Comments Thread For: Keith Thurman, at 35, Aims for the Big Names - Including Terence Crawford

[Tag, You're Hit]

Except it wasn't. The cards won't change that fact, it was not a close fight.

He had neither badly hurt at any point.

You're the one that brought the fact he stopped 22 unranked opponents into it like it means something, when it doesn't.

He actually KO'd no quality fighters. No ranked fighters. And he only ever dropped one ranked fighter in his whole career in Guererro. That is not a puncher. It just isn't. Punchers knock ranked fighters out, Keith Thurman has never and likely will never do that, because, he's not a puncher.

And Mayweather can't punch either, not above 140 lbs.

No, they weren't. Let's not make things up to support the argument. Thurman has zero wins over Top 5 ranked opponents, that is a fact.

And? That's irrelevant.

Adrien Broner made more than Thurman. Francis Ngannou as of Saturday will have made more than both of them combined. Money you made isn't a metric.

I'm talking in the grand scheme of things like anyone should on these topics.

Yeah he had a good career if we're talking compared to most boxers who will never reach world level but in the grand scheme of things, his career is not impressive. Hard to be when you have zero wins over Top 5 opponents and four wins over ranked opponents in general. Even from the four ranked fighters he beat, only two of them weren't moving up from a lower weight class and one of them was Shawn Porter who was never elite and the other was Jan Zaveck who's dead average at best. These are facts.

Definitively, YES, Thurman vs PacMan was a close, competitive fight, regardless of what the judges saw (even though they were right in the particular instance). Your bias won't change that fact.

Our definition of punchers is obviously different from each other. You, apparently, mean devastating punchers of which there are few at welterweight. I'd put Bud in that category in current times. Other than him at WW recently who is there? Maybe Boots? Ortiz? I don't think Spence falls into that category. But there are plenty of guys who can punch at WW.

Where do you get your ranking "facts"? I'm curious.

And as for the success of a career you absolutely have to consider $ in the equation, as well as things like belts, W-L record, and who you've fought. You seem to be hung up only on wins over "Top 5" opponents as the Be All End All of what defines a career. But do any of us agree on the Top 5? Even by what TBRB or The Ring says?

And besides anybody who has ever laced up the gloves and tried to making a living as a professional boxer, Keith has a great career compared to his peers. This era. The best? No. That's Bud. Then probably Spence. Add in overlaps like PacMan and Floyd who also had better careers than Keith. Other than that, who has had a better WW career than Keith among his peers?

Lastly, Keith is always in entertaining fights. Even though his fights in the last 8 years have been few and far between, if you played all his fights back to back to back you would be entertained (with the exception of the Bundu fight). And, to me, that is also the sign of a successful career.

[Tag, You're Hit]

Ok.

And if he loses what then?

If he slips on a banana peel when walking to the ring what then?

If he dies in a car crash tomorrow what then?

Who cares about what if's? If he wins he wins, nice one. He'll have his first win over a Top 5 ranked opponent. If he loses he'll still have zero. I don't care either way.

You care enough to be on here posting. If I didn't care about something you won't see me posting about it. You won't see any of my comments under Jake Paul articles.

[IronDanHamza]

Definitively, YES, Thurman vs PacMan was a close, competitive fight, regardless of what the judges saw (even though they were right in the particular instance). Your bias won't change that fact.

It wasn't a close fight at all. Despite what the one terrible card said.

Our definition of punchers is obviously different from each other. You, apparently, mean devastating punchers of which there are few at welterweight. I'd put Bud in that category in current times. Other than him at WW recently who is there? Maybe Boots? Ortiz? I don't think Spence falls into that category. But there are plenty of guys who can punch at WW.

Well yes, it is clearly. You deem someone who's knocked out 22 unranked fighters as a puncher whereas I don't. You can't be a puncher unless you stop ranked fighters is a general rule of thumb I go by.

Keith Thurman hasn't even dropped a ranked fighter outside of Guererro, let alone stopped.

If you consider that a puncher than fair enough.

Where do you get your ranking "facts"? I'm curious.

The Ring ****zine.

And as for the success of a career you absolutely have to consider $ in the equation, as well as things like belts, W-L record, and who you've fought. You seem to be hung up only on wins over "Top 5" opponents as the Be All End All of what defines a career. But do any of us agree on the Top 5? Even by what TBRB or The Ring says?

Yeah I put a lot of stock into fighters beating ranked fighters, because that's what's known as a resume.

I put entirely zero stock into how much money a fighter made because if I did then Jake Paul and Tommy Fury would be elite boxers.

And besides anybody who has ever laced up the gloves and tried to making a living as a professional boxer, Keith has a great career compared to his peers. This era. The best? No. That's Bud. Then probably Spence. Add in overlaps like PacMan and Floyd who also had better careers than Keith. Other than that, who has had a better WW career than Keith among his peers?

No shit the likes of Mayweather and Pacquaio had better careers than Keith Thurman You're comparing ATG's to a guy who barely beat a ranked fighter in his career

Lastly, Keith is always in entertaining fights. Even though his fights in the last 8 years have been few and far between, if you played all his fights back to back to back you would be entertained (with the exception of the Bundu fight). And, to me, that is also the sign of a successful career.

