BoxRec

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2010/burns- ... wards-2010

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all

Don't actually agree with that much of it to be honest but Pac International fighter of the year ? Beating Clottey and Margarito at catchweight is more impressive than Martinez becoming linear middleweight champion beating Pavlik and producing KO of the year beating "the most avoided" Williams?

I appreciate that opinions are like ar**holes, we've all got them and they all stink, but even so. Keep up the good work anyway.

Newport Daz wrote:Don't actually agree with that much of it to be honest but Pac International fighter of the year ? Beating Clottey and Margarito at catchweight is more impressive than Martinez becoming linear middleweight champion beating Pavlik and producing KO of the year beating "the most avoided" Williams?

I appreciate that opinions are like ar**holes, we've all got them and they all stink, but even so. Keep up the good work anyway.

Its all about opinions, as I wouldn't agree with Martinez or Pac. I would have Juan Manuel Marquez for coming back from a 2009 one-sided beatdown from Mayweather and beating Diaz and Kastidis to establish him as the undisputed no.1 lightweight in the world.

Despite me going for Khan as fighter of the year, I am absolutely delighted that Burns has won it after truimphing in one of the most exciting fights I have ever seen live.

I'm surprised by Burns beating Froch, Khan or Haye but I do get the sence that Box Rec like the underdogs and the slightly avent gard, which I suppose explains the British fight of the year even though it was a good fight, there isn't many places that that one will win.

I have to agree with International fighter of the year being Manny Pac because it's not always down to who you beat or at what weight they agree to fight at its how they do it and Manny always impresses no matter how awkward or hard punching is opponent is. I couldn't give it to Martinez because although he did well to avenge his loss to Williams with a stunning knock out it can be argued (if you go on weights) that Williams wasn't at his normal LMW and it was a freak peach of a shot and I never really rated Pavilik and it showed that he wasn't much in his last 3 or 4 fights.

Fully agree with this, the comprehensive manner in which he beat both Clottey and Margarito was unbelievable. You can only beat whats in front of you and it's not as if he's ducking anybody. Apart from the obvious exception I can't really think of many other supposed tougher competitors at that weight then the two mentioned above.

Burns - Fighter of the year? That's a laugh and a half - beat a plodder at Upton Park on points - beat a crude puncher at home on points then beat a blown up first time Super Featherweight on points!!!!!

I'll tell ye one thing - he won't be fighter of the year 2011 with the dumplings he has lined up for him.

The best fighter had to be Froch - a great war v kessler (even though he lost - disputable) and a masterclass against Abraham - two of the top boxers around IMO.

The selection was arrived at by vote, so you can't argue with democracy, but I fail to see how anybody could be chosen ahead of Khan.

Khan - 2-0 in world title fights against top 5 opposition.
Burns - also 2-0, but while the Martinez win was very meritous, Evensen was strictly "WBO voluntary" material.
Haye - 2-0 against one lower-top 10 guy and one strictly domestic-level challenger.
Froch - 1-1. Yes, let's not forget he actually lost this year.

ThereByTheGrace wrote:Burns - Fighter of the year? That's a laugh and a half - beat a plodder at Upton Park on points - beat a crude puncher at home on points then beat a blown up first time Super Featherweight on points!!!!!

I'll tell ye one thing - he won't be fighter of the year 2011 with the dumplings he has lined up for him.

The best fighter had to be Froch - a great war v kessler (even though he lost - disputable) and a masterclass against Abraham - two of the top boxers around IMO.

So losing to a guy who got a one sided beat down in his last fight (Kessler) and beating another guy who took a beating in his last fight is worthy of fighter of the year? I like Froch but I don't think he deserves fighter of the year. Burns unexpectedly beat up the highly regarded Martinez in a cracker and then won his first defence (albeit not against the best of oppositions)

King Geedorah wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:The selection was arrived at by vote, so you can't argue with democracy, but I fail to see how anybody could be chosen ahead of Khan.

Khan - 2-0 in world title fights against top 5 opposition.
Burns - also 2-0, but while the Martinez win was very meritous, Evensen was strictly "WBO voluntary" material.
Haye - 2-0 against one lower-top 10 guy and one strictly domestic-level challenger.
Froch - 1-1. Yes, let's not forget he actually lost this year.

