If Crawford, Thurman, and Spence we're natural HW how would they fair?

[*TonyMontana*]

Thurman would still be an inactive b1tch

spence would have even bigger *******

and Crawford wouldnt look like a ethiopian

[boliodogs]

if they were heavyweights, they wouldn't have the speed and finesse that makes you think they're great to begin with.

it's like saying what if a horse was an olympic runner. well if they were an olympic runner, they wouldnt have the attributes of a horse anymore.

What you say is true. I think Spence is better for a welterweight than any of the current best heavyweights are for heavyweights.

['b']

Thurman would still be an inactive b1tch

spence would have even bigger *******

and Crawford wouldnt look like a ethiopian

That's sexist and misogynist

[Sheldon312]

if they were heavyweights, they wouldn't have the speed and finesse that makes you think they're great to begin with.

it's like saying what if a horse was an olympic runner. well if they were an olympic runner, they wouldnt have the attributes of a horse anymore.

Thurman would be a more athletic David Haye
Crawford would be a more fundamental Deontay Wilder
And Spence would be Anthony Joshua with more leverage.

[*TonyMontana*]

That's sexist and misogynist

It's also true

[N/A]

Thurman would be a more athletic David Haye
Crawford would be a more fundamental Deontay Wilder
And Spence would be Anthony Joshua with more leverage.

You only think that because of the attributes you've seen them display, attributes they only have because of their smaller size.

['b']

You only think that because of the attributes you've seen them display, attributes they only have because of their smaller size.

PROVE it then big guy

[Sheldon312]

You only think that because of the attributes you've seen them display, attributes they only have because of their smaller size.

So P4p is basically bull****

[N/A]

So P4p is basically bull****

I have no problem with judging fighters based on how well they're performing in their weight class to determine who has been the most successful for their size.

Anthony Joshua would obviously destroy GGG, but "pound for pound" I would rate GGG higher because he has accomplished more at middleweight than Joshua has accomplished at heavyweight. GGG has unified more belts, made more defenses, proven himself more clearly as the #1 in his division, etc.

[Sheldon312]

I have no problem with judging fighters based on how well they're performing in their weight class to determine who has been the most successful for their size.

Anthony Joshua would obviously destroy GGG, but "pound for pound" I would rate GGG higher because he has accomplished more at middleweight than Joshua has accomplished at heavyweight. GGG has unified more belts, made more defenses, proven himself more clearly as the #1 in his division, etc.

But if everything was equal, who would win? GGG would probably a more rugged Klits or Provetkin