Terence crawford vs Keith Thurman

[Thraxox]

Well actually Crawford is listed at 5'8. Crawford started his career at 135 while Spence started at 147 and is considered a big 147.

With that logic man is Errol Spence is bigger than GGG because GGG started his professional Career at 140.

[UFC_Boxing]

With that logic man is Errol Spence is bigger than GGG because GGG started his professional Career at 140.

Well that's because Spence is younger, wait a couple year and he's going to go up in weight, then he could fight GGG. But first he must win the title at 147. Anyway, height dosen't mean everything, it's also about frame and you can tell 147 is probably the limit for Crawford frame. I think 140 is perfect for him, he should stay there. Going to bed cya!

[The Gambler1981]

I think Crawford can handle Thurman because Crawford is a better boxer and Thruman is rather straight forward boxer puncher. Thurman could always hurt Crawford and Crawford is a rather inconsistent fighter so Thruman has a shot but in a boxing contest Crawford beats him.

A guy like Porter would would be much more difficult for Crawford I think.

[Sheldon312]

I think Crawford can handle Thurman because Crawford is a better boxer and Thruman is rather straight forward boxer puncher. Thurman could always hurt Crawford and Crawford is a rather inconsistent fighter so Thruman has a shot but in a boxing contest Crawford beats him.

A guy like Porter would would be much more difficult for Crawford I think.

Good point. He has never faced someone who can cut off the ring like Porter. But Thurman is the better defender and offensove fighter. Crawford is jusy more versatile.

[The Gambler1981]

Good point. He has never faced someone who can cut off the ring like Porter. But Thurman is the better defender and offensove fighter. Crawford is jusy more versatile.

I agree I think Thurman is better in strictly boxing terms offensively and defensively than Porter. However he is a simplistic boxer, while Crawford has excellent boxing ability, so in a chess match Crawford can beat him.

Porter is not going to allow it to really be a chess match and would really push Crawford and I don;t know that Crawford's effort level would allow that to work out in Crawford's favor.


Both would be interesting though

[Sheldon312]

I agree I think Thurman is better in strictly boxing terms offensively and defensively than Porter. However he is a simplistic boxer, while Crawford has excellent boxing ability, so in a chess match Crawford can beat him.

Porter is not going to allow it to really be a chess match and would really push Crawford and I don;t know that Crawford's effort level would allow that to work out in Crawford's favor.


Both would be interesting though

How do you see a Brook fight and a Spence fight.

[Sweet Pea 50]

A Crawford vs Porter fight?

I'm intrigued.

[Sheldon312]

A Crawford vs Porter fight?

I'm intrigued.

Crawford vs Brook would be even better.

[The Gambler1981]

How do you see a Brook fight and a Spence fight.

That is a tough call because Brook is going to be coming back down and he looked like he bulked up for Golovkin. Coming back down in that situation is a lot to on overcome.

Spence is a force offensively, he leaves something to be desired defensively but his offense more than covers for that.

Spence is so much bigger physically, I think Crawford could box him but don't think Spance would really allow for that he is a seak and destroy guy superior to Porter although probably less tricky. I would think Spence could make it work but it would be very difficult.

Brook would box him but if he mucks it up and ties him up I think he could make it work possibly. Still with the dropping of weight and the leg stabbing I don't think he is really what he once was and think Crawford could really box him. I like Crawford in just about any boxing contest so i would like him against the current form of Brook.

Tough call though

[Sweet Pea 50]

Crawford vs Brook would be even better.

I'd rather Brook vs Spence.

But I'm just a agitator.