Comments Thread For: Thurman: If Porter Comes Out Too Aggressive, I Will Back Him Up!

[JRB123]

LOL

So Porter basically allows Broner to get a free shot at him to score a knockdown and folks say that he can't take a punch

This board be mad funny sometimes

[Combat Talk Radio]

Those are not facts. Porter has taken flush shots all the way from middleweights in the amateurs to champions in the pro ranks and has never been stopped or close to being stopped so you are full of sht.

We're not talking about his ability to be stopped. We're talking about his propensity for getting hit.

Brook tagged him. Broner SURE tagged him. Devon tagged him. Diaz tagged him. Lo Greco tagged him. In every situation Porter was rendered off balance for a moment. He recovered, the point is he can't take a flush shot. Which means if you get a powerful puncher in there, Porter's going to have problems.

Again, I said it. I don't think Thurman will KO him, but I do see a rough night for Showtime.

And Broner was facing a catchweight drained Porter.

Porter himself is on record saying he wasn't drained. So there's that.

And Porter has never won a fights on points from punching with his head, he has from his fists.

That's exactly how he beat Diaz twice. But that's Diaz.

Pauli was cornered

Eventually. Not early.

and FYI - Collazo who is not a pressure fighter had Thurman backing up and hurt badly with a body shot so who is it now that cant take a flush shot?

Collazo's not a pressure fighter? You better ask Victor Ortiz about that. Collazo pressures when he feels he's got nothing to lose. Thurman wasn't aggressive in that fight, so he went after him. But that's exactly my point.

If Thurman doesn't let Porter get inside, Porter's whole gameplan is nullified. He doesn't have the range and can't close it against an effective puncher. Even if he does get in Thurman's a better counter puncher than anyone Porter's faced to date besides maybe Brook.

And you are now making excuses for Thurman already before the fight if he loses.

If Thurman loses the fight cleanly - I mean CLEANLY and CLEARLY - I'll give Porter his props. But as I said, Porter has not looked impressive against anyone but Paulie. Why should I believe he can beat Keith Thurman? He's given me no reason to.

It was blatantly clear Broner didn't try. Constant clinching, TRUE running, hardly throwing punches the whole fight, doing his usual antics...he didn't try. The Broner that showed up against Khabib would have beaten Porter on points, UD, period.

LOL

So Porter basically allows Broner to get a free shot at him to score a knockdown and folks say that he can't take a punch

This board be mad funny sometimes

SO in your eyes a champion fighter "let him" knock him down for the hell of it? Come on man.

Porter got caught with a punch he didn't see coming. That's it. It didn't hurt him, and that's my point - Broner has no knockout power. But Porter should never have gotten caught by that punch if he was as good at defense as everyone thinks he is. His defense is offense and against Keith Thurman that's likely to get him caught way more often with way more power. That's all I'm saying.

[richardt]

We're not talking about his ability to be stopped. We're talking about his propensity for getting hit.

Brook tagged him. Broner SURE tagged him. Devon tagged him. Diaz tagged him. Lo Greco tagged him. In every situation Porter was rendered off balance for a moment. He recovered, the point is he can't take a flush shot. Which means if you get a powerful puncher in there, Porter's going to have problems.

Again, I said it. I don't think Thurman will KO him, but I do see a rough night for Showtime.




Porter himself is on record saying he wasn't drained. So there's that.



That's exactly how he beat Diaz twice. But that's Diaz.



Eventually. Not early.



Collazo's not a pressure fighter? You better ask Victor Ortiz about that. Collazo pressures when he feels he's got nothing to lose. Thurman wasn't aggressive in that fight, so he went after him. But that's exactly my point.

If Thurman doesn't let Porter get inside, Porter's whole gameplan is nullified. He doesn't have the range and can't close it against an effective puncher. Even if he does get in Thurman's a better counter puncher than anyone Porter's faced to date besides maybe Brook.




If Thurman loses the fight cleanly - I mean CLEANLY and CLEARLY - I'll give Porter his props. But as I said, Porter has not looked impressive against anyone but Paulie. Why should I believe he can beat Keith Thurman? He's given me no reason to.

It was blatantly clear Broner didn't try. Constant clinching, TRUE running, hardly throwing punches the whole fight, doing his usual antics...he didn't try. The Broner that showed up against Khabib would have beaten Porter on points, UD, period.




SO in your eyes a champion fighter "let him" knock him down for the hell of it? Come on man.

