When would be a good time to say Floyd ducked Keith Thurman?

Floyd is ducking Thurman, Khan, Porter, Brook, Spence and future Olympic champions

The guy that just fought Collazo? Looooooool. So then Guerrero on floyds resume means???? Absolutely nothing. Floyd isn't an ATG because of his win over Guerrero.

I don't consider not fighting someone, who poses no threat, a duck. A duck is bowe dumping his belt to avoid Lewis. Floyd chose an easy fight but the other guys aren't that much better to be considered legit threats. how aren't they threats? thurman is a power puncher who also moves around the ring. old clinchy floyd isn't about to go chase him down and floyd has no power as we saw against berto once again so how he's going to hurt glass khan? berto was shot to pieces and was no threat.

I don't consider not fighting someone, who poses no threat, a duck. A duck is bowe dumping his belt to avoid Lewis. Floyd chose an easy fight but the other guys aren't that much better to be considered legit threats. Ok let's at least be a bit more realistic here. They might not be as good as the Manny Pacquiao or Miguel Cotto's of the world but good but Thurman and Khan still pose some level of threat to Floyd. And he purposefully chose a guy who posed an even less of a threat. I get the whole thing about Thurman or Khan not being "good" enough on paper so they don't post a threat but Maidana was supposed to be "tailor made" for Floyd. You don't have to be scared of someone to duck them. Floyd literally said he chose Berto because he was an easier fight (meaning he WANTED to avoid a more dangerous fighter). What exactly am I supposed to think? I'm obviously going to think that he doesn't want to a higher level of danger, meaning he doesn't want to face Khan/Thurman. If you don't want to face a guy, then what exactly is that supposed to be called?

Not saying you are a Floyd fan nor saying that you are defending the Berto decision. I was saying that even though Thurman/Khan aren't supposed to be good enough and while Floyd isn't afraid of them, they are still the best opposition available and Floyd admittedly chose not to fight them because he wanted something easy. That's the exact definition of ducking. I don't consider not fighting someone, who poses no threat, a duck. A duck is bowe dumping his belt to avoid Lewis. Floyd chose an easy fight but the other guys aren't that much better to be considered legit threats.

So then Guerrero on floyds resume means????Not much. Guerrero was never a top welterweight. His biggest win was over Berto. You remember Berto. The guy everybody is complaining about Mayweather fighting. Mayweather beat lots of outstanding fighters but Guerrero wasn't one of them. I stand by what I said. Mayweather never ducked Thurman because Thurman was not his standout number 1 challenger. Thurman would have been a better choice than Berto but Brook has a win over Porter and that tops any Thurman win so why not say Mayweather ducked Brook?

I'm sure anyone on here will tell you I'm not a Floyd fan. I wasn't suggesting fighting berto was a good fight. I was merely referring to the idea that Floyd avoids these supposed "boogeymen" and that anyone available fits that bill. They don't. Very few fighters in his career can be looked at as legit challenges, and the current crop of ww's definitely don't meet that criteria. Not saying you are a Floyd fan nor saying that you are defending the Berto decision. I was saying that even though Thurman/Khan aren't supposed to be good enough and while Floyd isn't afraid of them, they are still the best opposition available and Floyd admittedly chose not to fight them because he wanted something easy. That's the exact definition of ducking.

So then Guerrero on floyds resume means???? nothing because guerrero was terrible. they kept hyping up these guys so floyd's ducking of pac wouldn't look so bad to casuals.

Never, because he never ducked him. Thurman is rated 5th at 147, not 1st at 147. Sure, Floyd should have fought someone better than Berto. Berto is much better than Thurman's last opponent, Collazo. Mayweather recently beat Pacquiao who was ranked ahead of Thurman. Thurman has yet to fight a top 6 welterweight. He needs to beat a Porter or Maidana or Khan or Brook or Garcia before he can complain about not getting the big fights. His best win is Guerrero and that just isn't that big of win. So then Guerrero on floyds resume means????

