Is Porter Overrated?

[JakeTheBoxer]

But he lost every big fight and argubally lost to Ugas and Danny. How in the hell can you call him a A- fighter?

No way he lost to Danny. Now you are making up things. Porter arguably lost to Ugas, yes.

[Sheldon312]

No way he lost to Danny. Now you are making up things. Porter arguably lost to Ugas, yes.

Danny outlander Porter

[Sheldon312]

Porter never been manhandled and dominated... until he ran into Bud

Kell Brook and Ugas anyone?

[jdp28tx]

The only reason Spence and Crawford fought Porter is because Porter is good, but not good enough to win against the top welterweights. He fights well, but always comes up short. He lost to all of the top welterweights, but was competitive against all of them. If he was a true danger they would of never fought him.

[billeau2]

People talk as if he is an elite fighter, but he is B-level at best.

No. Porter fought hard and at the highest level of comp in what is perhaps one of, if not the most, competative division in boxing.

[billeau2]

Porter is most certainly not overrated. I'd rate him as A-/B+ type fighter. He's fought all the top fighters and fought almost all of them close and was only stopped once. He has no bad losses on his record. Because he was willing to take on so many top opponents, it allows us to use him as a litmus test. The irony is that if these other guys were more willing to fight each other we wouldn't need to guage everyone based on how they performed against Porter.

Alot of fans seem to see only in extremes, either someone is elite or they are a "bum" when in fact it's much more nuanced than that. When good fighters are willing to face other good fighters, the result is one of those good fighters will probably catch an L.

Excellent Post.

There are layers to how someone is ranked... At times you even get fighters who lose a lot yet are obviously excellent... for example Orlando Salido, a guy who has beat the best, and lost many times... How would one rank him?

The key here is that Porter is competative with the top of the division and capable of winning a fight with Crawford, or Spence... No its not likely, but its possible and that is why those fights were close.

There can only really be a few "A" guys, and to call Porter a "B" tells some of the story but not entirely. Porter was not a journeyman. He won against some excellent fighters as well.

I can go with the A-/B+ type thang because it acknowledges that Porter is more than a solid B level guy. Nuanced indeed!

[billeau2]

The only reason Spence and Crawford fought Porter is because Porter is good, but not good enough to win against the top welterweights. He fights well, but always comes up short. He lost to all of the top welterweights, but was competitive against all of them. If he was a true danger they would of never fought him.

Do you know how betting odds work? In principle if I am "10 to 1" It means that if we fought ten times I would win once. You can have all kinds of odds from dead even to one million to one lol. Your statement that Porter is not good enough to win against top welters is not really so. The reality is Porter will usually lose to Crawford or Spence, but could very easily win a match... So he is more than good enough to win, he just hasn't done so. He was a threat to do so, many boxing trainers said it was a winnable fight for him.

[PBR Streetgang]

Danny outlander Porter

Punches landed is one metric used to determine a winner but not the only one. It was a close fight as many Porter fights are.

At the time that I posted a reply yesterday I noticed that your last 17 topics posted were about Crawford, Porter or Spence. It seems it's something you have an opinion on and feel passionately about that specific position. Rather than ask questions of NSB members perhaps it would be easier for you to tell us what exactly your position is.

[GrandpaBernard]

Porter wasn’t overrated

who else besides Porter thought Porter was the best

[daggum]

Punches landed is one metric used to determine a winner but not the only one. It was a close fight as many Porter fights are.

At the time that I posted a reply yesterday I noticed that your last 17 topics posted were about Crawford, Porter or Spence. It seems it's something you have an opinion on and feel passionately about that specific position. Rather than ask questions of NSB members perhaps it would be easier for you to tell us what exactly your position is.

those stats arent accurate though so not sure why people even use them? there was a round in floyd-pac where floyd landed 13 power shots cept he didnt land any. at least anything that could be rationally called a clean punch. also not every punch is equal. 10 nose tickles or 1 clean shot that smashes your opponents head around? hmmm what is better...