BoxRec

I just had a look at the ratings. Ricky Burns is considered the 29th best boxer in Britain and 66th best in Europe.

Burns divides opinion on here but the record books show he is a 3 weight World Champ.

Seems very low to me for someone who has achieved that.

Take one example and definitely no slight intended. Why would Frankie Gavin be ranked 10 places higher on the British list?

Thoughts?

Where did you see these ratings? Gavin higher than Burns is absurd!

Click on ratings on the home page and use the drop downs.

They have been changed. Burns now 19th in British and 42nd in Europe one ahead of Gavin in both. Co-incidence or what?

STRATHMAN wrote:Click on ratings on the home page and use the drop downs.

They have been changed. Burns now 19th in British and 42nd in Europe one ahead of Gavin in both. Co-incidence or what?

No coincidence. Ratings are automatically changed at some point on the following day after a contest

STRATHMAN wrote:Click on ratings on the home page and use the drop downs.

They have been changed. Burns now 19th in British and 42nd in Europe one ahead of Gavin in both. Co-incidence or what?

That's ridiculous man! Very underrated is Burns.

The Law wrote:

STRATHMAN wrote:Click on ratings on the home page and use the drop downs.

They have been changed. Burns now 19th in British and 42nd in Europe one ahead of Gavin in both. Co-incidence or what?

No coincidence. Ratings are automatically changed at some point on the following day after a contest

The "co-incidence" is Gavin on both lists mentioned rather than the change itself. Glad he has been moved up though.

STRATHMAN wrote:I just had a look at the ratings. Ricky Burns is considered the 29th best boxer in Britain and 66th best in Europe.

Burns divides opinion on here but the record books show he is a 3 weight World Champ.

Seems very low to me for someone who has achieved that.

Take one example and definitely no slight intended. Why would Frankie Gavin be ranked 10 places higher on the British list?

Thoughts?

I looked at exactly the same thing this morning and thought it was a bit strange, maybe not as low as 29 but that Mic Dicco (or what ever his name was) was bloody awful so it can't count as much?

Also has Frankie Gavin retired or what? I can't see him coming back now ?

Boxing titles are near worthless when Ricky Burns can win three of them.

STRATHMAN wrote:I just had a look at the ratings. Ricky Burns is considered the 29th best boxer in Britain and 66th best in Europe.

Burns divides opinion on here but the record books show he is a 3 weight World Champ.

Seems very low to me for someone who has achieved that.

Take one example and definitely no slight intended. Why would Frankie Gavin be ranked 10 places higher on the British list?

Thoughts?

The only ratings we pay attention to on Boxrec are Horse's monthly list. Pay these no mind

This is clearly prejudiced - as a 3 weight world champ - mBurns needs to be ranked above Sugar Ray Robinson and at least equal to Henry Armstrong and Bob Fitzsimmons... Though I actual rate Ricky higher as I think his 3rd weight victory was more conclusive and dominating.

Why should titles factor into the equation? Him winning a belt last night doesn't suddenly make a win over Di Rocco particularly impressive; plenty of fighters score much better wins without a title on the line.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Boxing titles are near worthless when Ricky Burns can win three of them.

There's so many form lines i could reel of that would show you are full of s***, but really, i'd be talking to deaf ears.

If burns can successfully defend against someone world class I might consider him a 3 weight champ.

ALI wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Boxing titles are near worthless when Ricky Burns can win three of them.

There's so many form lines i could reel of that would show you are full of s***, but really, i'd be talking to deaf ears.

Oh I see, world titles are in scant supply in modern boxing. Thank you for informing me.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

ALI wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Boxing titles are near worthless when Ricky Burns can win three of them.

There's so many form lines i could reel of that would show you are full of s***, but really, i'd be talking to deaf ears.

Oh I see, world titles are in scant supply in modern boxing. Thank you for informing me.

So in your world nobody is a world champion until they recieve your nod of approval

Titles are watered down, we all know that, but Burns has had a good career, your words are very harsh, way OTT. I agree Di Rocco should have not been fighting for a world title, on the other hand, Burns clearly beat Figueroa on my card, so its swings and roundabouts, sh*t happens.

Three-weight titlist, not champ. You've got to be undisputed for that and Burns has never and will never get to that point. Transnational has it right in ignoring alphabet soup trinkets. They just call the fights as they are without the b.s. gloss. When you view Burns' wins in that context, you'd say he is one of the better U.K. fighters, but not up there with the best.

Jpreisser wrote:Three-weight titlist, not champ. You've got to be undisputed for that and Burns has never and will never get to that point. Transnational has it right in ignoring alphabet soup trinkets. They just call the fights as they are without the b.s. gloss. When you view Burns' wins in that context, you'd say he is one of the better U.K. fighters, but not up there with the best.

He beat Martinez who at the time was regarded as the best at SuperFeather so you're talking out your manky hole. Three world titles is a phenomenal achievement and he should be commended not criticised.

What do we think Burns will do?

Defend vs voluntary, then the mando - and if still champ, try for a money fight like Broner?

If a defeat happens at any point above, I think he'll try and challenge Crolla.

Hope Bruns can put in one last outstanding performance like vs Martinez, Mitchell or Katsidis.

Stuarty30 wrote:

Jpreisser wrote:Three-weight titlist, not champ. You've got to be undisputed for that and Burns has never and will never get to that point. Transnational has it right in ignoring alphabet soup trinkets. They just call the fights as they are without the b.s. gloss. When you view Burns' wins in that context, you'd say he is one of the better U.K. fighters, but not up there with the best.

He beat Martinez who at the time was regarded as the best at SuperFeather so you're talking out your manky hole. Three world titles is a phenomenal achievement and he should be commended not criticised.

No Martinez wasn't. He was 4th going into 2010. The record never shows that Burns inherited some linear championship. And when Linares and Broner have also accomplished this feat, I'm not convinced this is a "phenomenal achievement". It's a by-product of boxing floundering state, little more.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Boxing titles are near worthless when Ricky Burns can win three of them.

X 100

The Martinez win was excellent.

Huge upset and one of the very best fights involving a domestic fighter vs a visiting world champion.

Really happy for Ricky Burns. He's s good fighter and a top bloke.

But he's a 3 weight world champion who's been on the good end of some fantastic matchmaking.

Very rare to have a 3 weight champion without a career defining fight.

Isn't Adrien Broner a 4-weight world champion while losing to the only two top fighters he boxed?

Get ready, the number of these multitudinous world champions without a significant win will be increasing rapidly in the coming years.

It goes

Broner > Burns > Ray Robinson

Tuan_Jim wrote:Get ready, the number of these multitudinous world champions without a significant win will be increasing rapidly in the coming years.

What age are you? Nothings new is going on, the alphabets have been around for a long long time. What exactly do we need to get ready for?