Tweet
A new era of Welterweights is among us and if everything goes as planned, we will have nothing but big fights from 2018-2019. Out of all potential future bouts, nothing beats Keith Thurman vs Errol Spence(except Thurman vs Crawford or Spence vs Crawford). Both a are fantastic/elite level fighters, both are big welters, and both can punch and turn it up when necessary. The majority of the boxing community is favoring Spence due to styles, but are people writing Keith off too soon or is Spence just better? Let's break this fight down and see.
Errol Spence Jr: 5 ft 9 with a 72” reach.
Strengths
1. Great jab
2. Good balance,
3. Great punching power
4. Exceptional at cutting off the ring.
5. Body Snatcher
6. Killer instinct
7. Good Stamina
8. Great work rate
9. Good Chin
10. Great inside and midrange fighter.
Weaknesses
1. Can’t fight off the backfoot
2. Leaky defense
3. Bad movement
Keith Thurman 5”7 with a 69” reach.
Strengths
1. Great counter puncher
2. Great athleticism
3. Fast hands
4. Great footwork
5. Good Balance
6. Pretty good defense
7. Great Movement
8. Ability to fight off the back foot
9. Great punching power.
10. Good chin
11. Ring generalship/ring iq
12. Can fight on the outside and midrange pretty well.
Weaknesses
1. Doesn’t throw jab enough
2. Suspect ability to take body shots
3. Doesn’t cut off the ring enough.
As you can see, both have their strengths and weaknesses. Spence is the bigger and stronger fighter but Thurman is faster a lot more athletic. So, this leads to the question, “Who wins and why?” After watching countless footage of both guys I will say that this is a legit 50/50 fight because both can exploit the weaknesses of the other, but if I was to bet money, I would put my money on Thurman to win. Here’s why. Overall Keith is the better boxer. Keith has the better footwork, movement, athleticism, speed, defense, and power(based off of what Bundu and Porter said. Both fought Spence and both agreed that Thurman hit them harder than Spence). Even though Spence is a great offensive fighter, his defense is below average. Let’s take a look back at the Kell Brook fight. In the early rounds, Kell Brook was outboxing Spence comfortably. During the early rounds and some of the mid rounds, Spence showed no head movement or ability to fight off the back foot. Thurman may not be an elite defender but he is head and shoulders above Spence in the defensive department. The Brook fight, the Bundu fight, and the Algeiri fight, to a lesser extent, showed me that Spence, like Golovkin, is a straight line fighter. Spence does not have the ability to fight on the back foot or create angles to exploit his opponent. This will create problems for Spence against Thurman because Thurman is, arguably, the best mover in boxing. Thurman is not going to just sit there in the pocket, like brook, and let Spence tear his body up. Thurman is going to move, counter, and move again. Spence has the advantage on the inside but Thurman is a better outside and midrange fighter. I can see Thurman out boxing Spence for twelve rounds, but I cannot see Spence out boxing Thurman. Now, like I said this is a legit 50/50. Styles make fights so I could see Spence breaking Thurman down and possibly stopping him. But keep this in mind, we saw, in the Thurman vs Porter, that Thurman will fight if you try to take him out. It's like Thurman turns into a bigger animal when you try to fight him. This fight is going to be like Marquez vs Pac 1 where two guys are going to be throwing bombs but being very tactical. So, give me your thoughts. I have Thurman by UD or TKO. Thoughts?
Errol Spence Jr: 5 ft 9 with a 72” reach.
Strengths
1. Great jab
2. Good balance,
3. Great punching power
4. Exceptional at cutting off the ring.
5. Body Snatcher
6. Killer instinct
7. Good Stamina
8. Great work rate
9. Good Chin
10. Great inside and midrange fighter.
Weaknesses
1. Can’t fight off the backfoot
2. Leaky defense
3. Bad movement
Keith Thurman 5”7 with a 69” reach.
Strengths
1. Great counter puncher
2. Great athleticism
3. Fast hands
4. Great footwork
5. Good Balance
6. Pretty good defense
7. Great Movement
8. Ability to fight off the back foot
9. Great punching power.
10. Good chin
11. Ring generalship/ring iq
12. Can fight on the outside and midrange pretty well.
Weaknesses
1. Doesn’t throw jab enough
2. Suspect ability to take body shots
3. Doesn’t cut off the ring enough.
As you can see, both have their strengths and weaknesses. Spence is the bigger and stronger fighter but Thurman is faster a lot more athletic. So, this leads to the question, “Who wins and why?” After watching countless footage of both guys I will say that this is a legit 50/50 fight because both can exploit the weaknesses of the other, but if I was to bet money, I would put my money on Thurman to win. Here’s why. Overall Keith is the better boxer. Keith has the better footwork, movement, athleticism, speed, defense, and power(based off of what Bundu and Porter said. Both fought Spence and both agreed that Thurman hit them harder than Spence). Even though Spence is a great offensive fighter, his defense is below average. Let’s take a look back at the Kell Brook fight. In the early rounds, Kell Brook was outboxing Spence comfortably. During the early rounds and some of the mid rounds, Spence showed no head movement or ability to fight off the back foot. Thurman may not be an elite defender but he is head and shoulders above Spence in the defensive department. The Brook fight, the Bundu fight, and the Algeiri fight, to a lesser extent, showed me that Spence, like Golovkin, is a straight line fighter. Spence does not have the ability to fight on the back foot or create angles to exploit his opponent. This will create problems for Spence against Thurman because Thurman is, arguably, the best mover in boxing. Thurman is not going to just sit there in the pocket, like brook, and let Spence tear his body up. Thurman is going to move, counter, and move again. Spence has the advantage on the inside but Thurman is a better outside and midrange fighter. I can see Thurman out boxing Spence for twelve rounds, but I cannot see Spence out boxing Thurman. Now, like I said this is a legit 50/50. Styles make fights so I could see Spence breaking Thurman down and possibly stopping him. But keep this in mind, we saw, in the Thurman vs Porter, that Thurman will fight if you try to take him out. It's like Thurman turns into a bigger animal when you try to fight him. This fight is going to be like Marquez vs Pac 1 where two guys are going to be throwing bombs but being very tactical. So, give me your thoughts. I have Thurman by UD or TKO. Thoughts?
Comment