Porter got caught with a punch he didn't see coming. That's it. It didn't hurt him, and that's my point - Broner has no knockout power. But Porter should never have gotten caught by that punch if he was as good at defense as everyone thinks he is. His defense is offense and against Keith Thurman that's likely to get him caught way more often with way more power. That's all I'm saying.

A) every fighter tags every fighter, damn you are new to boxing. Who had him badly hurt? No one. So you have no case unless or until he is hurt or stopped by Thurman. B) FYI, every fighter has the potential to have problems when they are in with a powerful puncher. Tell us something we don't know. C) don't be so damn GULLIBLE about a fighter saying he was not weight drained! They all say that, duh! D) Collozo is not a pressure fighter, he fights off his back foot and front foot, Porter's wheelhouse is his front foot. Big difference. E) The Broner who showed up against Khabib was not fighting Porter and was no different. F) And the same can be said for both fighters when it comes to game plans, If Porter smothers Thurman and backs him up, he wins. If Thurman can circle and counter and keep it ring center, he wins.

[Combat Talk Radio]

A) every fighter tags every fighter, damn you are new to boxing.

Not to where they're off balance.

Canelo might have hit Floyd, but it didn't faze him any, now did it?

But Porter took a clean shot from a pillow fisted Broner and went down. What do you think One Time's going to do?

Who had him badly hurt? No one.

Julio Diaz won the first fight and everyone knows it. "hurt bad"? Probably not, but he hurt Porter enough in direct contradiction to your theory that Porter can deal with the onslaught. I haven't seen anything different from him since. Rematch, Diaz didn't show up and even he admitted it.

So you have no case unless or until he is hurt or stopped by Thurman.

Not sure how many times I need to repeat, I don't see Thurman KO'ing Porter, but I don't see anything other than a UD with Thurman literally boxing circles around Porter.

B) FYI, every fighter has the potential to have problems when they are in with a powerful puncher. Tell us something we don't know.

Floyd walked through Cotto, got past Maidana. Manny stopped Cotto, beat Morales twice, beat the snot out of Margarito over twelve...

Potential? Sure. The question is how vulnerable are you to weak punchers? I see Porter as quite vulnerable to punches. Thurman is a puncher. That's all I'm saying.

C) don't be so damn GULLIBLE about a fighter saying he was not weight drained! They all say that, duh!

Considering Porter won the fight, I'm inclined to listen to him rather than some random keyboard warrior.

D) Collozo is not a pressure fighter, he fights off his back foot and front foot, Porter's wheelhouse is his front foot. Big difference.

Collazo comes forward when he sees there's nothing to lose. We've seen that in every fight he's been in.

The only fight Porter was truly aggro was against Paulie, and that's obvious as to why.

E) The Broner who showed up against Khabib was not fighting Porter and was no different.

This makes no sense. Broner himself is on record saying he took Porter lightly, then proceeded to go toe-to-toe with Khabib on at least 3 occasions.

F) And the same can be said for both fighters when it comes to game plans, If Porter smothers Thurman and backs him up, he wins. If Thurman can circle and counter and keep it ring center, he wins.

You can't smother/backup a fighter who's on the move. That's what you're failing to understand. For some reason.

I get it. You're a huge Porter fan who's followed his career since he got out of the amateurs. You like his dad, you like his hair, that's cool. But come on man, he's no bum but he's nowhere near elite. If he couldn't beat Kell Brook, he's not beating Thurman.

[richardt]

Not to where they're off balance.

Canelo might have hit Floyd, but it didn't faze him any, now did it?

But Porter took a clean shot from a pillow fisted Broner and went down. What do you think One Time's going to do?




Julio Diaz won the first fight and everyone knows it. "hurt bad"? Probably not, but he hurt Porter enough in direct contradiction to your theory that Porter can deal with the onslaught. I haven't seen anything different from him since. Rematch, Diaz didn't show up and even he admitted it.



Not sure how many times I need to repeat, I don't see Thurman KO'ing Porter, but I don't see anything other than a UD with Thurman literally boxing circles around Porter.



Floyd walked through Cotto, got past Maidana. Manny stopped Cotto, beat Morales twice, beat the snot out of Margarito over twelve...

Potential? Sure. The question is how vulnerable are you to weak punchers? I see Porter as quite vulnerable to punches. Thurman is a puncher. That's all I'm saying.



