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

[KayDub]

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.

Why do you even waste your time replying to this guy?

Being contrarian and different makes him feel special. Ignore him and move on.

[Tag, You're Hit]

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.

Yes. If you don't care about something you don't pay any attention to it.

[IronDanHamza]

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?

Yes precisely, the end of year rankings for the year prior.

Neither Garcia or Porter were ranked in the Top 5 and there was no movement between then and their fights so thus; Not top 5. You can be "pretty sure" about it if that makes you feel better but it doesn't change the fact you're factually incorrect.

And where they were ranked after is irrelevant. They weren't in the Top 5 when he beat them is what is relevant.

Post Floyd? There isn't really any. Crawford I guess would be a one who's shown good power at WW and Spence at times has aswell, Ortiz and Ennis have shown potential but haven't fought anyone of note to prove it and the divison is weak so there's not many. Don't see your point really, there could be 100 of them or they could be zero it doesn't magcially make Thurman a puncher which he objectively isn't.

[IronDanHamza]

Yes. If you don't care about something you don't pay any attention to it.

Says who? There's a plethora of things you may pay attention to or pass comment on that you have no care of.

I couldn't care less about the weather for example, I noticed it was raining today though and mentioned it at some point. Doesn't mean I care about the weather.

It isn't physically possible for me to care less about Keith Thurman's career. He's been irrelevant for years and even when he was relevant his career was underwhelming. I don't watch his fights and I won't watch his fight with Tszyu either. Me having a discussion about it or making a observation it doesn't then mean that I care in any way about it.

[IronDanHamza]

Why do you even waste your time replying to this guy?

Being contrarian and different makes him feel special. Ignore him and move on.

Making a factual statement that Thurman has never beaten a Top 5 ranked fighter is being "different" now

Is it your time of the month?

[TheOneAboveAll]

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.

No. Floyd Mayweather was already a WW (and former LW and JWW champion) by the time Baldomir beat Zab Judah for the WBC belt. He had already beaten Sharma Mitchell which set him up to fight and beat Judah for the vacant IBF WW title a few months after Zab lost to Baldomir. Baldomir then put up his WBC and IBO belts (taken from Gatti) against Floyd's IBF title and was summarily washed by Floyd. With regard to the Demarco vs Thurman debate, again, Keith Thurman was a unified WW champion. Antonio DeMarco won a vacant LW title.

[Roadblock]

Says who? There's a plethora of things you may pay attention to or pass comment on that you have no care of.

I couldn't care less about the weather for example, I noticed it was raining today though and mentioned it at some point. Doesn't mean I care about the weather.

It isn't physically possible for me to care less about Keith Thurman's career. He's been irrelevant for years and even when he was relevant his career was underwhelming. I don't watch his fights and I won't watch his fight with Tszyu either. Me having a discussion about it or making a observation it doesn't then mean that I care in any way about it.

I don't agree with the fight but I will be watching, I want to see where Tim is at in his rise as a top level guy, and I want to see what has Thurman got left in the sport.

I see Thurman having the boxing ability to get a decision, 12 rounds is a long time though to stay that sharp and focused with a strong determined guy that wants to take your head off, its interesting there are some tangibles that add a little suspense to it, I,ll be tuning in.

[IronDanHamza]

No. Floyd Mayweather was already a WW (and former LW and JWW champion) by the time Baldomir beat Zab Judah for the WBC belt. He had already beaten Sharma Mitchell which set him up to fight and beat Judah for the vacant IBF WW title a few months after Zab lost to Baldomir. Baldomir then put up his WBC and IBO belts (taken from Gatti) against Floyd's IBF title and was summarily washed by Floyd.

Floyd had just moved to WW, he wasn't a belt holder when Baldomir won the title off Judah which was for the Undisputed championship, he only didn't win all the belts because he couldn't afford the sanctioning fees thus the IBF became vacant (The one you're referring to that was vacant.)

So Baldomir was not only Lineal Champion at WW but he should have been the undisputed champion, he only wasn't but he didn't have the money for the fees. So you're just wrong in saying that Floyd was the Champion, he factually wasn't. (Until he beat Baldomir)

Baldomir was #1, he was the Lineal Champion and no one was ranked above him, not even Floyd, for that year or so period.

Keith Thurman was never Lineal champion.

Point being, who cares? It's not some incredible feat.

With regard to the Demarco vs Thurman debate, again, Keith Thurman was a unified WW champion. Antonio DeMarco won a vacant LW title.

it doesn't matter. He was still #1 at LW for a year like Thurman was #1 at WW for a year. Neither are overly impressive all things considered.

[IronDanHamza]

I don't agree with the fight but I will be watching, I want to see where Tim is at in his rise as a top level guy, and I want to see what has Thurman got left in the sport.

I see Thurman having the boxing ability to get a decision, 12 rounds is a long time though to stay that sharp and focused with a strong determined guy that wants to take your head off, its interesting there are some tangibles that add a little suspense to it, I,ll be tuning in.

Tszyu seems alright but I've got no interest in watching him fight an average WW really.

I'll catch the highlights when they're on youtube.

[IronDanHamza]

I believe you. You apparently post out of sheer boredom. Nearly 10 posts every day for 15 years. Based on this thread, those posts are presumably mostly stream-of-consciousness revisionist non-sense about fighters and fights you never saw. You admit that you didn't follow Thurman's career and don't plan to watch his next fights, yet you spend your afternoon arguing that he was a complete nobody who just happened to become the #1 WW in the world.

It's not revisionist. It's what actually happened.

Well yeah, I haven't watched a Thurman fight since he was soundly beaten by a 40 year Pacquaio where he was on his bike for over half the fight. I'd seen enough at that point. He's only had one fight since in the last 5 years and I didn't watch that, no. I'd watched every fight he'd had up to that.