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

[IronDanHamza]

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.

Posting about a topic does not mean I care about it.

[TheOneAboveAll]

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

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)

No small feat to be the top guy in one of the deepest divisions in the sport; especially for a 'half-ass' fighter.

[IronDanHamza]

No small feat to be the top guy in one of the deepest divisions in the sport; especially for a 'half-ass' fighter.

I mean yeah, I guess.

Antonio Demarco was #1 at Lightweight for a year as well which is one of the deepest divisions historically.

Carlos Baldomir was #1 at WW for a year as well.

It's hardly ground breaking stuff.

[TheOneAboveAll]

I mean yeah, I guess.

Antonio Demarco was #1 at Lightweight for a year as well which is one of the deepest divisions historically.

Carlos Baldomir was #1 at WW for a year as well.

It's hardly ground breaking stuff.

No. Neither Tony Demarco nor Carlos Baldomir were the top guys in their divisions. They were just ABC beltholders. Baldomir had two high-profile wins in the WW division (Judah, Gatti), but there was another moderately famous title holder at WW at the same time who was regarded a bit higher. Some guy named Floyd.

[IronDanHamza]

No. Neither Tony Demarco nor Carlos Baldomir were the top guys in their divisions. They were just ABC beltholders. Baldomir had two high-profile wins in the WW division (Judah, Gatti), but there was another moderately famous title holder at WW at the same time who was regarded a bit higher. Some guy named Floyd.

Baldomir was literally the Lineal Champion at WW and defended it once and stayed there for a year. Mayweather wasn't the Champion then, he'd just moved up. He beat Baldomir to become the champion. So you're incorrect about that firstly.

Secondly, Thurman was never the top guy at WW either, he was an ABC belt holder just like you are saying Demarco was.

Thurman's #1 position at WW as no diffrerent to Demarco's #1 position at LW. Both were ranked #1 for a year with a vacant Lineal Champion.

As for Baldomir, he was Lineal Champion, and should have been undisputed champion. Unlike Thurman who was neither.

[Tag, You're Hit]

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for The Ring ratings info. From that:

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 2017
Welterweights
1. Keith Thurman
2. Errol Spence
3. Shawn Porter
4. Kell Brook
5. Danny (Swift) Garcia

Maybe you should have checked this yourself before posting he never had a win over a top 5 opponent, or you shouldn't have told me how to find that info.

It's clear I've now definitively won the argument about his career. We can still differ on the definition of puncher, but for punchers at WW I think I made a good case for myself being correct on that as well, especially since you haven't offered up a counter to that except basically saying there are almost 0 WW punchers.

[Tag, You're Hit]

Posting about a topic does not mean I care about it.

Ummm...

kat.jpg

[IronDanHamza]

Thanks for The Ring ratings info. From that:

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 2017
Welterweights
1. Keith Thurman
2. Errol Spence
3. Shawn Porter
4. Kell Brook
5. Danny (Swift) Garcia

Maybe you should have checked this yourself before posting he never had a win over a top 5 opponent, or you shouldn't have told me how to find that info.

It's clear I've now definitively won the argument about his career. We can still differ on the definition of puncher, but for punchers at WW I think I made a good case for myself being correct on that as well, especially since you haven't offered up a counter to that except basically saying there are almost 0 WW punchers.

Erm, he fought Porter in 2016 mate and he fought Garcia in 2017. So you'd want to look at the End of year ratings for 2015 and 2016 for those. Go and have a look where they were ranked, I'll give you a clue as to where it's not; In the Top 5. So, A for effort. But try again and see how you do.

You're asking me who are punchers at WW? Historically? Tommy Hearns would be one, Sugar Ray Robinson, Felix Trinidad, list goes on.

Compared to someone who only ever dropped one ranked opponent, let alone stopped any. I can't fathom how you'd eqaute that to being a puncher.

[IronDanHamza]

Ummm...

kat.jpg

Which part are you lost on?

Are you under the impression you have to care about something to pass comment on it? Because, you don't.

I literally could not care any less about Keith Thurman's career. I haven't watched any of his fights since he was easily beaten by a 40 year old Pacquaio where he spent the first 6 rounds running doing nothing.

[Tag, You're Hit]

Erm, he fought Porter in 2016 mate and he fought Garcia in 2017. So you'd want to look at the End of year ratings for 2015 and 2016 for those. Go and have a look where they were ranked, I'll give you a clue as to where it's not; In the Top 5. So, A for effort. But try again and see how you do.

You're asking me who are punchers at WW? Historically? Tommy Hearns would be one, Sugar Ray Robinson, Felix Trinidad, list goes on.

Compared to someone who only ever dropped one ranked opponent, let alone stopped any. I can't fathom how you'd eqaute that to being a puncher.

You're looking at End of Year Rankings, but they don't update the rankings only once a year at the end. So, I'm pretty sure they were both ranked Top 5 when Keith fought them. And that they were ranked in the top 5 AFTER Thurman beat them is even more impressive.

And, no, I wasn't asking about WW historically. I was asking about the the current era of WW's - let's say post Floyd. Who you got for your definition of punchers?