BoxRec

From Frank W's latest column

http://www.BS.com/frank-warren ... vez--57635

Apparantly Ricky Burns is P4P Britain's number 1 boxer, even ahead of Froch. According to Frank because Froch has lost to Kessler and Ward this has to put Ricky ahead in the P4P stakes.

Now don't get me wrong, this is not a piss on Ricky Burns thread. I definitly agree with Warren that he's the most improved British fighter and he's definitly one of the very few fighters in the country to have proved himself world class, but c'mon, Frank please. In the (British) P4P lists you'd have to have Froch and Haye ahead of Burns and at a push maybe even Khan.

I would love to see Ricky get a chance against one of the top American based fighters to prove how good he is, but suspect his next opponent will either be against Scott Harrison or another WBO plumber,brickie etc.

Newport Daz wrote:From Frank W's latest column

http://www.BS.com/frank-warren ... vez--57635

Apparantly Ricky Burns is P4P Britain's number 1 boxer, even ahead of Froch. According to Frank because Froch has lost to Kessler and Ward this has to put Ricky ahead in the P4P stakes.

Now don't get me wrong, this is not a piss on Ricky Burns thread. I definitly agree with Warren that he's the most improved British fighter and he's definitly one of the very few fighters in the country to have proved himself world class, but c'mon, Frank please. In the (British) P4P lists you'd have to have Froch and Haye ahead of Burns and at a push maybe even Khan.

I would love to see Ricky get a chance against one of the top American based fighters to prove how good he is, but suspect his next opponent will either be against Scott Harrison or another WBO plumber,brickie etc.

Frank W promoting his own fighter????

How dare he, disgrace to boxing etc etc...

Won't be Harrison. I respect Hearn's silence during Frank's spoutings, but I believe FW has a fair claim to Burns being best p4p in Britain. He is a superior boxer to Froch.

Froch is definitely Britain's No. 1 P4P boxer.

Bronxbull666 wrote:I believe FW has a fair claim to Burns being best p4p in Britain. He is a superior boxer to Froch.

Based on what?

Against world class kevin mitchell?????? only in the wonderful world of wbo.

Deserter wrote:

Bronxbull666 wrote:I believe FW has a fair claim to Burns being best p4p in Britain. He is a superior boxer to Froch.

Based on what?

Based on the fact that Burns has more skill than Froch. Not saying he's the better fighter.

clintonmcphilbin wrote:Against world class kevin mitchell?????? only in the wonderful world of wbo.

Mitchell is not works class fringe at best!

Thing that gets me is i really like ricky burn think he is a nice guy and done great over the last couple years but when i read what FW says it make me think less of ricky burns he should not as its not burns saying it. But i think its the same with clevely as well he as done nothing wrong and beats who is in front of him but FW really dont let is fighters do the talking in th ring. Burns did amazing against mitchell but p4p best never. Froch lost at world level burns lost at british level. Burns lost at want on to be wbo champ. Froch lost went on to beat the most feared super middle at the time. Also hatton,kahn and calazage did not become world superstars till they left FW and l think clevely and burns should do same.

What the f**k is p4p? It's a myth.

If fighter A was as big as fighter B he'd win. Well if fighter A was bigger his attributes wouldn't be the same and vice versa. It's all complete bollocks. It's not a topic that's even worth discussing.

Bronxbull666 wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Bronxbull666 wrote:I believe FW has a fair claim to Burns being best p4p in Britain. He is a superior boxer to Froch.

Based on what?

Based on the fact that Burns has more skill than Froch. Not saying he's the better fighter.

Burns hasn't been operating at the level Froch has to date so I think it's borderline impossible to make the case he has more skill than Froch - to use a crude analogy, it's like Arsenal only playing against Championship teams and winning comfortably then from that concluding that they're definitely more skillful than Chelsea, because Chelsea have been winning, drawing and losing against Man Utd and Man City. You simply can't draw that conclusion until you see Arsenal playing at a similar level.
The same applies to Burns - it's only when he regularly starts operating at that level (and with the greatest of respect to Kevin Mitchell, he's some way short of that), that you'll be able to make valid comparisons of his skill.

clintonmcphilbin wrote:Against world class kevin mitchell?????? only in the wonderful world of wbo.

He is ranked highly by the Ring magazine as well.

He is currently ranked at 7th: http://ringtv.craveonline.com/ratings/lightweight

No shock really, Frank really does not like Carl at all.

ArtOfWar wrote:What the f**k is p4p? It's a myth.

If fighter A was as big as fighter B he'd win. Well if fighter A was bigger his attributes wouldn't be the same and vice versa. It's all complete bollocks. It's not a topic that's even worth discussing.

It's not rocket science.

Most people seem capable of taking that sort of thing into account and most can come up with reasonable rankings.

Horse wrote:

ArtOfWar wrote:What the f**k is p4p? It's a myth.

If fighter A was as big as fighter B he'd win. Well if fighter A was bigger his attributes wouldn't be the same and vice versa. It's all complete bollocks. It's not a topic that's even worth discussing.

It's not rocket science.

Most people seem capable of taking that sort of thing into account and most can come up with reasonable rankings.