I gave the BS FOTY to Froch as his opponents were both high class and there was no filler. They all had two fights this year but only Froch had two meaningful fights. Is a win over Evensen or Audley worth more than a narrow away defeat to Kessler? Not in my book, all things considered. Most fighters have a pattern of one tough fight to three or four lesser ones, Froch doesn't, and that should be commended.

Agreed, but that wasn't my list in order of ranking. I voted for Khan and was pointing out why the others have inferior claims IMO. Haven't bothered to think who would be ranked 2 to 4. In any case, I do think the fact Froch actually lost to Kessler has to count against him more than his level of competition counts for him. I'd say Munroe fought the best opponent P4P of any Brit last year, but does that make him worthy of consideration even in defeat?

PS Were Khan's two fights not both "meaningful"? Of course he was favoured vs Malignaggi, but Paulie was still ranked highly and boxing on home turf.

Froch lost and won in a series that no other champion would have the knackers to get into + he had tough competition in 2009 and is contacted for hard bouts in 2011. Khan has been very good and seen great improvement and should be runner up. Haye is around the top tier in the heavyweight division but is as much promoter and business man as boxer; Burns did very well v Martinez but is not boxer of the year for me.

I agree completely with Oliver - I really cannot see the arguement for Froch being fighter of the year ahead of Khan.

Malignaggi was coming just off a career best win beating a guy who went on to run Marquez close again in a thriller, he then beats a fearsome puncher widely considered a top 4 guy in the division.

Froch ran Kessler close, it wasn't controvesial or anything like it. Kessler won that fight and won it well. Froch put in a performance of the year against Abraham no doubt, but again - Abraham was coming off a defeat in his first fight against a true Super Middleweight.

We can condem the manner of how Khan fought against Maidana - I agree, it was suicide tactics - but lets not suggest that Froch is above such criticism. He was giving a frankly Rubbish performance and tactics for the first half against Kessler. Kessler, was coming off a one sided defeat to Ward, and isn't the fight he was. I was doing a round by round on here and if I remember rightly I was saying things like "Froch doing nothing, Kessler is shot but winning cause he looks to be wanting it more". It wasn't a masterclass from Kessler at all to scrape by - he looked pretty poor also.

The last half of the fight was for me the clear fight of the year - what a war it was. The first half of the fight was a bit of a stinker and it cost Froch - Kessler was there for the taking and had been taken a few months before that.

Got to go with Khan.I am reliably informed(by GOmez) that Maidana really beat Kotelnik and was a lethal Light-Welter whom Amir was scared of.Froch LOST to Kessler and everyone seems to have forgotten the absolute schooling Andre Dirrell gave Abraham before Froch got him.Haye just ticked over this year but worked overtime on his celebrity.Just watched him on "famous and fearless" and watched him last week on"Who wants to be a millionaire"!

I have to agree that Burns was a really poor choice and I don't think a good argument can be put forward as to why he deserved it more than Khan. I assume losing a fight hurt Froch's chances, but I would have put him ahead of Burns as well, because I think a very close defeat in the backyard of a top 3 fighter is more impressive than beating a guy like Evensen. The one-sided nature of his win over AA also makes that victory more impressive to me than Burn's win over Martinez. I think people just love his underdog story.

I would have selected Martinez for international fighter of the year, but a strong case can also be made for Pacquiao.

oliverfennell wrote:

King Geedorah wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:The selection was arrived at by vote, so you can't argue with democracy, but I fail to see how anybody could be chosen ahead of Khan.

Khan - 2-0 in world title fights against top 5 opposition.
Burns - also 2-0, but while the Martinez win was very meritous, Evensen was strictly "WBO voluntary" material.
Haye - 2-0 against one lower-top 10 guy and one strictly domestic-level challenger.
Froch - 1-1. Yes, let's not forget he actually lost this year.

I gave the BS FOTY to Froch as his opponents were both high class and there was no filler. They all had two fights this year but only Froch had two meaningful fights. Is a win over Evensen or Audley worth more than a narrow away defeat to Kessler? Not in my book, all things considered. Most fighters have a pattern of one tough fight to three or four lesser ones, Froch doesn't, and that should be commended.

