Ok if that's your opinion then that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. It seems we are talking about two separate things. You are clearly talking about unrealised potential and what you call natural talent, and I am talking about real recognised, definable achievements, which in my opinion is much less like conjecture and has been to date, the way boxers are rated at all levels of the sport.
You may think him the most skilled euro fighter since Calzaghe but I will judge that one after seeing him in with better competition. He did well early in his career and then after losing to Katsidis seemed to bounce back well and outboxed and outfought a gutsy brawler in John Murray, but he has of yet to prove that natural ability against top opposition. Before Murray and Katsidis other than Prescott he has not been massively tested. I really hope he goes on to fulfil his potential because he really does have a lot in his locker, after Walsh v Appleby I thought his fight with Murray the most entertaining British fight of the year. He is very gifted and while not quite carrying the stopping power he had at Super-featherweight can still bang a bit to compliment his boxing prowess.
I just cannot so easily dismiss fighters like Darren Barker, Kell Brook, Matthew Macklin, Nathan Cleverly, George Groves, Scott Quigg etc if we are talking about skills and potential and Fighters like Froch, Khan and yes Burns if we are talking as the OP thread title suggests about the best of British.
I could not pick a winner pre Mitchell- Murray but the point I was making was that a lot of British fight fans did rate Mitchell's chances even though he was so soundly beaten by Katsidis, certainly more than 5%.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks