Is Spence a top 5 p4p fighter?

[DumpkinsPlus5]

If Spence dominated Porter and Brook, I would put him in the top 5 without issue

But he didnt

But who did Crawford dominate that's A level?

[KillaMane26]

Nahhh he need a better performance imo.

[danceswithfire]

yes he is imo

[PunchMeIDareYou]

Not even close.

[danceswithfire]

on the second thought, top 10 not top 5...maybe around 7-8

[uppercut510]

hes top 10, he will make top 5 of most people list tho,hes a good fighter wih alot of promise; plus Hes really just now establishing himself ....I have no idea why there is so much backlash for having a hard close fight with another who is top 5 in his division... you would think boxing fans would be pleased, he definitely needs work in areas but thats what fights like this are for so he can address the areas. Why cant boxing fans be excited about new talent without it being called over hyping? what exactly are we to do?

[DumpkinsPlus5]

hes top 10, he will make top 5 of most people list tho,hes a good fighter wih alot of promise; plus Hes really just now establishing himself ....I have no idea why there is so much backlash for having a hard close fight with another who is top 5 in his division... you would think boxing fans would be pleased, he definitely needs work in areas but thats what fights like this are for so he can address the areas. Why cant boxing fans be excited about new talent without it being called over hyping? what exactly are we to do?

Great quote. I hate hearing people say a fighter hasn't done XYZ. It's as if you're not allowed to praise or hype a fighter until it's 100% clear they're Top p4p material. People are excited to see what Devin Haney, Shakur Stevenson, and Ryan Garcia do, and we'll say (insert name) will be the best of the bunch, just as a prediction. But people like "naw man, you gotta wait." How boring is that.

[The Big Dunn]

If Spence dominated Porter and Brook, I would put him in the top 5 without issue

But he didnt

Yo dude this is crazy. Dominating them if they don’t look good isn’t as good as beating them at their best.

Porter fought as well as he has ever fought last night. If Spence wasn't a top 5-7 p4p fighter he doesn’t win.

The mark of a great fighter is winning fights that become tougher than expected that require you to dig deep and use your whole skill set.

Spence very well have been the only ww I. The world able to beat the Porter that was in the ring last night.

I think it better to judge the performance not judge the performance against expectations.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Who you beat is more important than a label. Which is why all champions are not treated equally. Crawford unified/undisputed blah blah blah. Who are the names on his resume. Nobody seems to have a problem with Crawford being #1 or #2 p4p. If he can be that high, yes Errol Spence is top 5. Porter is better than anyone Crawford's beat. Brook is better than anyone Crawford's beat. Garcia is better than anyone Crawford has beat.

Exactly this.

[Combat Talk Radio]

If Spence dominated Porter and Brook, I would put him in the top 5 without issue

But he didnt

Because you're an 'eye test' guy.

I'm a guy who goes by WHO DID YOU BEAT?

By that measure, Crawford does NOT rate. Period.

Meanwhile, Spence holding two of the belts puts him at least in the conversation. Dismissing Porter is the mark of an 'eye test' guy, because Shawn Porter has gone close with everyone he fought. Nobody's dismantled him. So what's that mean?

If you ever rated Keef, how can you not rate Shawn when Keef barely got out with a win over Shawn?