Burns or brook? Who was the better FIGHTER?

/thread.

 

Brook was the better fighter, had more talent and better skill set, but wasted his career chasing Khan, too inactive, Hearn should have done better with him IMO. Burns is the opposite, through hard work and dedication he maximised his potential.

 

Brook all day, the guy technically is miles ahead of any version of Burns. What a silly post.

 

Brook was a way better fighter.

 

Both get slated way more than they should if you ask me. Burns achieved more than he probably should have through sheer dedication, very admirable. Brook gets slated but that win over Porter was some achievement, he was doing well against Spence too until he got his other socket fractured, a by-product of daring to be great against GGG, he was in that fight.

Both have been World Champions, never KO'd, Brook had to stop twice due to serious lifestyle threatening injuries. They have been better than 99.9% of the active boxers in their respective weight classes of their eras, I'd say that makes them both pretty damn good fighters if you ask me.

 

Burns.

Brook is incredibly overrated his best win is scraping past porter yet many claimed he was an elite welterweight.

 

Something nobody seems to remember is Burns surviving 12 rounds with Crawford. He did that at the worst time as he was on the comeback from breaking his jaw against Beltran. I suppose that would be about equal to Brooks brave performance against GGG.
As most have said. Ricky achieved more with his basic skills. Kell had the more talent but wasted more time having warm up fights.