Tweet
Recent comments ive seen on this site regarding spence, include him being too much for prime pacquiao due to southpaw stance, his work rate and body shots meaning floyd would have ducked him, and repeated comments about him being too good for thurman.
He is also making appearances on pound for pound lists, ranking 9th in teddy atlas's list. ive also read many comments along the lines of 'spence needs to be wary of brook, cant overlook him' as if spence is the heavy favourite or something and that brook (the bookies favourite) is a stepping stone on the path to bigger things.
franki gavin and a younger bundu fought to a split decision, with gavin saying bundu told him that gavin won the fight.
Its fair to say they are similar levels. So how come spence gets credit for beating bundu (with all the above comments being said since that) but gavin is a joke fight for brook and anyone woud get laughed out of nsb if they said that was proof of brook being an elite fighter? Why is one proof of a fighters quality but the other one isnt? Is there a double standard on here, surely not?!
They both stopped their opponents in the 6th round too, very similar performances.
Or am i missing the point completely and it is due to spences other exploits that he is rated so highly? Was it the combination of beating algieri (the guy former flyweight pacquiao knocked down 6 times and beat 120-102 on one card) along with bundu that means spence is considered too much for these other guys?
Could any other welterweight have beaten 40 year old bundu (now ranked 39th) and algieri (ranked 27th) together, or to beat them two do you have to be the real deal? how would thurman, brook, mayweather, pacquiao, porter, garcia, vargas, bradley, peterson, broner have got on against them both? Would they have stood a chance?
what do people think?
He is also making appearances on pound for pound lists, ranking 9th in teddy atlas's list. ive also read many comments along the lines of 'spence needs to be wary of brook, cant overlook him' as if spence is the heavy favourite or something and that brook (the bookies favourite) is a stepping stone on the path to bigger things.
franki gavin and a younger bundu fought to a split decision, with gavin saying bundu told him that gavin won the fight.
Its fair to say they are similar levels. So how come spence gets credit for beating bundu (with all the above comments being said since that) but gavin is a joke fight for brook and anyone woud get laughed out of nsb if they said that was proof of brook being an elite fighter? Why is one proof of a fighters quality but the other one isnt? Is there a double standard on here, surely not?!
They both stopped their opponents in the 6th round too, very similar performances.
Or am i missing the point completely and it is due to spences other exploits that he is rated so highly? Was it the combination of beating algieri (the guy former flyweight pacquiao knocked down 6 times and beat 120-102 on one card) along with bundu that means spence is considered too much for these other guys?
Could any other welterweight have beaten 40 year old bundu (now ranked 39th) and algieri (ranked 27th) together, or to beat them two do you have to be the real deal? how would thurman, brook, mayweather, pacquiao, porter, garcia, vargas, bradley, peterson, broner have got on against them both? Would they have stood a chance?
what do people think?
Comment