I mean, that's subjective so I couldn't really care less. I don't care about how you feel. I didn't find almost any of Keith Thurman's fights entertaining but it's neither here nor there it's irrelevant to the topic.

[IceTrayDaGang]

I’m hopeful Keith’s conditioning is top level for Tszyu otherwise, how does he keep his distance from a charging forward, heavy handed Tszyu? Very concerned for Keith’s health in this one..

by countering him.

[IronDanHamza]

You care enough to be on here posting. If I didn't care about something you won't see me posting about it. You won't see any of my comments under Jake Paul articles.

What you would do and what I would do is irrelevant.

I can post my opinion wherever I like on a public forum. That doesn't change the amount that I care whether or not he wins or loses, which is at entirely zero.

[Tag, You're Hit]

It wasn't a close fight at all. Despite what the one terrible card said.



Well yes, it is clearly. You deem someone who's knocked out 22 unranked fighters as a puncher whereas I don't. You can't be a puncher unless you stop ranked fighters is a general rule of thumb I go by.

Keith Thurman hasn't even dropped a ranked fighter outside of Guererro, let alone stopped.

If you consider that a puncher than fair enough.

The Ring ****zine.

Yeah I put a lot of stock into fighters beating ranked fighters, because that's what's known as a resume.

I put entirely zero stock into how much money a fighter made because if I did then Jake Paul and Tommy Fury would be elite boxers.

No shit the likes of Mayweather and Pacquaio had better careers than Keith Thurman You're comparing ATG's to a guy who barely beat a ranked fighter in his career

I mean, that's subjective so I couldn't really care less. I don't care about how you feel. I didn't find almost any of Keith Thurman's fights entertaining but it's neither here nor there it's irrelevant to the topic.

Is there a way to look up archives of Ring Ratings? That would be a good tool to have.

As for money - I didn't say it was the only metric, rather one metric among others such as things like belts, W-L record, and who you've fought. Keith meets ALL of those metrics of a successful career. HOF career? No. Successful career? Absolutely.

Questions you still didn't answer:

Other than those I named (Crawford, Spence, Floyd, PacMan), who has had a better WW career than Keith among his peers (current era)?

Who meets your definition of puncher at WW in the current era - last 10 years?

[Tag, You're Hit]

What you would do and what I would do is irrelevant.

I can post my opinion wherever I like on a public forum. That doesn't change the amount that I care whether or not he wins or loses, which is at entirely zero.

I'll take your word that you don't care whether he wins or loses. But, you still care enough about Thurman to be on here posting about him even more than the rest of us.

[TheOneAboveAll]

I don't really care.

If Keith Thurman wins then he'll have one more win over a Top 5 ranked fighter than he has at the moment which is zero. Nice one.

That's an interesting statement. To which ranking body do you refer when you state that he's never fought a Top 5 opponent? Neither Shawn Porter nor DSG were ranked in the top 5 of any sanctioning body? It seems odd that Shawn Porter who had been the former IBF champ wouldn't have been ranked that high by any organization, and Thurman fought DSG in a WBA/WBC unification fight, so he was, in fact, a Top 5 guy. Not sure offhand what every other opponent's ranking was when Thurman fought them, but Thurman was, in fact, the undefeated, unified and consensus #1 TBRB ranked WW. It's been a while since he's been that guy, but Keith Thurman absolutely was the best WW in the world for a time.

[IronDanHamza]

Is there a way to look up archives of Ring Ratings? That would be a good tool to have.

Yeah, type in "The Ring annual ratings" in google and they have every end of year ranking for every division dating back to the early 1900's.

As for money - I didn't say it was the only metric, rather one metric among others such as things like belts, W-L record, and who you've fought. Keith meets ALL of those metrics of a successful career. HOF career? No. Successful career? Absolutely.

It's not a metric at all.

Like I said if you're talking about out of all fighters who get a pro license then yeah he had a good career.

If we're talking amongst the elites then no his career was not good at all.

Questions you still didn't answer:

Other than those I named (Crawford, Spence, Floyd, PacMan), who has had a better WW career than Keith among his peers (current era)?

Who meets your definition of puncher at WW in the current era - last 10 years?

If we're talking Welterweights from 2014-Present I'd add in Tim Bradley and that's probably it but we're talking about a pretty **** divison really. If we're to include Mayweather and Pacquaio's era as this era then there's plenty more.

Doesn't change anything really. Doesn't change the fact he beat no Top 5 ranked guys or the fact he's not a puncher.

[IronDanHamza]

That's an interesting statement. To which ranking body do you refer when you state that he's never fought a Top 5 opponent? Neither Shawn Porter nor DSG were ranked in the top 5 of any sanctioning body? It seems odd that Shawn Porter who had been the former IBF champ wouldn't have been ranked that high by any organization, and Thurman fought DSG in a WBA/WBC unification fight, so he was, in fact, a Top 5 guy. Not sure offhand what every other opponent's ranking was when Thurman fought them, but Thurman was, in fact, the undefeated, unified and consensus #1 TBRB ranked WW. It's been a while since he's been that guy, but Keith Thurman absolutely was the best WW in the world for a time.

I go by the same rankings I've always done and the original rankings from 100+ years ago which is The Ring ****zine.

Not interested in sanctioning body rankings and am confused as to why anyone would be.

Keith Thurman was #1 at Welterweight for one year (2017)