Yes, you will get the hang of it one day..

Based on the fact that Burns has more skill than Froch. Not saying he's the better fighter.[/quote]
Burns hasn't been operating at the level Froch has to date so I think it's borderline impossible to make the case he has more skill than Froch - to use a crude analogy, it's like Arsenal only playing against Championship teams and winning comfortably then from that concluding that they're definitely more skillful than Chelsea, because Chelsea have been winning, drawing and losing against Man Utd and Man City. You simply can't draw that conclusion until you see Arsenal playing at a similar level.
The same applies to Burns - it's only when he regularly starts operating at that level (and with the greatest of respect to Kevin Mitchell, he's some way short of that), that you'll be able to make valid comparisons of his skill.[/quote]

Couldn't agree more. It's the old truism about boxing, it's about levels.

Horse wrote:

clintonmcphilbin wrote:Against world class kevin mitchell?????? only in the wonderful world of wbo.

He is ranked highly by the Ring magazine as well.

He is currently ranked at 7th: http://ringtv.craveonline.com/ratings/lightweight

...why do people use ring rankings to justify things? Ring had Gilberto Keb Baas ranked #1 despite losing to a guy who had subsequently lost himself.

TopGun wrote:No shock really, Frank really does not like Carl at all.

Probably because he missed on signing him which is why.

You've got to laugh at FW, he does turn people against him by his rantings.

Froch is #1 in the UK right now with Haye behind him. Ricky has done brilliant so far but lets see him in with the divisions best, Adrien Broner. One thing is for sure, Froch would be making noises about that fight and making it happen. Even a win against Broner wouldn't be enough to put Burns ahead of Froch just yet.

Burns has loads more skill than Froch. We can drone on about p4p and levels all day long, but the fact is; when Froch fights someone who has skills, he loses.

1. Would have lost to Taylor, outfoxed for 34 minutes.
2. Lost to Dirrell, but got some dodgy home decision.
3. Lost to Kessler, Kessler is faster and more accurate.
4. Struggled against Adamu.
5. Struggled against Johnson.
6. Outclassed by Ward.
7. Pascal fight was closer than the judges made out.

Bronxbull666 wrote:Burns has loads more skill than Froch. We can drone on about p4p and levels all day long, but the fact is; when Froch fights someone who has skills, he loses.

1. Would have lost to Taylor, outfoxed for 34 minutes.
2. Lost to Dirrell, but got some dodgy home decision.
3. Lost to Kessler, Kessler is faster and more accurate.
4. Struggled against Adamu.
5. Struggled against Johnson.
6. Outclassed by Ward.
7. Pascal fight was closer than the judges made out.

This is ridiculously biased - how did he struggle against Johnson? It's one of the few results Johnson hasn't complained about and he acknowledged he was well beaten? It's also noticeable that you purposely ignore his fight against Abraham, where he elected to box rather than fight and put on a clinic.
Who has Burns fought who has, to quote your own phrase, "skills" that are the equivalent of the likes of Ward and Dirrell in order to prove he has the skills that Carl hasn't? He's beaten one world-class fighter to date in the form of Martinez, who is certainly not in the league of a Johnson, let alone a Ward.
As my previous post said, you've got nothing to substantiate your claim yet, as Ricky is currently operating at a lower level than Carl. The test of his skills will be when he steps up to fight the Broners of this world.

Horse wrote:

ArtOfWar wrote:What the f**k is p4p? It's a myth.

If fighter A was as big as fighter B he'd win. Well if fighter A was bigger his attributes wouldn't be the same and vice versa. It's all complete bollocks. It's not a topic that's even worth discussing.

It's not rocket science.

Most people seem capable of taking that sort of thing into account and most can come up with reasonable rankings.

Eh?

Was that a serious reply. P4P is not reality. None of the rankings are reasonable, because they are not real.

Bronxbull666 wrote:Burns has loads more skill than Froch. We can drone on about p4p and levels all day long, but the fact is; when Froch fights someone who has skills, he loses.

Carl Froch has only lost 2 fights at world level, one against a 4 times World Champion in Kessler and another 'unbeaten' World Champion in Andre Ward. Those are the facts.

Deserter wrote:This is ridiculously biased - how did he struggle against Johnson? It's one of the few results Johnson hasn't complained about and he acknowledged he was well beaten? It's also noticeable that you purposely ignore his fight against Abraham, where he elected to box rather than fight and put on a clinic.
Who has Burns fought who has, to quote your own phrase, "skills" that are the equivalent of the likes of Ward and Dirrell in order to prove he has the skills that Carl hasn't? He's beaten one world-class fighter to date in the form of Martinez, who is certainly not in the league of a Johnson, let alone a Ward.
As my previous post said, you've got nothing to substantiate your claim yet, as Ricky is currently operating at a lower level than Carl. The test of his skills will be when he steps up to fight the Broners of this world.

X2. Well said, Deserter.

Burns level of competition is totally incomparable to Froch's at the moment.

Regarding Johnson I'd agree Froch laboured against him and took unnecessary shots but he clearly won on points.
Bute totally outboxed him and did a far better job than Carl but he had the advantage of loads of sparring experience against Johonson