Terence Crawford is massively overrated, I'd say as things stand right Shawn Porter best wins and resume is a good bit better than Crawford.
Porter should have had a win over Thurman, he destroyed Broner and Berto both very good wins, yeah I'd definitely fancy Porters chances to beat Crawford.
Porter's skill is so underrated when you bear in mind his style, it's about context. The guy had nearly 300 amateur wins, including wins over Usyk, Andrade, Jacobs, Monroe Jr etc. He's only been beaten by the 2 top welters as a pro and people still talk about him like he's a pub fighter. You don't achieve the things Porter has achieved if you're not very skilled.
Porter like to draw people into a war and use his strength to bully and dictate pace.
Crawford is too smart for that type of scenario and I think he would land cleaner more eye catching work for a UD.
Porter should fight Khan at 147, that is a great mix of styles.
It'll be a tough fight no doubt, Crawford being the smaller guy but I think he gets the W. TC's smarter and more skilled than Porter.
Indeed. Some posters here say that he got outboxed by boxers when either fight could had gone either way or were close
Wow, reading through the thread I have come across: Porter is a master at cutting off the ring, Porter is a great fighter like a mini Joe Frazier, Porter is better than any of Crawford's opponents...
BS never ceases to amaze. And this coming off a "stoppage" win over Andre Berto of all people. :dance:
Porter just beat Berto, let's not get carried away here.
I think Crawford catches Porter rushing in all night. Crawford is too sharp, Porter is too sloppy.
Thurman and Spence would be tougher fights for Bud.
A lot depends how the good boxers fight them swarmers, Floyd Maidana is a perfect example , Floyd slugs it out and just scrapes in the win, Floyd boxes him and its a walk in the park.
But Porter is better than Madianna.
that' the beauty of styles....swarmers which i consider porter to be, can make even the most technical fighters work extremely hard for the victory..ali had frazier, floyd had castillo and maidana, ward had bika....also the reason why i think sweetpea is the most versatile fighter ever fighting/beating mcgirt and chavez at their own game and shining at the same time minus the robbery of course in the chavez fight....
A lot depends how the good boxers fight them swarmers, Floyd Maidana is a perfect example , Floyd slugs it out and just scrapes in the win, Floyd boxes him and its a walk in the park.
that' the beauty of styles....swarmers which i consider porter to be, can make even the most technical fighters work extremely hard for the victory..ali had frazier, floyd had castillo and maidana, ward had bika....also the reason why i think sweetpea is the most versatile fighter ever fighting/beating mcgirt and chavez at their own game and shining at the same time minus the robbery of course in the chavez fight....
Great post! I swear Sweet pea don't get his proper due. He is my favorite fighter that I actually had the privilege to grow up and watch. He was a "cute" fighter but was a dog and could switch up when necessary.
I think he would put Crawford in a body bag. Who else agrees?
Are ****ing serious? Bud has skills Porter is nothing but a brawler . Porter is a backstreet brawler nothing more nothing else.
Although Brook did do some clinching, and guys like daggum were very critical of it, it was something he had to do. Because if you notice Berto, he just let himself get bullied inside and get smothered. Brook found a way to stop that by hitting Porter with short punches and clinching and basically eliminating his special move. To beat Porter you have to do what Brook did or give yourself space pretty much like a matador. Berto had the right idea in rounds 6 and 7 but didn't sustain the style, when he decided to stay back and counter. Couple that with the brutal headbutting of Porter, and that last one that pretty much hurt Berto just like a punch. IMO it would've been okay for Berto to stand up for himself since the ref wasn't doing it, and low blow Porter, elbow him. Fight fouling with fouling. He pretty much got Lomachenko'ed (Salido) but less competitive, Lomachenko may have won that fight.
I'm definitely not criticizing Brook for clinching. Porter's style necessitated Brook to control him up close. I'm just saying that's the one guy to clearly beat Porter, and he had the size and strength to clinch. Thurman isn't much of a clincher and as such he had lots of trouble handling Porter.
Maybe Crawford moves well enough so he doesn't need to clinch, or maybe he can handle clinching Porter as well. It's a legit question calling the expected outcome into question, though. No doubt Crawford could and would counter Porter hard. What happens when Porter is still on his ass, though? If Porter could walk through some of the hellacious shots Thurman hit him with, he could probably do the same to Crawford. Then it's a matter of whether Crawford can keep moving or tie Porter up.
Crawford would really take advantage of Porter's recklessness, he sets his feet a lot quicker than Brook so he'll counter Porter more consistently than Brook. Crawford is also considerably quicker on his feet than Brook.
that' the beauty of styles....swarmers which i consider porter to be, can make even the most technical fighters work extremely hard for the victory..ali had frazier, floyd had castillo and maidana, ward had bika....also the reason why i think sweetpea is the most versatile fighter ever fighting/beating mcgirt and chavez at their own game and shining at the same time minus the robbery of course in the chavez fight....
Kell Brook out-boxed him, Keith-Thurman out boxed him, Bud would out box him easy.
Those two are natural welters. And they did not have easy time with Porter.
It would be a very tough match up based on Porter's style and determination/physical strength. But Crawford is quite a bit taller than Thurman so he has the height to fight Porter from a comfortable range if he stays moving which he seems capable of doing. The main thing would be how much of physical strength difference there is between them. Other than that, I think Crawford is big enough and a sharp enough puncher to keep Porter off of him at times. I probably give at least a 50-50 chance at this moment without having seen him at 147.
Physical strength is a key here, as you yourself mentioned. For instance Brook was not smaller than GGG, if you look at dimensions and weight. But the disparity in physical strength was apparent.
What if Crawford hits Porter with his best sharp counter and nothing happens, Shawn will keep coming?
He comes forward and makes for fights. I realize that is not popular with some posters on here and you can call his style ugly all you want but he made tonight's fight a memorable fight- highlight worthy. He's not Henry Armstrong but he brings the fight. He is what boxing needs. I only wish the fight had been on PBC.bingo. porter is trying to do damage sure he may smother his own work and get tied up with his opponent a lot but he's aggressively looking for the ko. he is not a spoiler. its funny that the people calling him ugly to watch are big fans of ward who clinches and head butts more than anybody. these clowns are hypocrites.
Yeah. What got me was the Crawford ducking Diaz accusations. Anything Diaz can do Crawford can do better and with pop behind it.
With Porter, you'd think the Diaz, Brook, and Thurman fights never happened. Crawford hasn't come close to losing to anyone in Julio Diaz level. The some posters are saying Porter is a different caliber fighter, but Crawford is the one who's in everyone's top 5 P4P while it's unlikely Porter will ever crack the top 10. It's pretty amusing tbh.
Porter is better than every fighter Crawford has fought.