Considering Porter won the fight, I'm inclined to listen to him rather than some random keyboard warrior.



Collazo comes forward when he sees there's nothing to lose. We've seen that in every fight he's been in.

The only fight Porter was truly aggro was against Paulie, and that's obvious as to why.



This makes no sense. Broner himself is on record saying he took Porter lightly, then proceeded to go toe-to-toe with Khabib on at least 3 occasions.



You can't smother/backup a fighter who's on the move. That's what you're failing to understand. For some reason.

I get it. You're a huge Porter fan who's followed his career since he got out of the amateurs. You like his dad, you like his hair, that's cool. But come on man, he's no bum but he's nowhere near elite. If he couldn't beat Kell Brook, he's not beating Thurman.

You still don't get it! You cannot use Broner dropping Porter as an example of how the Thurman fight would play out. The Julio fight was years ago and Porter like any fighter, grows and not everyone thinks Julio won, and it has nothing to do with how this fight would play out or if Thurman could hurt Porter enough to dissuade Porter from charging in. Broner LOST the Porter fight and made an excuse, what else is he going to say????

Damn, quite being so damned NAĎVE!! You talk about “The question is how vulnerable are you to weak punchers? I see Porter as quite vulnerable to punches. Thurman is a puncher.“ Again, you cannot go by this because history IS LITTERED with examples of guys who were dropped and stopped by guys were not huge punchers and then held up to huge punchers and were not dropped or stopped. You have no analogy…..every fight is a separate dynamic and people have lost fortunes believing in triangle theories. Either guy could get stopped but there is no prefight analysis that is very accurate when it comes to using power as an example. I can name many examples in history. So your vulnerability statement only can come to play or not when the bell rings, not in some triangle theory.

“Considering Porter won the fight”. That is lame. “Keyboard warriors” can name facts that are consistent and boxers will lie about how ready they are for a fight. Again, I can name MANY examples of boxers who said they were in the best shape of their life and went out and could barely lift their damn gloves and had the worst performance of their career. You are WAY too ***ing gullible!

“You cant smother/backup a fighter who is one the move”. I realize you are very NEW to the sport but that is as dumb of a statement as POSSIBLE! Let me fill you in! You never heard of CUT OFF THE RING???????? That’s what fighters for a hundred years have been successful at for hundreds of thousands of fights against a mover!!! Whether Porter can or cannot employ that successfully remains to be seen but it is plain ****** claiming that a guy who is on the move cannot be backed up or smothered. Go watch some fights and you will see you generalizing statement is full of holes.

[Combat Talk Radio]

You still don't get it! You cannot use Broner dropping Porter as an example of how the Thurman fight would play out. The Julio fight was years ago and Porter like any fighter, grows and not everyone thinks Julio won, and it has nothing to do with how this fight would play out or if Thurman could hurt Porter enough to dissuade Porter from charging in. Broner LOST the Porter fight and made an excuse, what else is he going to say????

Anyone with two eyes clearly saw Broner throw that fight away. His punch output was a joke even for him and his clinch count was close to Grabomir levels.

Damn, quite being so damned NAĎVE!! You talk about “The question is how vulnerable are you to weak punchers? I see Porter as quite vulnerable to punches. Thurman is a puncher.“ Again, you cannot go by this because history IS LITTERED with examples of guys who were dropped and stopped by guys were not huge punchers and then held up to huge punchers and were not dropped or stopped. You have no analogy…..every fight is a separate dynamic and people have lost fortunes believing in triangle theories. Either guy could get stopped but there is no prefight analysis that is very accurate when it comes to using power as an example. I can name many examples in history. So your vulnerability statement only can come to play or not when the bell rings, not in some triangle theory.

Yeah, and those fighters in "history" were on a different level physically than the fighters of today.

Today, we can reasonably expect Ruslan to drop a guy with a clean shot (Keyword: CLEAN). We DON'T expect Chris Algieri to drop anyone regardless. We certainly don't expect Adrien Broner to drop anyone because that's not what he does; he couldn't drop Khabib either. Yet he dropped Shawn Porter to the point that NOBODY understands why that happened, not even Porter.

I'll tell you why, same reason Brook was tagging him all night long. Same reason Bone was tagging him in the trench off counters and slips. He's vulnerable to punches. His defense is offense. He tries too hard to be a blend of Mike Tyson and Vinny Pazienza and he ends up coming off sloppy, missing wide looping punches and his chin is right there for an effective, precise puncher. Especially if he can't get past reach and/or can't get inside.

