Why is Canelo and Spence considered special but Thurman is not.

[Sheldon312]

I've seen a lot of hype around Canelo and Spence who are exceptional talents but I don't see the same hype around someone like Keith Thurman. For example, Max has said that Spence is special whereas Keith is just really really good. He also has said the same for Canelo. But looking at all three, Keith just seems to be the better overall fighter.

Comparing Canelo and Keith it is very clear that Keith has the better footwork, versatility, movement, offense, defense is equal imo but I would probably give a slight edge to Canelo, counter punching, ring IQ, athleticism, and Keith seems to be better at making adjustments. There has never been any controversy surrounding a Keith Thurman victory but there has been controversy surrounding a few Canelo victories.

Comparing Spence and Keith, it is the same. Keith is just the better fighter. He can fight better at distance, and he can fight in the pocket pretty well, he has the better movement, defense, versatility arsenal, speed, power, and arsenal. Spence is better at cutting off the ring and using the jab to his advantage but that's it.

So my question to you all is, what do Spence and Canelo do better than Thurman to be considered 'special' whereas Thurman is just considered really good?

[BillyBoxing]

Because the boxing snobs out there are idiots.

[Doctor_Tenma]

Canelo is clearly better than those two, also I dont consider Canelo special

[boliodogs]

Thurman is very good and he has never lost but I don't think he is as good as Spence or Canelo and I have seen all of them fight many times. Thurman had close wins over Porter and Garcia. Spence KOed Brook who had previously beat Porter. Thurman was badly hurt by a body punch from a guy who isn't nearly as good a body puncher as Spence. I think Spence would KO Brook and Garcia. Canelo is also better than Thurman in my opinion based on their last few fights. I think Thurman is very good but Crawford, Canelo, Spence, GGG, Rigo, Loma and Ward are all special and better than he is. That's just my opinion based on what I have seen from all of these boxers.

[Scipio2009]

I've seen a lot of hype around Canelo and Spence who are exceptional talents but I don't see the same hype around someone like Keith Thurman. For example, Max has said that Spence is special whereas Keith is just really really good. He also has said the same for Canelo. But looking at all three, Keith just seems to be the better overall fighter.

Comparing Canelo and Keith it is very clear that Keith has the better footwork, versatility, movement, offense, defense is equal imo but I would probably give a slight edge to Canelo, counter punching, ring IQ, athleticism, and Keith seems to be better at making adjustments. There has never been any controversy surrounding a Keith Thurman victory but there has been controversy surrounding a few Canelo victories.

Comparing Spence and Keith, it is the same. Keith is just the better fighter. He can fight better at distance, and he can fight in the pocket pretty well, he has the better movement, defense, versatility arsenal, speed, power, and arsenal. Spence is better at cutting off the ring and using the jab to his advantage but that's it.

So my question to you all is, what do Spence and Canelo do better than Thurman to be considered 'special' whereas Thurman is just considered really good?

The simple answer is that Keith Thurman has clear holes in his game, similar to Canelo and his lack of quick foot movement.

It's happened on enough instances that hitting Keith Thurman to the body is now a tool that folks will work to utilize.

Errol Spence Jr looks to be special because he doesn't seem to have any holes in his game; he can box, brawl, move, punch, play distance, fight close, and pretty much anything else you can try to do in a boxing ring. (He's missing that one-hitter, but that's less of an issue in determining "specialness").

Special fighters can basically do everything; there are things that Keith Thurman simply can't do.

[SkillspayBills]

Because he hasn't looked very impressive his last 3 fights. He's shown a versatility that will make him tough for anyone to beat but he hasn't looked a cut above that rest. That usually happens when you are fighting the very best guys.

[Damn Wicked]

I've seen a lot of hype around Canelo and Spence who are exceptional talents but I don't see the same hype around someone like Keith Thurman. For example, Max has said that Spence is special whereas Keith is just really really good. He also has said the same for Canelo. But looking at all three, Keith just seems to be the better overall fighter.

Comparing Canelo and Keith it is very clear that Keith has the better footwork, versatility, movement, offense, defense is equal imo but I would probably give a slight edge to Canelo, counter punching, ring IQ, athleticism, and Keith seems to be better at making adjustments. There has never been any controversy surrounding a Keith Thurman victory but there has been controversy surrounding a few Canelo victories.

Comparing Spence and Keith, it is the same. Keith is just the better fighter. He can fight better at distance, and he can fight in the pocket pretty well, he has the better movement, defense, versatility arsenal, speed, power, and arsenal. Spence is better at cutting off the ring and using the jab to his advantage but that's it.

So my question to you all is, what do Spence and Canelo do better than Thurman to be considered 'special' whereas Thurman is just considered really good?

Because these guys don't know chit about boxing.

And yes, Thurman is better than Spence!

[LittleLucy]

lets be honest
none of them are actually special


Ive always considered Keith good but not special

[Almighty Sosa]

cause of that goofy ass hair

[Sheldon312]

The simple answer is that Keith Thurman has clear holes in his game, similar to Canelo and his lack of quick foot movement.

It's happened on enough instances that hitting Keith Thurman to the body is now a tool that folks will work to utilize.

Errol Spence Jr looksg to be special because he doesn't seem to have any holes in his game; he can box, brawl, move, punch, play distance, fight close, and pretty much anything else you can try to do in a boxing ring. (He's missing that one-hitter, but that's less of an issue in determining "specialness").

Special fighters can basically do everything; there are things that Keith Thurman simply can't do.

Spence has holes in his game. He doesn't move his head, he can fight off the back foot, when you keep him in the middle he seems limited, and his stamina has question marks. Keith is the better overall fighter.