Who had the better career at Welterweight: Pacquiao or Crawford?

[HisExcellency]

That would be because he wasn't a puncher.

I would love to see the data you've compiled for that 99.9% stat there, how did you devise that? Or did you just pull it out of thin air as per usual, you retard

You've just said it yourself than Thurman wasn't the best WW in the world at that point in time which he objectively was not so I'm not sure where you're lost on this you fool.

Lol...you're literally ONE of a handful of retards on this planet who doesn't consider Thurman to be a puncher. Any normal person would acknowledge that a fighter with a 75% KO ratio who has either dropped/stopped 25/32 opponents he's ever shared the ring with to be a puncher. Anyway, we've been down this road a million times before and like the old saying goes 'there's no point arguing with an IDIOT' which is EXACTLY what you are

Anyhow, when did I say that Thurman WASN'T the best Welterweight in the world when Pacquiao fought him? I've literally said the complete OPPOSITE you thick cunt given that he'd already beaten 6 Welterweight champions unlike Spence & Crawford. Just because Ring decided to elevate Crawford in the rankings due to being undisputed Light Welterweight champion and having beaten the 3 blind mice DOESN'T make him a 'better Welterweight' at the time imbecile.

[IronDanHamza]

Lol...you're literally ONE of a handful of retards on this planet who doesn't consider Thurman to be a puncher. Any normal person would acknowledge that a fighter with a 75% KO ratio who has either dropped/stopped 25/32 opponents he's ever shared the ring with to be a puncher. Anyway, we've been down this road a million times before and like the old saying goes 'there's no point arguing with an IDIOT' which is EXACTLY what you are

Oh, it's a handful now? I thought it was 99.9%? Where did you get that statistic from?

Just so you're aware buddy there are plenty of fighters with 75% KO Ratio's and sometimes higher that also aren't punchers. A KO% doesn't automatically equate to someone being a big puncher and Keith Thurman is living proof of that.

Anyhow, when did I say that Thurman WASN'T the best Welterweight in the world when Pacquiao fought him? I've literally said the complete OPPOSITE you thick cunt given that he'd already beaten 6 Welterweight champions unlike Spence & Crawford. Just because Ring decided to elevate Crawford in the rankings due to being undisputed Light Welterweight champion and having beaten the 3 blind mice DOESN'T make him a 'better Welterweight' at the time imbecile.

Er yes I know, you presented a wall of text to tell us why you don't think he should have been ranked #3. None of which changes that he was #3 I.e NOT THE BEST.

Keith Thurman hadn't beaten a ranked fighter in 28 months at that point He was only #3 because he sc****d by an unranked Joseito Lopez who had him out on his feet.

He wasn't the best WW in the world, it's as simple as that and that is a literal objective fact. You can kick, scream, cry all you want about it but it won't change it.

[djtmal]

About Thurman being the best WW in the world in 2019. He wasn't, and that was universally considered to be the case, and to reiterate, "not even close" either.

Thurman
Spence
Crawford

Outside of your universe this was the batting order

[IronDanHamza]

Thurman
Spence
Crawford

Outside of your universe this was the batting order

It's quite literally the other way around

The reality is the ranking/batting order at the time was;

1. Spence
2. Crawford
3. Thurman

In your fantasy universe, Thurman is #1. But like I said facts don't care about your feelings.

Thurman hadn't beaten a ranked fighter in 28 months at that point and struggled to beat an unranked fighter, in the one fight he had. In all honesty he was lucky to be as high as #3. But I guess his past merit got him that spot.

What he absolutely was not though, was the best WW in the world. That's a fact. Except for in your tiny mind.

[djtmal]

It would be like me saying now "Mario Barrios is the best WW in the world" that would be moronic and objectively wrong, wouldn't it? That's what you're doing now.

If you believe Mario Barrios is best ww in the world and you have backup good for you.

More than one person here backed up why Thurman was the best ww in the world over Crawford.

[IronDanHamza]

If you believe Mario Barrios is best ww in the world and you have backup good for you.

More than one person here backed up why Thurman was the best ww in the world over Crawford.

So Mario Barrios is the best WW in the world currently then, right?

[djtmal]

Thurman hadn't beaten a ranked fighter in 28 months at that point and struggled to beat an unranked fighter,

So.

Your lover Floyd took off for 2 years and claimed he was #1 p4p because nobody beat him. His words.

Returned to box a lightweight

Nobody stopped him and quoted ring or boxrec did they

So under those au****es, Thurman had the same #1 claim.

[djtmal]

Lol...you're literally ONE of a handful of retards on this planet who doesn't consider Thurman to be a puncher. Any normal person would acknowledge that a fighter with a 75% KO ratio who has either dropped/stopped 25/32 opponents he's ever shared the ring with to be a puncher. Anyway, we've been down this road a million times before and like the old saying goes 'there's no point arguing with an IDIOT' which is EXACTLY what you are

Anyhow, when did I say that Thurman WASN'T the best Welterweight in the world when Pacquiao fought him? I've literally said the complete OPPOSITE you thick cunt given that he'd already beaten 6 Welterweight champions unlike Spence & Crawford. Just because Ring decided to elevate Crawford in the rankings due to being undisputed Light Welterweight champion and having beaten the 3 blind mice DOESN'T make him a 'better Welterweight' at the time imbecile.

Thurman was a puncher that Floyd ducked

[IronDanHamza]

So.

Your lover Floyd took off for 2 years and claimed he was #1 p4p because nobody beat him. His words.

So under those au****es, Thurman had the same #1 claim.

Ok but Floyd wasn't P4P #1 after having two years off, was he? Objectively no he wasn't.

Just like objectively Thurman wasn't the best WW in 2019.

So you've just proved my point idiot

[djtmal]

Ok but Floyd wasn't P4P #1 after having two years off, was he?

:

He said he was so that's all he needed to do for you Floyd boys to parrot what he said. Said it in the Brian Kenny interview

You Big Dunn and every other Floyd boy would be saying the same thing