Why is Canelo and Spence considered special but Thurman is not.

I've seen a lot of hype around Canelo and Spence who are exceptional talents but I don't see the same hype around someone like Keith Thurman. For example, Max has said that Spence is special whereas Keith is just really really good. He also has said the same for Canelo. But looking at all three, Keith just seems to be the better overall fighter. Comparing Canelo and Keith it is very clear that Keith has the better footwork, versatility, movement, offense, defense is equal imo but I would probably give a slight edge to Canelo, counter punching, ring IQ, athleticism, and Keith seems to be better at making adjustments. There has never been any controversy surrounding a Keith Thurman victory but there has been controversy surrounding a few Canelo victories. Comparing Spence and Keith, it is the same. Keith is just the better fighter. He can fight better at distance, and he can fight in the pocket pretty well, he has the better movement, defense, versatility arsenal, speed, power, and arsenal. Spence is better at cutting off the ring and using the jab to his advantage but that's it. So my question to you all is, what do Spence and Canelo do better than Thurman to be considered 'special' whereas Thurman is just considered really good?