I'll repeat it AGAIN.

I do not believe Thurman will KO or stop Porter, but I can't see anything other than a UD for One Time. Especially if Thurman fights Porter same way Brook did, because I don't see much evolution out of Porter.

“You cant smother/backup a fighter who is one the move”. I realize you are very NEW to the sport but that is as dumb of a statement as POSSIBLE! Let me fill you in! You never heard of CUT OFF THE RING???????? That’s what fighters for a hundred years have been successful at for hundreds of thousands of fights against a mover!!! Whether Porter can or cannot employ that successfully remains to be seen but it is plain ****** claiming that a guy who is on the move cannot be backed up or smothered. Go watch some fights and you will see you generalizing statement is full of holes.

I'm old enough to have watched on a black and white TV that was no larger than 13" with a twist knob, and I'm old enough to have seen Ali get schooled by Joe Frazier all the way up to current day fights. So there's that.

I see the problem. You're blending two different thoughts.

I said you can't smother someone who's on the move. That assumes a failure to cut off the ring. If you don't cut off the ring, you're not smothering anyone.

Porter failed to smother Brook. Fact.
Porter almost failed to smother Paulie. Fact.
Porter failed to smother Broner. Fact. Broner should not have lost that fight; he didn't try. He was inactive and clinching for dear life until 12. But up through 11 Broner was dancing circles around that dude.
Pacquiao failed to smother Floyd. Fact.
Marcos Maidana successfully smothered Floyd in the first fight. Fact.
Marcos Maidana failed to smother Floyd in the second fight. Fact.
Tommy Hearns successfully smothered Roberto Duran. Fact.
Roberto Duran failed to smother Sugar Ray Leonard in No Mas. Fact.
Grabomir failed to smother Fury. Fact.

Now that you have examples of this, let's press the button on it: I haven't seen a single fight where Porter was 100% effective in cutting off the ring. What I have seen is plenty of fights where Porter's chin is out there waiting to get hit off a barrage. That's right up Thurman's alley. How can you not see that?

[richardt]

Anyone with two eyes clearly saw Broner throw that fight away. His punch output was a joke even for him and his clinch count was close to Grabomir levels.



Yeah, and those fighters in "history" were on a different level physically than the fighters of today.

Today, we can reasonably expect Ruslan to drop a guy with a clean shot (Keyword: CLEAN). We DON'T expect Chris Algieri to drop anyone regardless. We certainly don't expect Adrien Broner to drop anyone because that's not what he does; he couldn't drop Khabib either. Yet he dropped Shawn Porter to the point that NOBODY understands why that happened, not even Porter.

I'll tell you why, same reason Brook was tagging him all night long. Same reason Bone was tagging him in the trench off counters and slips. He's vulnerable to punches. His defense is offense. He tries too hard to be a blend of Mike Tyson and Vinny Pazienza and he ends up coming off sloppy, missing wide looping punches and his chin is right there for an effective, precise puncher. Especially if he can't get past reach and/or can't get inside.

I'll repeat it AGAIN.

I do not believe Thurman will KO or stop Porter, but I can't see anything other than a UD for One Time. Especially if Thurman fights Porter same way Brook did, because I don't see much evolution out of Porter.




I'm old enough to have watched on a black and white TV that was no larger than 13" with a twist knob, and I'm old enough to have seen Ali get schooled by Joe Frazier all the way up to current day fights. So there's that.

I see the problem. You're blending two different thoughts.

I said you can't smother someone who's on the move. That assumes a failure to cut off the ring. If you don't cut off the ring, you're not smothering anyone.

Porter failed to smother Brook. Fact.
Porter almost failed to smother Paulie. Fact.
Porter failed to smother Broner. Fact. Broner should not have lost that fight; he didn't try. He was inactive and clinching for dear life until 12. But up through 11 Broner was dancing circles around that dude.
Pacquiao failed to smother Floyd. Fact.
Marcos Maidana successfully smothered Floyd in the first fight. Fact.
Marcos Maidana failed to smother Floyd in the second fight. Fact.
Tommy Hearns successfully smothered Roberto Duran. Fact.
Roberto Duran failed to smother Sugar Ray Leonard in No Mas. Fact.
Grabomir failed to smother Fury. Fact.

