Serious question: why are so many people confident that Spence beats Manny, but not confident Spence beats Crawford?

[Combat Talk Radio]

Manny Pacquiao dropped prime Keef for the first or second time in his career.

Manny Pacquiao BEAT Keef Thurman for the first time in his career and Keef is essentially done as a fighter.

Manny is a tough out. Even now, I think only Floyd and possibly Spence make easy work of Manny Pacquiao. Even Horn didn't have it easy, he had to work for those 7 rounds he won and he damn sure didn't win more than 7.


Look...I suspect Spence makes it look easy against Manny, not because of Manny's age, but because Spence is a highly skilled fighter that I don't think many of you give him credit for. He's proven it time and again - people on here claimed Algieri would outbox him, claimed Brook would outbox him, claimed Danny Swift might knock him out, etc. None of that happened. He's gone through some dangerous opponents, and in two of their cases, (both last name Garcia) he made it look easy because the opponent was nullified and afraid to throw on him.


But, I've seen numerous posts claiming that Crawford is somehow superior - despite not having any opponent to validate this. I don't see it. Spence hasn't been wobbled since Lartey, never dropped. Crawford's been hurt multiple times against lesser opposition and has had sketchy ref stoppages in every fight at 147 except Kavaliauskas.


Then people call out Spence/Porter, and I keep saying NOBODY has an easy night against Shawn Porter, which is why Crawford ducked him and I don't blame him for that.


So why is it that people can be so confident that Spence beats Manny, yet skeptical he beats Crawford, when Spence has MORE rounds in the books against tougher opposition AND Manny Pacquiao is still a legit threat?

[Ganondorf]

Manny is old and a shell of his former self.

Crawford is in his prime (I would assume).

[Combat Talk Radio]

Manny is old and a shell of his former self.

Crawford is in his prime (I would assume).

Once again, Manny even in his 40's has fought and beaten at least one top level opponent. Crawford has not.

What good is prime if you haven't been tested?

[Ganondorf]

Once again, Manny even in his 40's has fought and beaten at least one top level opponent. Crawford has not.

What good is prime if you haven't been tested?

Sorry to be redundant bro I haven’t read the comments yet.

I agree with your assessment. Crawford hasn’t done anything especially at 147.

Im not sure who is tougher to beat from that perspective. A faded, shell of Manny? Or a physically and biologically prime but untested Dud?

[Richard G]

Because Crawford > Spence > Packy. You know it's true, you secretly admire Crawdaddy

[danceswithfire]

age...age ...age

[Fists_of_Fury]

"Eye test"

[Combat Talk Radio]

age...age ...age

George Foreman was wrecking people en route to winning a title at 45.

Donaire was a 3-to-1 underdog and just pulled it out. Not only that, he took a P4P fighter in Inoue to deep waters.

We need to STOP treating age like a death sentence.

[Combat Talk Radio]

"Eye test"

Which makes no sense to me, because stylistically, Spence has never fought anyone as awkward as Manny. Yet nothing Crawford has would be a surprise to either Spence or Manny.

[Biolink]

Manny takes a lot of breaks now during fights. Spence gets better over the 2nd half. Also many of Pac's usual counters won't be there because of the Southpaw vs Southpaw angle. I think plain and simple Spence has the jab to control Manny.

You're right about Bud there's nothing to really validate him being better than Spence going by opponents. I think he gets by on the Eye test. I do think on paper Bud theoretically is the harder fighter to figure out. A lot of people think of Spence as a heavy-footed plodder, but he's very athletic and for his kind of style he's actually sound defensively. It's a 50/50 kind of fight in my eyes.