Thurman and Porter are both solid fighters but both are lacking

Larry being racist.

You use troll comments to justify your victim playing though, so why cant he use those pro black youtubers comments and videos? The funny thing is you currently have me on ignore because I have destroyed you in the past. I guess you haven't jacked off yet so you need some attention from me. The only person bringing race into this thread is your insecure, virgin, racist ass. You are the epitome of a bit ch and a coward. Stick to looking up black people on the Internet and making threads about them. That's basically all you do on this site. Now stop following me and responding to me you weird phaggot.

Maybe you should if you're going to use them as mainstream opinions. You use troll comments to justify your victim playing though, so why cant he use those pro black youtubers comments and videos?

As big a Bradley fan as I am, he definitely hasn't done enough to be called the best welterweight right now. His past 2 years have been two losses to Pac and two (should be) wins over Diego Chaves and Jessie Vargas. Not bad, but certainly not enough to say he should be top dog in one of the most loaded, unproven divisions in the sport. Maybe if Vargas pulled the upset over Brook could we say Bradley should be top dog. I agree and don't understand why so many people believe that. It makes no sense and I wouldn't pick Bradley to beat Thurman or Porter at this stage.

I did, maybe I should stop reading youtube's comment... Maybe you should if you're going to use them as mainstream opinions.

Thurman is a solid counter puncher but can not fight on the inside and gets pushed back easily and and does not really have a great jab. He has solid power but does not have the great timing to make it as effective as it can be. Porter can not fight going backwards at all and has no jab worth mentioning, He leaps in wide open and off balance. Porter is aggressive ,but once he gets in he either smothers his work of just wastes energy wrestling his opponent. Both are solid fighters and if they fix certain things may have the chance to prove they are elite top fighters. Neither are as good as they think they are and both are very, very limited. But fighters like these have to fight each other to learn and improve I agree except I think Thurman has great timing (Porter is just difficult to time) and Porter's jab is actually decent. He doubles and triples it up to get inside and whenever Thurman threw a jab, Porter slipped and countered with his own jab and got the better of those exchanges. He does an excellent job of countering your jab with his own. That was effective against AB as well.

For those saying Bradley, can I ask what he has done to be the top guy at 147? Genuinely, what is it? A win over a small, 38 year old Marquez? 3 losses to Pacquiao? Getting dropped multiple times and getting gifted a win vs Provodnikov? His record at welterweight says 5-2-1, but his real record should be 3-3-2. As big a Bradley fan as I am, he definitely hasn't done enough to be called the best welterweight right now. His past 2 years have been two losses to Pac and two (should be) wins over Diego Chaves and Jessie Vargas. Not bad, but certainly not enough to say he should be top dog in one of the most loaded, unproven divisions in the sport. Maybe if Vargas pulled the upset over Brook could we say Bradley should be top dog.

Thurman's timing is fine, it's actually pretty freaking good. His problem is that he relies on hurting his opponents with big shots. His style is basically to wait and counter punch with a big shot, hoping to hurt. He doesn't do the best job of setting up his own offense if those counters don't work.

Yeah they both have weaknesses, but that was a great fight props to both men, no idea who will take over at 147, very interesting

For those saying Bradley, can I ask what he has done to be the top guy at 147? Genuinely, what is it? A win over a small, 38 year old Marquez? 3 losses to Pacquiao? Getting dropped multiple times and getting gifted a win vs Provodnikov? His record at welterweight says 5-2-1, but his real record should be 3-3-2. How many guys at 147 would have a better record facing Manny 3 times? Spence, Thurman, Porter are uncomplete fighters, the main asset about them is they are fighters walking around 165 and rehydrating to 160 wich make them huge guys next to Floyd, Manny or Bradley. I think Bradley might be the best skill wise at 147 but he seems to be too small to hang with those big WW, maybe Bradley should go back to 140. His fights vs Manny and Marquez proved he's a great little man. I dunno, Bradley vs Porter would be a cool fight tough. Don't know if Bradley is still motivated to face such threats. After getting 3 losses, almost in a row, fighters tend to lose motivation.

For those saying Bradley, can I ask what he has done to be the top guy at 147? Genuinely, what is it? A win over a small, 38 year old Marquez? 3 losses to Pacquiao? Getting dropped multiple times and getting gifted a win vs Provodnikov? His record at welterweight says 5-2-1, but his real record should be 3-3-2.QUOTE] How many guys at 147 would have a better record facing Manny 3 times? Spence, Thurman, Porter are uncomplete fighters, the main asset about them is they are fighters walking around 165 and rehydrating to 160 wich make them huge guys next to Floyd, Manny or Bradley. I think Bradley might be the best skill wise at 147 but he seems to be too small to hang with those big WW, maybe Bradley should go back to 140. His fights vs Manny and Marquez proved he's a great little man. I dunno, Bradley vs Porter would be a cool fight tough. Don't know if Bradley is still motivated to face such threats. After getting 3 losses, almost in a row, fighters tend to lose motivation.

I have a not seen a single person say that. You just made that up. I did, maybe I should stop reading youtube's comment...

For those saying Bradley, can I ask what he has done to be the top guy at 147? Genuinely, what is it? A win over a small, 38 year old Marquez? 3 losses to Pacquiao? Getting dropped multiple times and getting gifted a win vs Provodnikov? His record at welterweight says 5-2-1, but his real record should be 3-3-2.

