By Scott Gilfoid: In yet another laughable fight for WBO lightweight champion Ricky Burns (35-2, 10 KO’s), he’ll be defending his title against 26-year-old fringe contender Liam Walsh (13-0, 10 KO’s) on December 15th at the ExCel Arena, Dockland, London. Walsh is ranked #13 by the WBO, but has only fought once in his entire four year career at lightweight, beating Domenico Urbano by an 8th round TKO in his last fight in July to pick up the WBO European lightweight title.

I’m not quite sure how Burns’ promoter is swinging this fight, as the World Boxing Organization president recently was quoted as saying that Burns’ next fight hand to be against a mandatory challenger, not fringe contender. Walsh is hardly a mandatory challenger, meaning that Burns is getting to fight two optional title defenses in a row, because his last opponent Kevin Mitchell wasn’t a mandatory.

The interesting part about the Burns-Walsh fight is that the winner of this “fight” is supposedly going to fight the winner of the WBC lightweight clash between Adrien Broner and WBC champion Antonio DeMarco in 2013. I wish I could believe that, but I don’t see it happening. I believe that’s being said so that it will give Burns’ more attention/respect from the boxing community while taking the legs out of the would be criticism that he might receive for facing a bottom level contender with little experience like Walsh. What I see happening after Burns destroys the domestic level Walsh is that he’ll then fight either Scott Harrison or John Murray. I know Harrison isn’t ranked in the top 15 by the WBO right now, but I bet he’ll find his way to the bottom #15 spot after he beats his next scrub opponent. Once Harrison is #15, we’ll see Burns fight his third consecutive optional defense. I see that happening or Murray getting the fight, but no way do I see Burns fighting Broner or DeMarco, no way.

This Burns-Walsh match-up is indicative of the kinds of mismatches that Burns has been put in with since he’s held world titles. As the WBO super featherweight champion, Burns was put in with weak opposition like Nicky Cook, Joseph Laryea and Andreas Evenson. When Burns was supposed to fight his first and only tough challenger in Broner, Burns vacated his WBO title and moved up in weight to the lightweight division. Now since Burns has been the WBO champion after the WBO gave him the strap outside of the ring, Burns has beaten two weak opponents in Kevin Mitchell and Paulus Moses. I’m sorry, but I never saw Mitchell as tough opponent for Burns when Mitchell had fought only twice since being blown out by Katsidis.

I’m wondering whether the WBO will sanction the Burns vs. Walsh mismatch? The Mitchell fight wasn’t a mandatory, and so neither is the Walsh fight. So when does the mandatory challenger get a shot?

This is just soft match-making and it’s sad. If this is going to be the main even on the December 15th card then that’s really pathetic because it’s a mismatch. Besides this ugly fight, you’ve got George Groves fighting 43-year-old past his best Glen Johnson in the co-main event. What is that? That’s a terrible fight. Johnson has lost three out of his last four fights, and you’re going to make this the co-main event. That’s bad television unless you’re clueless and don’t understand anything about boxing. I suppose the casual fan in the UK might like these fights if they don’t understand that they are not competitive matches and that they’re not seeing the best possible fights out there for Burns and Groves.

I don’t consider Walsh an actual lightweight since he’s only fought once at this weight. This is Burns fighting a guy smaller than him, similar to what fellow Brit Amir Khan is doing by fighting a lightweight in Carlos Molina. Is this how they do things in the UK?