Agreed, but that wasn't my list in order of ranking. I voted for Khan and was pointing out why the others have inferior claims IMO. Haven't bothered to think who would be ranked 2 to 4. In any case, I do think the fact Froch actually lost to Kessler has to count against him more than his level of competition counts for him. I'd say Munroe fought the best opponent P4P of any Brit last year, but does that make him worthy of consideration even in defeat?

PS Were Khan's two fights not both "meaningful"? Of course he was favoured vs Malignaggi, but Paulie was still ranked highly and boxing on home turf.

Monroe was outclassed and that fight wasn't close. A good case can be made for a Froch draw or even a tight points win. I don't think you can compare those two. Monroe really did nothing in his fight with Nishioka to deserve consideration.

George Groves is the one that gave me the most amusement. Overrated and mostly by himself.

King Geedorah wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

King Geedorah wrote: I gave the BS FOTY to Froch as his opponents were both high class and there was no filler. They all had two fights this year but only Froch had two meaningful fights. Is a win over Evensen or Audley worth more than a narrow away defeat to Kessler? Not in my book, all things considered. Most fighters have a pattern of one tough fight to three or four lesser ones, Froch doesn't, and that should be commended.

Agreed, but that wasn't my list in order of ranking. I voted for Khan and was pointing out why the others have inferior claims IMO. Haven't bothered to think who would be ranked 2 to 4. In any case, I do think the fact Froch actually lost to Kessler has to count against him more than his level of competition counts for him. I'd say Munroe fought the best opponent P4P of any Brit last year, but does that make him worthy of consideration even in defeat?

PS Were Khan's two fights not both "meaningful"? Of course he was favoured vs Malignaggi, but Paulie was still ranked highly and boxing on home turf.

I'd happily place Paulie and Maidana below Kessler and Abraham in terms of ability and level. Also, Froch completely out-boxed Abraham for his biggest win. Amir did well against Maidana but his boxing/defence was very poor in parts. You also need to bear in mind that two cards had it 6-6 in rounds so the first round knockdown and elbow, which missed, spared him a majority draw.

Add a bit of commonsense on the part of Cortez, hard I know as it entail him not grabbing a slice of the limelight, and a 10-8 round for Rene in the tenth and the result would have been different. Shoulda, woulda, coulda etc but I genuinely think that Froch out-performed Amir this year and fought at a higher level throughout the year.

I'm looking for copies of the scorecards of the fight to ascertain whether or not Rene got a 10-8 for the tenth, it looks from the totals that he didn't, so with a bit of decent scoring and reffing the result could have looked very different.

Paulie was a decent, defendable fight but you had to put a bit of work in when defending it, Froch's fights justified themselves, as does his no.1 spot as Brit FOTY in my opinion.

We're splitting hairs to an extent, both guys did well this year but Froch looked the better boxer and grabbed the bigger win during 2010.

Yes, we both agree both guys did very well and we're not seeking to discredit either man. My main point is that Froch DID lose, and that's that. You can say Khan may not have beaten Maidana IF he hadn't knocked him down, IF Maidana hadn't thrown an elbow, but at the end of the day he DID win his biggest fight and Froch DID lose his. That's all.

crusader wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

King Geedorah wrote: I gave the BS FOTY to Froch as his opponents were both high class and there was no filler. They all had two fights this year but only Froch had two meaningful fights. Is a win over Evensen or Audley worth more than a narrow away defeat to Kessler? Not in my book, all things considered. Most fighters have a pattern of one tough fight to three or four lesser ones, Froch doesn't, and that should be commended.

Agreed, but that wasn't my list in order of ranking. I voted for Khan and was pointing out why the others have inferior claims IMO. Haven't bothered to think who would be ranked 2 to 4. In any case, I do think the fact Froch actually lost to Kessler has to count against him more than his level of competition counts for him. I'd say Munroe fought the best opponent P4P of any Brit last year, but does that make him worthy of consideration even in defeat?

PS Were Khan's two fights not both "meaningful"? Of course he was favoured vs Malignaggi, but Paulie was still ranked highly and boxing on home turf.

