How do you rate the UK fighters in the post Froch era?

Well done. There are several guys (besides Josh Taylor) whom I've never heard of, let alone seen, but you seem to have your thumb on the pulse the way I once did, and of the 80% or so from your list that I'm familiar with, you've mostly got them pegged correctly IMO.

You do have a very weird and irrational dislike of Murray, though, considering he served as the last hurrah of somebody we're both a big fan of (Martínez). I actually rate that win much higher than Chávez and it might be Maravilla's best from his Diamond belt reign. I've always found it pretty bad ass that at 38 he was able to get off the canvas and snatch the zero from a top middleweight contender. Not sure what Murray did to pee in your cornflakes but denigrating him only does a disservice to our boy.

Also, how are Frank Buglioni and Rocky Fielding not exactly the same person? Both are mediocre rock'em sock'em robots who put asses in seats with a very decided cap of "fringe Euro title hunt/upper-tier domestic fodder". Not much else to either of 'em.

Props for giving Skeete a shout!

...and on pretty much every other count (again, wherever I have a frame of reference), we agree 100%.

 

This

This content is protected

 

UK boxing is in a veritable renaissance. While boxing in the USA is in the Dark Ages.

 

Brooks best win was Porter and that was his only stand out win.

Carl Frampton (NI)
Tyson Fury
Anthony Joshua
Ryan Burnett (NI)
DAVID PRICE's LUNGS

 

I didn't rate Burnett before he was in world title fights, and nothing I saw against Haskins and Zhakiyanov changed my mind. That wasn't exactly a murderers' row of unification roads, to put it kindly, and he didn't really impress in either fight. Would struggle to knock the skin off a rice pudding, too. Booth's having a laugh when he says that Ryan is the best talent he's ever worked with. I think he's not long for those belts. Certainly nowhere near as skilled or as capable as Brook.

Frampton's best wins are a very poor man's Orlando Salido in Kiko, who was on a flattering title run against banal (Romero, Mathebula) or faded/chinny (Hasegawa) opposition, a Scott Quigg whom nobody outside of Sky's cheering squad really thought much of and whom still doesn't have a solid world class win to his name (does old Kiko count?) and an underperforming LSC who immediately corrected the defeat by remembering to bring his full skillset to the ring in the return. I don't object to anyone giving Frampton a résumé edge over Kell, but I don't think he's a more skilled or capable fighter.

For that matter, I'd love to see Carl in with a guy of Errol Spence's class and see how competitive he is. Maybe there isn't an exact equivalent for him at featherweight, but Russell Jr. or Oscar Valdez might be near enough in terms of quality. I doubt he ever meets either one, though.

 

He's not very good, at least not in world level terms.

 

its not about Talent. Its about what youve done and achieved. Amir Khan would be one of the best if it was based on talent.

Carl Froch was a terrible boxer, he was just a hard man with a granite chin and a big punch and look how much he achieved in the sport. Talent means nothing.


Kell Brook beat Shawn Porter, thats about as far as his career went.
David Price was obviously a joke...

 

kell won one world level fight, Fury have done the same and framptons done more. Chunky did much more but hes lost his way.