How the hell are Crawford and Spence more respected than Thurman?

Neither dude played a flute on a hill with there legs crossed :lol1::lol1: /End thread

Neither dude played a flute on a hill with there legs crossed

I don't believe anyone should say Thurman is not a top level fight..Yet it's not unreasonable to rank Crawford or Spence above him..

because thurman loss to the pacman and spence and crawford is suppose to be the one to retired pacquiao.. once manny beat spence/crawford then those 2 will be looked at as average... i remember a guy name tim bradley who was talked highly on here until he loss to manny.. "bradley is not a face first brawler, bradley can actually box, bradley is gonna box manny's ears off"...

They are better fighters than Thurman. Thurman is clearly not as good as he was when he beat Garcia and Porter a few years ago. he was almost KOed by Lopez who is an average fighter ranked about number 25 by boxrec and unranked by everyone else. Spence and Crawford would KO Lopez and beat Pac in my opinion. Thurman and Spence both fought Bundu about a year or apart. Thurman went the full 12 rounds with Bundu while Spence quickly and easily knocked Bundu out. Bundu said Spence was better than Thurman. Bundu was already nearly 40 when Thurman fought him, Spence fought him like 2 years later and the fight was actually more competitive than the Thurman fight until the knockout, Bundu landed more punches than he did against Thurman (on average) and actually won a round or two. And for the record Bundu said Thurman is better and would pick him to win. https://www.boxingscene.com/bundu-i-favor-thurman-beat-spence-hes-faster-hits-harder--116933 Not that these triangle theories mean much, but most people would say Thurman also beat Porter more clean too. I rate Spence very highly, but Pacquaio would obviously be the most dangerous fighter he's ever fought and there's a good chance he could take his first L, this is a whole different caliber.

What the hell have they done at 147? Thurman is more proven then both of them. Spence couldn`t stop 140 guy Mikey Garcia and struggled badly with Porter. Crawford hasn`t fought anybody good at 147 yet. Thurman beat Danny and Porter clearly and gave Pacquiao a good fight. Thurman did not beat Porter clearly,imo it was a draw..I thought Spence beat Porter far more convincingly then Thurman.. Thurman also loss clearly to Pac,I believe Thurman has a very good resume..So does Crawford and Spence..Thing is they are undefeated at the moment while Thurman is not..

Because boxing fans are like that. They're undefeated, as soon as one of them takes a loss, they will be shat on, like Thurman. Forget what's proven and on paper. Eye test doe.

They are better fighters than Thurman. Thurman is clearly not as good as he was when he beat Garcia and Porter a few years ago. he was almost KOed by Lopez who is an average fighter ranked about number 25 by boxrec and unranked by everyone else. Spence and Crawford would KO Lopez and beat Pac in my opinion. Thurman and Spence both fought Bundu about a year or apart. Thurman went the full 12 rounds with Bundu while Spence quickly and easily knocked Bundu out. Bundu said Spence was better than Thurman.

Queef can’t take it to the body How not? he took it against Collazo and Lopez pretty well.

What the hell have they done at 147? Thurman is more proven then both of them. Spence couldn`t stop 140 guy Mikey Garcia and struggled badly with Porter. Crawford hasn`t fought anybody good at 147 yet. Thurman beat Danny and Porter clearly and gave Pacquiao a good fight. Well firstly you're exaggerating, and biased is coming through a little bit. Porter-Thurman was a very close either way type fight. Porter-Spence was also a very close either way type fight. I actually think Spence did more damage and won rounds more conclusively he also knocked Porter down, you could argue that Thurman managed the rounds and the fight better overall by winning 6 or 7 clearer rounds, and taking other rounds off, thus it was very difficult to score against him. I do think you have a point that Thurman should be considered in that league until proven otherwise. I think Spence is a bad style for him, but that doesnt mean he automatically beats him. I think Crawford is the most talented but again it needs to be proven, paper doesnt count. Thurman has the best resume, him and Spence have high quality wins in Porter (both), and D Garcia, Kell Brook respectively. I think Thurmans longevity and depth in resume puts him slightly ahead. His performance against Pac was also commendable, I watched it the other day and it was actually better than I thought it was when watching the fight live. I think maybe why people have overlooked him as far as recognition is because of injury/inactivity. But you're right he deserves more credit

because Crawford and Spence are clearly better fighters

Queef can’t take it to the body

Thurmans a part time boxer. Looking for the pay check with the least risk.

Because Thurman comes across as a sleaze bag... It’s just that simple.