Monroe was outclassed and that fight wasn't close. A good case can be made for a Froch draw or even a tight points win. I don't think you can compare those two. Monroe really did nothing in his fight with Nishioka to deserve consideration.

No, I'm not suggesting he does deserve consideration, but I made the comparison because Froch is being credited for level of opposition even in defeat.

goldenears wrote:George Groves is the one that gave me the most amusement. Overrated and mostly by himself.

He won by a mile. Who would you have picked? (Must be under 23 on 31/12/10).

As for Burns, from memory he won by one vote from Froch who, in turn, was one vote ahead of Khan.

Happy to see Ricky Burns get the accolade of fighter of the year. Martinez, I believe was the No.1 in the division at the time. And it was a tremendous win and upset for Burns.

I can see why others may have got the nod over Burns and it just shows what a Great Year the UK had.

Nice to see Rees vs Watson as fight of the Year that was a cracker.

King Geedorah wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

goldenears wrote:George Groves is the one that gave me the most amusement. Overrated and mostly by himself.

He won by a mile. Who would you have picked? (Must be under 23 on 31/12/10).

Otuo Saba

Ollie, we'll have to agree to differ. It looks like Carl and Amir will be going at it again next December as Froch is likely to fight Johnson and Ward, Khan probably will meet Bradley/Alexander at some point. Not to mention Haye versus one or both Klits. There could be a much better field of runners in 2011.

Yeah, good to disagree about positive things for once on this board! And yes, 2011 looks even better...

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

goldenears wrote:George Groves is the one that gave me the most amusement. Overrated and mostly by himself.

He won by a mile. Who would you have picked? (Must be under 23 on 31/12/10).

As for Burns, from memory he won by one vote from Froch who, in turn, was one vote ahead of Khan.

sorry Ian, just read the rule - on my part... (although Amir was only a matter of weeks out!!)

I guess it's a little troubling that there isn't another 23 and under boxer who isn't more worthy than Groves (who I just don't rate very highly) that springs to mind, although there are plenty around the 24-27 year old mark who have great potential..my mistake

goldenears wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

goldenears wrote:George Groves is the one that gave me the most amusement. Overrated and mostly by himself.

He won by a mile. Who would you have picked? (Must be under 23 on 31/12/10).

As for Burns, from memory he won by one vote from Froch who, in turn, was one vote ahead of Khan.

sorry Ian, just read the rule - on my part... (although Amir was only a matter of weeks out!!)

I guess it's a little troubling that there isn't another 23 and under boxer who isn't more worthy than Groves (who I just don't rate very highly) that springs to mind, although there are plenty around the 24-27 year old mark who have great potential..my mistake

No bother mate - 24 and you would have had Khan and Degale in the mix, both of whom would probably have beaten Groves.

At least you didn't say Big Tyson Fury

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

goldenears wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: He won by a mile. Who would you have picked? (Must be under 23 on 31/12/10).

As for Burns, from memory he won by one vote from Froch who, in turn, was one vote ahead of Khan.

sorry Ian, just read the rule - on my part... (although Amir was only a matter of weeks out!!)

I guess it's a little troubling that there isn't another 23 and under boxer who isn't more worthy than Groves (who I just don't rate very highly) that springs to mind, although there are plenty around the 24-27 year old mark who have great potential..my mistake

No bother mate - 24 and you would have had Khan and Degale in the mix, both of whom would probably have beaten Groves.

At least you didn't say Big Tyson Fury

imagine that!

Walsh is another of the 24 year olds that definitely has some pedigree...would say Swifty too but noticed he's 25...

I went for Groves so pleased about that, but also went for Khan and Martinez, surprised Burns and Pac got it......but that's Boxrec News for you, some bloody lunatics writing for them :)

PS Ian, Smokin' Joe is coming this way in a month or so, I'll do a piece for you...

Over and out

Captain Hook wrote:I went for Groves so pleased about that, but also went for Khan and Martinez, surprised Burns and Pac got it......but that's Boxrec News for you, some bloody lunatics writing for them :)

PS Ian, Smokin' Joe is coming this way in a month or so, I'll do a piece for you...

Over and out

Nice one pal, look forward to that.