What would all of the bull*****ers hating on Ricky Burns have said if...

Keep in mind, that I'm speaking rather in general. From what little I've seen, Ricky looks decent. I'm confident Broner would take him, but he's not a pushover.

Americans do need to recognize that not all roads lead here anymore. In many cases, our champions do need to follow the money and champions. In those cases, I would be on your side.

 

Can you name a conceivable advantage Burns has over Broner as far as who should travel?

Broner has the undefeated record, Burns has 2 losses to nobodies.

Broner lives in the capital of the boxing world, Burns doesn't.

Broner has big KO power at 84% KO rate, Burns is feather fisted at 27%.

Broner has the youth at 23, Burns is already 29 and hasn't done a whole lot.

Broner just moved up in weight and destroyed the #1 guy in the division to take the title, Burns has the...WBO title.

Broner has superstar potential, Burns seems destined for domestic level fights.

This thread is boring now. atsch

 

Insult me if you like. I, and many others in this thread have used logic to answer your question. You have refused to acknowledge said logic and reasoning and continue to stick to your broken point as if it were irrefutable. You have shown yourself to be uncompromising in the face of reason; you use childish and illogical retorts, and it really isn't worth continuing a discussion with you.

Don't make yourself out to be a poster looking for reasonable debate when you have concisely shown you are not capable of it.

Have a nice day:hi:

 

it's just the way it is in boxing unfortunately. If Broner was the UK fighter he'd have to come to the US. When was the last time a rising American star of Broners level and TV ratings went to fight a lower rated guy in England? I doubt it's ever happened. Broners pulling in bigger number then anyone who isn't Mayweather, Pac, Cotto, Chavez Jr or Canelo. He's one of the biggest attractions in the sport right now, plus he's an HBO fighter and they wouldn't even consider it being in the UK. Also Burns gets his biggest exposure by far and his biggest payday by coming to America so it really is in his best interest as well. It's how things are, not that I agree with it but Broners an HBO fighter and one of their biggest, it could never happen over there.

 

Are you living in 1955 or something?

the vast majority of America doesn't give two ****s about boxing nowadays, and their own fighters aren't good enough in a large enough volume anymore to be content with staying at home, where they once had most of the best contenders in most of the divisions and could be assured they had faced most of the better comp without going abroad much.



Things need to be judged on a case by case basis with the way the sport is now and neither of these two are anywhere near the stage where they should be getting to dictate much.

A fight in America would be better for Burns imo, but they should be taking fights anywhere they can get them.

 

i'm not going to make loads of posts on this subject as i know through experience that it's pointless... your post is evidence of that. others have talked the most embarrassing **** also...

a lot of people think that broner has two losses also. but what the **** does having a couple of losses early in your career got to do with it? what a stupid thing to say.

what!!?? the capital? man, you're crazy! he doesn't live in the capital of boxing you dunce! get it out of your head you arrogant fool, that an international sport consists only in america.
the brits created the rules of boxing, the marquess of queensberry rules... does that mean we should be as grotesquely arrogant as you and claim that we are the whole world of boxing? of course not you ****ing ego maniac.

:admin holy ****! you lot become more and more embarrassing by the ****ing day.

you're now using age!? why not go by the one who has more pubes on their dick? you are an imbecile of epic proportions.

broner didn't beat the NO.1 guy. burns is the NO.1. he has the more proven resume than anyone at lightweight. that is a fact!

superstar, based on american hype! before you go putting him on any P4P list, let him earn his stripes first. is burns a superstar? no. and he has a better resume than broner.

there you go again! domestic level? an aussie, a puerto rican, and someone from namibia, are domestic level?

you're a ****ing insult to intelligence! an embarrassment! :deal

people like you need to **** off away from this site... maybe it wouldn't be a poison haven, then.

 

Jeff Lacy? I dont know what kind of money and ratings he was getting before Cazlaghe ruined him but he was one of America's brightest prospects, and a HBO fighter, so he must have been pulling some big rating and cash in his day, and Calzaghe was thought to be shot and never much of a fighter anyway by most of the pundits, so it could be argued that Calzaghe was rated lower than Lacy heading into their fight.

 

For me it's not the issue of travelling, I think Ricky should take his big chance and go to Vegas. My issue, is that if Burns beats Broner, the Americans will refuse to give him any credit for it

 

:deal

:deal

 

Broner will have a problem with Burns.

I don't think he'll lose, but he'll learn a hell of a lot from this fight simply because he'd be forced to.

Broner does his Mayweather imitation, but it's a 35 year old Floyd he imitates. His feet are a little too flat for a Lightweight with his physical ability and potential. Burns is under-rated in terms of skills, his jab will have success and so will his right hand once he starts to feint. Doesn't matter how quick a Boxer is, they'll fall for feints. Cotto vs Mayweather is a wonderful example of that.

Broner should beat Burns, but anybody seeing it as a cake walk is deluded.