Shawn Porter ****** as a fighter

[BodyBagz]

Get in the ring with him. See if what you say is true.

That's not how it works.
And if it did, that truly is a shltty way to hype up a professional boxer.

''He was mediocre vs guys in his div but he sure did beat the ass of a fight fan !''

[MONGOOSE66]

That's not how it works.
And if it did, that truly is a shltty way to hype up a professional boxer.

''He was mediocre vs guys in his div but he sure did beat the ass of a fight fan !''

Your an idiot. Get in their with at LEAST an amateur. It will make you appreciate what they do.

[BodyBagz]

Your an idiot. Get in their with at LEAST an amateur. It will make you appreciate what they do.

''Derp......I may not be the toughest HSer but I sure as hell can beat up a 4th grader, derp ''

I can probably say I'm better at what I do than a pro boxer

[pesticid]

Porter's claim to fame is giving Malignaggi a concussion.

[Pac=Duran]

He was C+. Only thing he had going for him was he came in shape.

Lost to Thurman, Spence, Crawford, Brook, and Ugas.

Even looked like **** vs Granados

Got dropped by Adrien fckin Broner.

Why do people even care about this dudes opinion?

He was also a boring fckin fighter. Grab and hit, headbut, grab grab. No KO power.

I remember he was so desperate for attention he made an account here and started posting.

WHen the going got tough vs Crawford his daddy saved him.

He wasn’t the best but he gave Spence and Thurman all they could handle so people thought he was a great welterweight yard stick. Style was awful to watch

[Clegg]

I don't really agree with the logic that if you fall short elite, it means you suck.

Also idk if being a great fighter makes you a great TV analyst. I've heard Sergio Mora and Paulie make more insightful comments than Lennox Lewis.

[STREET CLEANER]

Porter was the type of fighter if you didn't get in top shape he would beat you. He always brought it and most of the time it wasn't pretty.

He was able to box more towards the end of his career. He was a decent fighter that his losses were close decisions.

[dannnnn]

He also should have had an L to Julio Diaz.

I think Shawn Porter was a legit top 10 welterweight though. Even though he lost a bunch of fights, that happens when all you fight is top 10 fighters. Porter fought almost every welterweight that was ranked as #1 by The Ring in his time.

The only #1 ranked welters he didn’t fight were Mayweather and Pacquiao and that was simply because he just never deserved those fights. Never beat who he had to to beat.

It’s also fair to say that Porter was always competitive even against the best. I remember, for me, when he showed he wasn’t elite, top 3, was when Kell Brook beat him.

With that said, Shawn Porter is Terence Crawford’s best win, which is sad.

Very good post mate, especially the bold. Sums it up well.

His style was ugly and frustrating to watch but I can't knock a man for facing--and being very competitive with--the best guys in his division. That's all anyone can ask of a fighter. His bouts with Brook, Thurman and even Spence were all close, and he got the win over Garcia. That's a solid resume in this welterweight era.

The point is, if everyone fought top opposition with consistency like Porter did, many more fighters would have more losses than they currently do and subsequently we would have a far clearer idea of where they actually rank amongst the competition of their era as opposed to how they probably do, or how they (and their most ardent fans) would like us to perceive they do.

[GhostofDempsey]

He was a crude fighter and often dirty fighter with limited skills, but found way to win a title and go the distance in some very close fights with some of the top welters including Thurman and Spence. Best win was Danny Garcia. His style is not conducive to longevity.

[-Kev-]

Very good post mate, especially the bold. Sums it up well.

His style was ugly and frustrating to watch but I can't knock a man for facing--and being very competitive with--the best guys in his division. That's all anyone can ask of a fighter. His bouts with Brook, Thurman and even Spence were all close, and he got the win over Garcia. That's a solid resume in this welterweight era.

The point is, if everyone fought top opposition with consistency like Porter did, many more fighters would have more losses than they currently do and subsequently we would have a far clearer idea of where they actually rank amongst the competition of their era as opposed to how they probably do, or how they (and their most ardent fans) would like us to perceive they do.

Very true, very well said.

That idea goes above some fans head’s though. I also blame the media. They really push the undefeated record, the KO streaks, the “he beat a name” or “he beat a former champion”. With no regard as to how many of those KO’s were against top 10 fighters, and how many of those former champs are actively ranked in the top 10.

Both Ring and TBRB love their KO streaks, love the 0, the media, reporters push that too. Despite those wins coming in the form of weak opposition.

A guy like Shawn Porter can fight 10 top 10 guys and go 6-4 against them, get pushed to the back of the line and outside of “best” talks, forgotten, and called a “bad” fighter.

Meanwhile Crawford fights like 5 top 10 guys in a decade, like 10 fighters unranked in the top 10, go undefeated, get KO’s, and is praised to heaven and placed in the top 3 P4P.

Boxing media and fans supposedly claim 0’s don’t mean anything. But they clearly prefer to push those with 0’s and especially KO streaks with those 0’s. Regardless of opposition.