Who Was More Impressive in Their Last Performance: Spence or Crawford?

[-Kev-]

Didn't Sadam Ali beat Crawford in the amateurs? That stuff doesn't mean anything.

It only means something sometimes.

Generally speaking, the number of losses in the amateurs don’t matter. What I like to see is how the loss happened, to who was it, and what have you done to improve.

An example of an improper way to use amateur records is like when a poster mentioned that Bivol’s 15 losses in 283 amateur fights means he’s not a world beater in the pros. The number doesn’t matter, even though that is an excellent record to have.

Crawford’s am record of 58-12 doesn’t matter to me, I think nothing of it. What I want to see if evidence that he can beat those guys who beat him in am’s. So far, in Crawford’s 14 years as a pro, his resume is extremely lacking of top fighters. Not just name fighters, I mean top fighters like Porter, Beltran, and Postol. There isn’t enough of those guys.

In that case, yes, his amateur history can be used against him to ask the question “Is that why he has been hesitant to fight elite fighters and hide behind Bob Arum throughout his prime?”.

Mayweather has 8 am losses, Holyfield like 16, Canelo has limited am experience. But Mayweather fought the best and won in the pros. Holyfield is a Hall of Famer who fought the best. Canelo was hurt by Jose Cotto at 20 years old and now has wins that other fighters can only dream of.

So yeah, that’s why Crawford’s amateur resume can come in to question. He hasn’t done enough to put it behind him entirely.

[Combat Talk Radio]

There's many things that could be the reason for Spence's caution with body shots. He is 30+, he could be on his last days as a welterweight. Add that he was absolutely ripped and dry to the bone like a bodybuilder at the Arnold Classic? That could be a cause for durability issues.

He also spars a lot. Possibly too much. I don't know anything for certain but he has said the he spars a lot. Which that mouth piece moment seems like a spar culture thing to do.

He could be over sparring and those little things that are acceptable for spars are showing up in the real fights, where its dangerous like we saw vs Ugas.

But honestly, I don't see anything alarming with Spence for my pov.

He's strong, he's training well, he's staying in shape between fights. He's doing all the right things. Being a little cautious with his eye is normal given he had a detached retina not too long ago.

But we'll have to see in the next one I suppose. I do feel he's not the same killer he was pre-crash but he's a tank. He's a paladin rolling along, firing big shells that leave the top of the division (Ugas, Porter, Garcia etc.) reeling. Ugas shelled up like Clottey and was too afraid to let anything go. Speaks volumes to the pressure and weight of his punches to keep elite boxers in survival mode.

But do you really think Crawford won't open up against Spence?

I hope he doesn't do that. That would make for a fight that isn't living up to what it will be hyped to be.

I think you're going to see a lot of the sequence that you saw with Crawford/Postol @37:07 - 37:40.


https://********/iZaoGXKdv5w?t=2227

[PRINCEKOOL]

Spence Junior has the better last win.

Ugas was 100% prepared.

Porter apparently? Was battling injuries, which affected how he trained during camp.

I am only going by what other posters have stated on here, just today regarding that fight. I was not aware of Porters situation prior to that fight otherwise.

[PRINCEKOOL]

It only means something sometimes.

Generally speaking, the number of losses in the amateurs don’t matter. What I like to see is how the loss happened, to who was it, and what have you done to improve.

An example of an improper way to use amateur records is like when a poster mentioned that Bivol’s 15 losses in 283 amateur fights means he’s not a world beater in the pros. The number doesn’t matter, even though that is an excellent record to have.

Crawford’s am record of 58-12 doesn’t matter to me, I think nothing of it. What I want to see if evidence that he can beat those guys who beat him in am’s. So far, in Crawford’s 14 years as a pro, his resume is extremely lacking of top fighters. Not just name fighters, I mean top fighters like Porter, Beltran, and Postol. There isn’t enough of those guys.

In that case, yes, his amateur history can be used against him to ask the question “Is that why he has been hesitant to fight elite fighters and hide behind Bob Arum throughout his prime?”.

Mayweather has 8 am losses, Holyfield like 16, Canelo has limited am experience. But Mayweather fought the best and won in the pros. Holyfield is a Hall of Famer who fought the best. Canelo was hurt by Jose Cotto at 20 years old and now has wins that other fighters can only dream of.