Now that you have examples of this, let's press the button on it: I haven't seen a single fight where Porter was 100% effective in cutting off the ring. What I have seen is plenty of fights where Porter's chin is out there waiting to get hit off a barrage. That's right up Thurman's alley. How can you not see that?

It is obvious you are very new to boxing. You keep using useless analogies. Here is why it is OBVIOUS you are new to Boxing. Anyone who has been around boxing knows that your statement “no one knows why Broner dropped Porter” is clearly someone who is new to the sport because those in the know, know that anyone can get caught with a punch and dropped, regardless of how hard they hit or how solid the opponents chin is. You gave yourself away with that blunder. That’s why they say “a guy not known for his punching power” and go on to describe how he scored a knockdown or KO.
Or “normally so and so fighter has been is resilient but was caught with a punch” and then describe a normally tough fighter getting dropped or stopped. When I say “History is littered” that means history right up to the current day.

Porter failed to smother Broner??? DO NOT discuss fights you have not seen. Porter backed Broner to the ropes OFTEN! Go watch the damn fight. Porter won the fight because he landed more punches center ring and against the ropes. Porter smothered Puli and on top of that, Porter can land punches when he is not smoothing as well. Havent see a single fight where Porter effectively cut off the ring? FYI, you haven’t see all Porters fights. And he does not have to cut off the ring and smother to land punches. He has done that ring center as well. You talk about Porters chin being out there and Thurman hitting it and then go on to say how I cannot see that. Who said anything about that? I already said there are two scenarios and fight games that could play out with Thurman winning one. But your analogies are transparent and based on triangle theories which is why you have clearly proven you are new to the sport. Stop using triangle theories, every fight is dynamic. What works for Porter or Thurman does not have to based on what has worked or failed for either fighter in the past.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Anyone who has been around boxing knows that your statement “no one knows why Broner dropped Porter” is clearly someone who is new to the sport because those in the know, know that anyone can get caught with a punch and dropped, regardless of how hard they hit or how solid the opponents chin is. You gave yourself away with that blunder. That’s why they say “a guy not known for his punching power” and go on to describe how he scored a knockdown or KO.

Shawn Porter himself: doesn't know why he went down, thinks he just got too comfortable.
Ken Porter: Doesn't know why Shawn went down.
Thurman: doesn't know why Shawn went down.
Mosley: doesn't know why Shawn went down.
Broner: doesn't know or care why Shawn went down.
Bradley: doesn't know why Shawn went down, felt there's no way Broner should have lost.

I'd sooner believe 6 top tier fighters over someone on this board. Frankly, the point is the punch should never have connected in the first place, but Shawn's chin was right there as it was through the whole fight.

Porter failed to smother Broner??? DO NOT discuss fights you have not seen. Porter backed Broner to the ropes OFTEN! Go watch the damn fight. Porter won the fight because he landed more punches center ring and against the ropes. Porter smothered Puli and on top of that, Porter can land punches when he is not smoothing as well. Havent see a single fight where Porter effectively cut off the ring?

By your logic Pacquiao cut off Mayweather simply because he "backed him to the ropes". That's the problem with your logic.

It's not whether you can get them there, it's whether you can KEEP them there and use that to win the fight without the opponent being able to escape. With Paulie, that didn't happen until Paulie got hit with a clean shot and knocked loopy. Before that Porter couldn't catch him. Broner used the clinch to get out of the situation the whole fight. Same as Grabomir against Povetkin. That's NOT smothering when your opponent gets out of trouble.

And he does not have to cut off the ring and smother to land punches. He has done that ring center as well. You talk about Porters chin being out there and Thurman hitting it and then go on to say how I cannot see that. Who said anything about that?

You're using selective reading.

Never once did I question Thurman "hitting" the chin. You need to stop blanketing KO's, stoppages and losses. They are three separate victory types.

A person can cleanly lose a fight taking shots all night long without getting physically KO'd. See Broner/Allakhverdiev (a ref stoppage), Brook/Porter, Khan/Algieri, Hamed/Barrera, Wilder/Stiverne, Mayweather/Canelo, Mayweather/Marquez, Mayweather/Gatti (a corner stoppage), Mayweather/Pacquiao, Canelo/Angulo (a ref stoppage), Toney/Barkley, Jones/Calzaghe, Klitschko/Fury, Pacquiao/Margarito, Pacquiao/Rios...goes on and on.

