

The whole Sky team seemed hugely biased in favour of Crolla, he seemed like the chosen one.

Horse wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:Why would he offer the Burns fight to the winner of a fight Rees was clearly expected to win if he didn't?

The whole Sky team seemed hugely biased in favour of Crolla, he seemed like the chosen one.

I agree they did, maybe they saw it was going to be close and the younger boxer was where the future money was. I don't think Hearn expected Rees to lose, and I think the Burns fight was probably put there to stop him being unmotivated.

thepocketrocket wrote:Maybe Burns will batter him, but the ratings say Rees was highly rated so Crolla has beaten his name and credibility

As I said, keep going with your ratings. It must be frustrating for respected sanctioning bodies and organisations see things completely different from you. It will be easier for you to make a change from the inside, rather than just going on here with a Rees is rubbish and Crolla is worse mantra.

Make a difference Horse

Rees deserved the win against Crolla anyway.

Crolla is so limited at lightweight I find it difficult to believe anyone's trying to hype him.

Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year. Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year. Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year. Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year. Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year. Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year. Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year. Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year.

He is a joke of an opponent for Burns. People can call me all of the names under the sun, but I won't stop saying he is an unworthy challenger for Burns. Plenty of people will agree with me as well.

Horse wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:Maybe Burns will batter him, but the ratings say Rees was highly rated so Crolla has beaten his name and credibility

As I said, keep going with your ratings. It must be frustrating for respected sanctioning bodies and organisations see things completely different from you. It will be easier for you to make a change from the inside, rather than just going on here with a Rees is rubbish and Crolla is worse mantra.

Make a difference Horse

Rees deserved the win against Crolla anyway.

Crolla is so limited at lightweight I find it difficult to believe anyone's trying to hype him.

Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year. Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year. Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year. Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year. Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year. Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year. Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year. Crolla lost to Mathews and Sykes last year.

He is a joke of an opponent for Burns. People can call me all of the names under the sun, but I won't stop saying he is an unworthy challenger for Burns. Plenty of people will agree with me as well.

Put it in your rankings Horse, and try and get them published somewhere credible so people take notice. Maybe offer them to the BBBoC, or Boxing News??

Make a difference Horse

Horse wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:Yeah...he just beats the Ring number six, then has to drop down to face Martin fecking Gethin....words fail me

Crolla is not above fighting for the British title.

Do you work for Hearn? Your pro-Crolla propaganda is far too much.

i thought hatton still promoted crolla.

do you think there's some conspiracy against the human race orchestrated by barry hearn's son, and beamed to us by sky sports, which can only be unmasked perhaps by wearing special sunglasses, similar to the rowdy roddy piper movie, THEY LIVE (1988)?

This is a joke.. Crolla wasn't that impressive last night anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.. Rees was poor last night and the fight was very close with typical sky commentating being a joke. I had this a draw and don't really like either fighter both really over rated.. As for Crolla v Burns that is a complete mismatch.. Crolla talked about going to super feather where at least 5 British contenders would beat him... Even at lightweight there is British fighters who would beat him and obviously he has already been beaten by Derry Mathews.. The only guy in Britain even nearly ready for Ricky Burns is Terry Flannigan.. If Crolla is fighting at lightweight he should fight the winner of Mathews v Coyle.. Then maybe Liam Walsh or Flannigan.. He won't get past these guys so why throw him in with Ricky.. Ar for Kevin Mitchell I know he would beat Crolla handily and was there not a rumour John Murray put Crolla down in Sparring?? But yes Crolla is ready and deserves a crack at Ricky Burns

thepocketrocket wrote:Put it in your rankings Horse, and try and get them published somewhere credible so people take notice. Maybe offer them to the BBBoC, or Boxing News??

Make a difference Horse

Bore off, you sad case.

Autobarn wrote:I thought hatton still promoted crolla.

do you think there's some conspiracy against the human race orchestrated by barry hearn's son, and beamed to us by sky sports, which can only be unmasked perhaps by wearing special sunglasses, similar to the rowdy roddy piper movie, THEY LIVE (1988)?

Everyone saw the propaganda, don't act like it didn't happen.

Horse wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:Put it in your rankings Horse, and try and get them published somewhere credible so people take notice. Maybe offer them to the BBBoC, or Boxing News??

Make a difference Horse

Bore off, you sad case.

Seriously. You are passionate about your ratings, and think they are more credible than the Ring.

Go out there and make a difference.

Good luck Horse