Never, because he never ducked him. Thurman is rated 5th at 147, not 1st at 147. Sure, Floyd should have fought someone better than Berto. Berto is much better than Thurman's last opponent, Collazo. Mayweather recently beat Pacquiao who was ranked ahead of Thurman. Thurman has yet to fight a top 6 welterweight. He needs to beat a Porter or Maidana or Khan or Brook or Garcia before he can complain about not getting the big fights. His best win is Guerrero and that just isn't that big of win.

Lol please. The guy is retired... Even retired he is ducking? Who did Thurman beat to say hes the real deal? And btw I am far from a Mayweather fan but come on lol U guys talk like hes ducking guys even when hes retired. I am no fan but Floyd fought alot of champions. LEts move on ...

I'm sure we all know Thurman and Khan would have lost to Floyd but that doesn't mean you simply just past them over. They were the best available (politics aside) and Floyd blatantly chose not to fight the best available by saying he wants an easy fight. I'm sure anyone on here will tell you I'm not a Floyd fan. I wasn't suggesting fighting berto was a good fight. I was merely referring to the idea that Floyd avoids these supposed "boogeymen" and that anyone available fits that bill. They don't. Very few fighters in his career can be looked at as legit challenges, and the current crop of ww's definitely don't meet that criteria.

Thurman doesn't have the right style to beat Floyd. He's at his best on the backfoot, not coming forward. Against Floyd he would have to be the aggressor and that's when he gets wild and reckless. I think Floyd beats him without too much trouble, in an 9-3 type of fight. Porter would give Floyd a better fight.

Well, I think he could have chosen a better opponent than berto but the result is the same. Floyd is leagues above anyone out there. He'd beat Thurman, brook, porter, khan, etc. fairly easily. Guys who really despise him will always point to some guy who they think he's avoiding. The reality is, very few guys in his career posed a legit threat. I'd only suggest tony, punisher, and pac(prime) posed any challenge. Anyone suggesting someone else can't be taken seriously. I'm sure we all know Thurman and Khan would have lost to Floyd but that doesn't mean you simply just past them over. They were the best available (politics aside) and Floyd blatantly chose not to fight the best available by saying he wants an easy fight.

It's almost not possible to say a fighter at this advanced age, who's already accomplished a lot is ducking anyone, especially in a division where no one has established themselves. Only other fighter is Bradley and he looks to have regressed. That said I would have loved Mayweather-Thurman, and I strongly disagree with Blanco here, Thurman looked as good as he's always looked against Collazo. Really? I don't see it man. The only style I see beating Floyd is a relentless 12 round fighter. Thurman doesn't fit that for me. I feel like he'd attempt to out-think Floyd, and end up looking silly.

He already admitted he ducked Thurman (among others) by saying himself he wanted an easy fight. Well if you want an easy fight then clearly you're trying to avoid stronger competition.

I cant disagree with anything you've stated. I just wrote this post as a possible explanation (or conspiracy?) used by stans that hold the berto fight against floyd. Well, I think he could have chosen a better opponent than berto but the result is the same. Floyd is leagues above anyone out there. He'd beat Thurman, brook, porter, khan, etc. fairly easily. Guys who really despise him will always point to some guy who they think he's avoiding. The reality is, very few guys in his career posed a legit threat. I'd only suggest tony, punisher, and pac(prime) posed any challenge. Anyone suggesting someone else can't be taken seriously.

It's almost not possible to say a fighter at this advanced age, who's already accomplished a lot is ducking anyone, especially in a division where no one has established themselves. Only other fighter is Bradley and he looks to have regressed. That said I would have loved Mayweather-Thurman, and I strongly disagree with Blanco here, Thurman looked as good as he's always looked against Collazo.

A few months ago.

I don't think anyone should consider him a threat. He's proven nothing and looked very poor versus colazo. He's not anything close to Paul, or tony, guys who actually proved themselves. I cant disagree with anything you've stated. I just wrote this post as a possible explanation (or conspiracy?) used by stans that hold the berto fight against floyd.