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

[TheOneAboveAll]

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.



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.

Such are the politics of boxing. Baldomir wasn't unified WW champion because the IBF wasn't in play against Judah. The reasons don't matter. What you're arguing is that Baldomir was the top (best) WW in the world because he was lineal champ (no such thing in any division btw) because he beat Zab Judah. Ok, but did that really make him the best WW in the world having Floyd Mayweather campaigning in the same division? Of course not, Floyd beat Zab Judah for the IBF title much more clearly than Baldomir beat him (just three months later), and then Floyd completely dominated Baldomir several months later. You harp on the importance of 'end of year rankings' so who was ranked as the top WW at the end of the year, Floyd or Carlos?

You're picking and choosing your favorite evaluation criteria to support your nonsense argument. Keith Thurman wasn't the lineal WW champion because there is no such thing as a lineal champion anymore. He was the unified and best WW in the world. To you that's not real accomplishment because you've achieved so much in your own career as top internet poster over 15 years.

[TheOneAboveAll]

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.

Check out the Thurman-Barrios fight. It was better than expected from and old, inactive midling champion.

[IronDanHamza]

Such are the politics of boxing. Baldomir wasn't unified WW champion because the IBF wasn't in play against Judah. The reasons don't matter. What you're arguing is that Baldomir was the top (best) WW in the world because he was lineal champ (no such thing in any division btw) because he beat Zab Judah. Ok, but did that really make him the best WW in the world having Floyd Mayweather campaigning in the same division? Of course not, Floyd beat Zab Judah for the IBF title much more clearly than Baldomir beat him, and then Floyd completely dominated Baldomir several months later. You harp on the importance of 'end of year rankings' so who was ranked as the top WW at the end of the year, Floyd or Carlos?

No, I didn't argue that.

I said that he was ranked #1 for a year, which he was. In response to you saying Keith Thurman was #1 for a year.

When have I ever "harped on" about the end of year rankings? I couldn't care less where someone was ranked at the end of the year. What I care about is where they were ranked when they fought. And often times where they were ranked at the end of the year is where they were ranked when they have their next fight the following year (depending on movement of others)

Baldomir was ranked #1 at WW for close to a year, that's just a fact of the matter.

You're picking and choosing your favorite evaluation criteria to support your nonsense argument. Keith Thurman wasn't the lineal WW champion because there is no such thing as a lineal champion anymore. He was the unified and best WW in the world. To you that's not real accomplishment because you've achieved so much in your own career as top internet poster over 15 years.

I literally haven't changed my argument a single time.

You made the claim that because Thurman was ranked #1 for a year (give or take) that that is some kind of great accomplishment. I responded to that using two examples (and could list more) of the same feat made by average fighters. It happens, it's not some great feat to do in the grand scheme of things.

And in fact, Baldomir and DeMarco beat Top 5 ranked guys to get their position. Thurman never did that once in his entire career.

[Satir]

Tim seems like a good student of the game, he grows as a pro, learns and impoves after each fight, will stop Keef inside 5 with something memorable like his father and Zab

[Roadblock]

Tim seems like a good student of the game, he grows as a pro, learns and impoves after each fight, will stop Keef inside 5 with something memorable like his father and Zab

Polar opposites though, Zab was as green as grass and winning with his boxing and got too brave, boom, I wonder if old Thurman will be winning with boxing and Boom gets caught.

[IronDanHamza]

Polar opposites though, Zab was as green as grass and winning with his boxing and got too brave, boom, I wonder if old Thurman will be winning with boxing and Boom gets caught.

Not sure he was green as grass.

IBF Champion with 4 defenses, two of which over Top 10 guys (one of those Top 5)

I wouldn't consider that green.

I don't think he got too brave either, he didn't stop boxing he just got timed and dropped.

[tomhawq]

Win or lose to Tszyu, Thurman should move ahead with his aims. Ennis would still want that money fight. Or fight Spence.

[TheOneAboveAll]

No, I didn't argue that.

I said that he was ranked #1 for a year, which he was. In response to you saying Keith Thurman was #1 for a year.

When have I ever "harped on" about the end of year rankings? I couldn't care less where someone was ranked at the end of the year. What I care about is where they were ranked when they fought. And often times where they were ranked at the end of the year is where they were ranked when they have their next fight the following year (depending on movement of others)

Baldomir was ranked #1 at WW for close to a year, that's just a fact of the matter.



I literally haven't changed my argument a single time.

You made the claim that because Thurman was ranked #1 for a year (give or take) that that is some kind of great accomplishment. I responded to that using two examples (and could list more) of the same feat made by average fighters. It happens, it's not some great feat to do in the grand scheme of things.

And in fact, Baldomir and DeMarco beat Top 5 ranked guys to get their position. Thurman never did that once in his entire career.

He beat Danny Garcia to unify at welterweight. Why do you keep insisting that he has not beaten top ranked competition?

[IronDanHamza]

He beat Danny Garcia to unify at welterweight. Why do you keep insisting that he has not beaten top ranked competition?

I said he hasn't beaten a Top 5 ranked opponent, which he hasn't.

Danny Garcia was #6 when he beat him. Which was one of the four top 10 ranked fighters he beat.

[Tag, You're Hit]

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.

Porter was ranked Top 5 when he fought Keith.
From the August 2016 issue of Ring, where the Ratings Package is pages 26-30 showing their rankings "Through fights of April 24th, 2016":
Welter Weights
1. Kell Brook
2. Amir Khan
3. Keith Thurman
4. Shawn Porter
5. Tim Bradley

The link:
https://www.ringtv.com/wp-content/up...4/Aug-2016.pdf

The pertinent images - showing pages 28 & 29

ring 1.jpg ring 2.jpg