Thurman is a solid counter puncher but can not fight on the inside and gets pushed back easily and and does not really have a great jab. He has solid power but does not have the great timing to make it as effective as it can be. Porter can not fight going backwards at all and has no jab worth mentioning, He leaps in wide open and off balance. Porter is aggressive ,but once he gets in he either smothers his work of just wastes energy wrestling his opponent. Both are solid fighters and if they fix certain things may have the chance to prove they are elite top fighters. Neither are as good as they think they are and both are very, very limited. But fighters like these have to fight each other to learn and improve I was thinking this the whole time during the fight. If Thurman estabished his jab instead of trying to time counters, he could have gave him self a better chance to set up the shots he wanted to land. I think this fight will be a great benefit to both. Most of the action was upclose, they didnt get hit with a lot of full leverage shots. They both will go back to the drawing board after this one. I think both will become better fighters from this fight Porter has potential....he needs to work on his head movement and shortening his shots....that wasted motion bouncing up and down is a bad habit, he picked up from his dad to establish rhythm. A smart fighter can time that bounce like kell brook did and land a stright right down the pipe. Porter also would benefit from creating punching opportunities by pivoting to the side. Ricky Hatton was great at this and this skill would benefit Porter.

You're right, I wouldn't bet my house on Spence jr. Outgunning Algieri was irrelevant, Algieri was a quite worn out fighter. Thurman would counter the sht out of Spence IMO. Spence is not really a boxer, he looks more like a fighter relaying on his souhtpaws stance just like Pacquiao was at lower weight a decade ago, but I doubt Spence has a once of the hearth, strenght, speed and chin Manny had. We'll see, maybe Spence will have a decent career, but HOF I don't know, let alone being the "new Mayweather". He has Nothing to make us think he's the new Mayweather except his nationality and colour lol, if someone might be the next Mayweather (overskilled unmatchable fighter) I would think more about Lomachenko. And yes, Loma lost a fight, but it was his second fight, out of 20 fights, Spence never fought a guy as dangerous and experienced as Salido. Lets not compare Spence or Loma to Manny or Floyd. In terms of just how good Spence may be, I have no idea. He has been matched very carefully, the guy has had 20 pro fights and been a pro for 4 years and yet the best he has to offer is Algieri.

What's this **** people keep preaching about Spence not staying long as a welterweight? Dude if Margarito and Baldomir (walked around at 180lbs and came in in the mid 160s on fight nights) could stay at welterweight as long as they did, then I don't see no problem at all. Worst of all, your bias is even more transparent by mentioning Bradley, coz Bradley fought at middleweight in the amateurs and yet fought as a junior welter and a welter his entire pro career, and he still a welter to this date. Guys like Ortiz and weigh more than Spence on fight night yet nobody hollarin bout them not making weight. You guys are pieces of **** and your agenda is transparent. Spence is the truth and yawl can't stand it so you gotta make up all this nonsense to make yourselves feel better. what has Bradleys weight got to do with this? What bias are you talking about? Bradley is 5'6'', Spence if 5'9'' ish, he is a big welter by modern standards and has a very big frame. As his body naturally grows, it would just be better for him to go to 154. What's wrong with that? If Spence is indeed the truth then lets have him fight Thurman, Porter, Brook, Garcia, Khan and we will all know for sure rather than going off of fantasy match ups.

You're right, I wouldn't bet my house on Spence jr. Outgunning Algieri was irrelevant, Algieri was a quite worn out fighter. Thurman would counter the sht out of Spence IMO. Spence is not really a boxer, he looks more like a fighter relaying on his souhtpaws stance just like Pacquiao was at lower weight a decade ago, but I doubt Spence has a once of the hearth, strenght, speed and chin Manny had. We'll see, maybe Spence will have a decent career, but HOF I don't know, let alone being the "new Mayweather". He has Nothing to make us think he's the new Mayweather except his nationality and colour lol, if someone might be the next Mayweather (overskilled unmatchable fighter) I would think more about Lomachenko. And yes, Loma lost a fight, but it was his second fight, out of 20 fights, Spence never fought a guy as dangerous and experienced as Salido. I have a not seen a single person say that. You just made that up.

Thurman is a solid counter puncher but can not fight on the inside and gets pushed back easily and and does not really have a great jab. He has solid power but does not have the great timing to make it as effective as it can be. Porter can not fight going backwards at all and has no jab worth mentioning, He leaps in wide open and off balance. Porter is aggressive ,but once he gets in he either smothers his work of just wastes energy wrestling his opponent. Both are solid fighters and if they fix certain things may have the chance to prove they are elite top fighters. Neither are as good as they think they are and both are very, very limited. But fighters like these have to fight each other to learn and improve You talking **** both put on a fight of the year so nobody cares what you think:bottle:

Thurman's biggest weakness is he fights like a guy with KO power. Porter's weakness is that he is just too basic and simple. Both put on a good fight but neither is special. The last messiah for American welterweights is Spence but I don't see him staying at 147 for long and he gets beat up at 154. Mark my words. Americans should really be getting behind their only ace, Timothy Bradley. You're right, I wouldn't bet my house on Spence jr. Outgunning Algieri was irrelevant, Algieri was a quite worn out fighter. Thurman would counter the sht out of Spence IMO. Spence is not really a boxer, he looks more like a fighter relaying on his souhtpaws stance just like Pacquiao was at lower weight a decade ago, but I doubt Spence has a once of the hearth, strenght, speed and chin Manny had. We'll see, maybe Spence will have a decent career, but HOF I don't know, let alone being the "new Mayweather". He has Nothing to make us think he's the new Mayweather except his nationality and colour lol, if someone might be the next Mayweather (overskilled unmatchable fighter) I would think more about Lomachenko. And yes, Loma lost a fight, but it was his second fight, out of 20 fights, Spence never fought a guy as dangerous and experienced as Salido.

If you're landing 47% of your power shots a fight, your timing is fantastic. Now that's logic!