I don't know. i got him ahead the top welterweights not named pac or bradley. He's currently undefeated and I think he stays that way for awhile. after gathering some much needed KOs against subpar competition, I can see people overestimating his power in an attempt to use it as a reason floyd went out with berto rather than the young, undefeated fighter with dem hands. I don't know... at the moment the situation could potentionally seems like Paul Williams or margocheato circa 2007-08.
When would be a good time to say Floyd ducked Keith Thurman?
Collapse
-
I cant disagree with anything you've stated. I just wrote this post as a possible explanation (or conspiracy?) used by stans that hold the berto fight against floyd.Comment
-
It's almost not possible to say a fighter at this advanced age, who's already accomplished a lot is ducking anyone, especially in a division where no one has established themselves. Only other fighter is Bradley and he looks to have regressed.
That said I would have loved Mayweather-Thurman, and I strongly disagree with Blanco here, Thurman looked as good as he's always looked against Collazo.Comment
-
Well, I think he could have chosen a better opponent than berto but the result is the same. Floyd is leagues above anyone out there. He'd beat Thurman, brook, porter, khan, etc. fairly easily. Guys who really despise him will always point to some guy who they think he's avoiding. The reality is, very few guys in his career posed a legit threat. I'd only suggest tony, punisher, and pac(prime) posed any challenge. Anyone suggesting someone else can't be taken seriously.Comment
-
Really? I don't see it man. The only style I see beating Floyd is a relentless 12 round fighter. Thurman doesn't fit that for me. I feel like he'd attempt to out-think Floyd, and end up looking silly.It's almost not possible to say a fighter at this advanced age, who's already accomplished a lot is ducking anyone, especially in a division where no one has established themselves. Only other fighter is Bradley and he looks to have regressed.
That said I would have loved Mayweather-Thurman, and I strongly disagree with Blanco here, Thurman looked as good as he's always looked against Collazo.Comment
-
I'm sure we all know Thurman and Khan would have lost to Floyd but that doesn't mean you simply just past them over. They were the best available (politics aside) and Floyd blatantly chose not to fight the best available by saying he wants an easy fight.Well, I think he could have chosen a better opponent than berto but the result is the same. Floyd is leagues above anyone out there. He'd beat Thurman, brook, porter, khan, etc. fairly easily. Guys who really despise him will always point to some guy who they think he's avoiding. The reality is, very few guys in his career posed a legit threat. I'd only suggest tony, punisher, and pac(prime) posed any challenge. Anyone suggesting someone else can't be taken seriously.Comment
-
Thurman doesn't have the right style to beat Floyd. He's at his best on the backfoot, not coming forward. Against Floyd he would have to be the aggressor and that's when he gets wild and reckless. I think Floyd beats him without too much trouble, in an 9-3 type of fight.
Porter would give Floyd a better fight.Comment
Comment