So yeah, that’s why Crawford’s amateur resume can come in to question. He hasn’t done enough to put it behind him entirely.

If there getting ****** out during losses, that is bad.

But if they are just getting out pointed, but are racking up fights against top amateurs. I don't regard any of this as a negative.

It is all experience, and usually fighters grow more from a loss 'Especially in the amateurs'.

Because the loses are not as negatively stigmatized. If you just so happen to lose, you can just fight again no problem.

[Carpe Diem]

Both of their chins have been checked, and I think Spence has the better chin. Overall, Spence is too slow and basic to capitalize off of Crawford’s mistakes.

[buddyr]

I don't exaggerate anything and blame the ref. The fight was razor close and I scored for Porter. Go and take a look at posts after the fight. Good amount of fans scored for Porter. Just like they scored for Spence. You should learn to respect other opinions.

if the fight was close as you say, then how was it a bad decision? I've broken this math down before.. For Porter to have won the fight and get robbed, he would have had to been up 7-2 after 9 rounds because he clearly lost the last 3, including a 2 point round. So mathematically, he would have had to been up 8-1, 9-0, or 7-2 after 9 rounds going into the 10th. What was your score after 9 rounds? Anything other than what i named is mathematically impossible for a porter win on your card or anyone else's. You can answer this or continue to ignore it as everyone else did when I asked. Math will not lie to you.




(he won't answer because he's either trolling, lying, or both)

[TheUptownKid]

I say Crawford just bc porter had a far better game plan than ugas. Ugas seemed like he wanted to out Spence Spence and that is not a great approach. Spence did what he was supposed to, Crawford had to adjust, find a combo that worked and shoot that periodically until he hit pay dirt. Crawford showed more levels, Spence flat out worked ugas

[KTFOKING]

No, you're not giving Ugas credit for the fact that

• Every time Spence tried to engage, he got countered
• Spence was eating shots he normally would not have including range shots
• Ugas was WAY busier
• Ugas was WAY more accurate because Spence couldn't figure out how to get past the jab at first

You're just judging power punches, NOT the totality of performance. Ugas was busier in the first half of the fight AND more accurate in at least 4 rounds, bro. Spence didn't up his aggression until at least Round 7 after he got wobbled!



Go back and watch it again. This time, don't watch Porter, watch BoMac. EVERY DAMN ROUND, BoMac is screaming at Crawford to stop fighting Porter's fight. It wasn't until Round 7 that Crawford switched it up. Before that Porter was sneaky avoiding the counter hooks that Crawford was trying to land.



Because again, you only care about power punches and throwing. NOT the totality of performance.

Against Danny Swift, Spence showed strong defense, strong evasion, accurate punches, calm and collected performance. That's what beats Crawford. Not the wild swinging he was doing against Ugas.

And go back and watch how many hooks and body shots Spence landed in the 3rd round. Ugas was definitely not WAY busier, now I have no idea what you are talking about.

BoMac wanted Crawford to do better and dominate. That's fine, he has a job to do. But if you want to argue all that, then you can argue Crawford only lost three rounds.

No, I am looking at Spence's gas tank this fight compared to the Danny fight. Spence showed strong defense vs Danny? Sure, but why did he show a strong defense? Because he was able to jab the crap out of Danny and keep the fight on the outside. He could not do that against Ugas due to his high guard defense and needed to get on the inside to get his hooks over the guard and land his uppercuts. So that's why he fought a different type of fight and it was necessary to fight that way. How are you going to try to out jab a guy that uses that type of defense and covers his face? Did fighters used to out jab Winky Wright and fight him that way? You just cannot do that.

We can agree to disagree but he couldn't fight the same fight vs Ugas that he fought against Danny.

[just the facts]

Crawford beat Porter by TKO who beat Spence.
Spence's spaghetti legs were dancing in the Ugas fight.

The answer is clear.

I swear every post you make is dumber than the last. Except for Crawford beating Porter, there’s literally not one true word in this post.

Yet another dumb post by NSBs village idiot.

[just the facts]

One judge and good amount of boxing fans don't agree with you.

Yet another dumb post by NSBs village idiot.