people just overreact after every fight. i guarantee if/when spence does a number on ocampo they will all start saying 'oh wow maybe he'll just walk through crawford after all'. theres a lot of posters on here who dont seem to factor standard of opposition into performance, a lot of posters. one thing ive learnt on this forum is a fighter gets way more credit for beating a bum in good fashion than they do for beating a solid fighter in a close fight. thats why people are already putting crawford ahead of thurman in the welterweight standings. in fact thurmans got less hype about him ever since he beat porter and garcia but lost a few rounds lol, his stock fell.
It's hard to see this being a 50/50 fight when looking at the type of fighters both have fought. Crawford has Postol, Gamboa, Diaz, and Horn. While Spence has Brook, Peterson, Bundu, and Algeri. Brook is head and shoulders above everybody on Crawford's resume. I consider brook to be elite since he has the best jab and right hand in the business. Since the Gamboa fight, Crawford has not been in there with a guy who has power and will let his hands go. Whereas, Spence was in there with a top Welter who is highly technical, good chin, and very strong. All in all, I see it as 60/40 Spence. People are using the Horn victory as a measuring stick against Spence and I think it is very silly. Spence does absolutely everything better than Horn and then some. To be honest, Horn is a C-Level fight (probably the worse fighter on Crawford's resume) Spence is an A-Level fighter with a great jab, power, beautiful ability to cut off the ring, and great inside fighting. I know i may get a lot of flack for saying this but I see Spence stopping Crawford earlier than he did bBrook. There is just too much of a size, strength, and power disparity. Crawford has never been taken into deep waters and if he faces Spence, he will be in for a rude awakening.
Crawford beats spence, garcia, thurman, pprter. With spence and thurman giving him hell. But crawford all around better imo. Not that others arent good and fun to watch
people just overreact after every fight. i guarantee if/when spence does a number on ocampo they will all start saying 'oh wow maybe he'll just walk through crawford after all'. theres a lot of posters on here who dont seem to factor standard of opposition into performance, a lot of posters. one thing ive learnt on this forum is a fighter gets way more credit for beating a bum in good fashion than they do for beating a solid fighter in a close fight. thats why people are already putting crawford ahead of thurman in the welterweight standings. in fact thurmans got less hype about him ever since he beat porter and garcia but lost a few rounds lol, his stock fell.
While this is true - people overreact following fights/wins - I've stated TC is top WW since he announced his intentions to move to WW.
It has more to do with Spence than TC. Spence was dead even with a drained Kell Brook after 6-8 rounds. Kell is a good fighter, but clearly somewhat basic.
TC is too much for Spence - who is also somewhat basic - very linear and one dimensional even if he appears proficient at that dimension
Crawford is very talented but he's never faced anyone as relentless as Spence. On the other hand Spence has faced other fighters with a little bit slickness (not as slick as Crawford) and done well for himself. I favor Spence if they fought. Crawford had one fight at WW against a train wreck of a fighter. Much too early to tell if he can hang against bonafide WWs.
I think Spence wins by KO. I would pick Crawford to beat any other welterweight but Spence. I think Spence is the best welterweight and knocks out all other welterweights.
Comment