There's one point dude. Shawn Porter's chin will be there for Thurman's fist and I've not seen any evidence to the contrary from any of his fights. That's his style and it hasn't changed.

I close with this and then I'm done with you.

Prince Naseem Hamed didn't lose to a "better" fighter. He lost because he didn't change his style against a fighter that was tailor made to beat that style. Head lean back, one punch instead of combos, poorly trained and not prepared for the fight, drained, relied only on power shots and irregular jabbing, no real effective aggression, and got walked down without an answer. He fought the same way every fight. Eventually he met the wrong opponent at the wrong time.

I'm saying, only saying, that stylistically I don't see Shawn Porter changing his style in any fight to adapt to his opponents. Thurman adapts to his opponents, and to me, that means UD for One Time.

[richardt]

Shawn Porter himself: doesn't know why he went down, thinks he just got too comfortable.
Ken Porter: Doesn't know why Shawn went down.
Thurman: doesn't know why Shawn went down.
Mosley: doesn't know why Shawn went down.
Broner: doesn't know or care why Shawn went down.
Bradley: doesn't know why Shawn went down, felt there's no way Broner should have lost.

I'd sooner believe 6 top tier fighters over someone on this board. Frankly, the point is the punch should never have connected in the first place, but Shawn's chin was right there as it was through the whole fight.




By your logic Pacquiao cut off Mayweather simply because he "backed him to the ropes". That's the problem with your logic.

It's not whether you can get them there, it's whether you can KEEP them there and use that to win the fight without the opponent being able to escape. With Paulie, that didn't happen until Paulie got hit with a clean shot and knocked loopy. Before that Porter couldn't catch him. Broner used the clinch to get out of the situation the whole fight. Same as Grabomir against Povetkin. That's NOT smothering when your opponent gets out of trouble.



You're using selective reading.

Never once did I question Thurman "hitting" the chin. You need to stop blanketing KO's, stoppages and losses. They are three separate victory types.

A person can cleanly lose a fight taking shots all night long without getting physically KO'd. See Broner/Allakhverdiev (a ref stoppage), Brook/Porter, Khan/Algieri, Hamed/Barrera, Wilder/Stiverne, Mayweather/Canelo, Mayweather/Marquez, Mayweather/Gatti (a corner stoppage), Mayweather/Pacquiao, Canelo/Angulo (a ref stoppage), Toney/Barkley, Jones/Calzaghe, Klitschko/Fury, Pacquiao/Margarito, Pacquiao/Rios...goes on and on.

There's one point dude. Shawn Porter's chin will be there for Thurman's fist and I've not seen any evidence to the contrary from any of his fights. That's his style and it hasn't changed.

I close with this and then I'm done with you.

Prince Naseem Hamed didn't lose to a "better" fighter. He lost because he didn't change his style against a fighter that was tailor made to beat that style. Head lean back, one punch instead of combos, poorly trained and not prepared for the fight, drained, relied only on power shots and irregular jabbing, no real effective aggression, and got walked down without an answer. He fought the same way every fight. Eventually he met the wrong opponent at the wrong time.

I'm saying, only saying, that stylistically I don't see Shawn Porter changing his style in any fight to adapt to his opponents. Thurman adapts to his opponents, and to me, that means UD for One Time.

Don’t be ******, Porter and all of them know why he went down. He was hit with a counter shot. This is science, not science fiction. Pro boxers know EXACTLY what causes a knockdown. If you cant tell from this video why Porter was knocked down, you are hopeless: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsb9RXAY9N8.
The Pac Mayweather fight is a lame comparison because anyone who knows anything about boxing knows that cutting off the ring does not mean the entire fight will be fought that way, it means a fighter will have moments where he can stop a fighter’s movement at times and get in position to land which can make enough of a difference in the fight. No one is saying Porter will fight the whole fight that way but he can have Thurman backing up and against the ropes like a number of other fighters have done to Thurman. Porter is clearly better inside fighter than some of the guys who backed Thurman up. Porter uses pressure and IS successful at pressuring fighters. THAT is what he does and why he has a top notch record. Porter’s chin will be available to Thurman as Thurman’s will be for Porter. Your problem is you are incapable of seeing more than one scenario playing out. And a fighter does not have to change and adapt if they do one thing better than another fighter consistently. Either fighter can win and it is just as easy to see Thurman circling, moving, and countering Porter to a victory as it is to see Porter’s volume and pressure wearing down Thurman and winning.