Comments Thread For: Porter's Coach: Garcia Has Never Been Tested Like Thurman Has

[Dr Rumack]

I like Thurman in this fight. Keith is a tough resilient guy who I believe has Danny's number. I think Danny is very talented but won't like the pressure Thurman brings.

Thurman looked sloppy in the pocket against Porter. A lot of loose, wild shots. I think that's ok from the outside against Danny because it throws his timing off. But in the pocket I think Danny would make him pay for it. His timing and accuracy is on point in those exchanges.

No one has really brought high level pressure against Danny. Matthysse was in boxing mode against him, looked the same as he did against Alexander and Zab. Guerrero brought it in patches but maybe was too past it to pressure for 12 rounds. Or maybe Danny's power made it too high risk. Khan threw high volume continuously alright, because being Khan he didn't anticipate the danger.

Thurman isn't really like any of those guys. So I'm not sure how he's going to be set up for this one.

[.!WAR MIKEY!.]

what lmfao, garcia fought guerrero thats like the best person Thurman has faced lmfao.

[MrRolltide91]

Danny is underrated

[Edward90]

Not so much disregarding them as it is putting them in context.

Matthyssee turned out to be not as huge a W as it seemed at the time. Ditto with Khan. Not saying those guys arent elite, just not as good as thought of during the time Danny faced them (not Danny's fault). You cannot ignore what Matthysse's career went like later on, nor can you ignore what Khan did afterwards that made his stock go down a bit. Add to that the Peterson fight, which is another fight lots of folks thought Swift deserved to lose. More telling about that fight is that Lamont appeared to genuinely hurt Garcia a few times. If that is what happened, there is no way in hell he is going to remain vertical when Thurman lays a good shot on him.

We will see. It will be a good fight... It's 50-50 for me and I hope they deliver on a good one.

The problem that I have with some of the criticism is that there is a bit of revisionist history involved. Why aren't the Matthysse and Khan wins as impressive? When someone loses to someone better, it is always downplayed how good the loser was. The same thing happened when Bud beat Postol or when Loma dominated Walters or when Charlo beat JRock, just to provide a few examples. That's an inconsistency that I don't like. There is a lack of willingness to give credit where it's due. There is some merit to what you're saying, but I'm not going to downplay what Danny did at 140. The dude has shown championship mettle.