Is Spence a top 5 p4p fighter?

[techliam]

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?

A thinly veiled attack on me as an ‘eye test’ guy. Come on. If you want a decent debate on something, don’t lower the standards..

As for your ‘who did you beat’ framework, I would question whether or not you have the additional nuance of ‘how?’, as that is a pretty vital area to gloss over.

Who did you beat and how is a fairly solid framework to use. In Spences case, he had competitive fights with both Brook and Porter, which is a lot different to ‘Spence beat both Porter and Brook’. Unless Porter is p4p no.6, I don’t see how you can rank Spence no.5

[techliam]

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 want 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.

The expectations are irrelevant.

Porter is not a highly ranked fighter in the grand scheme of things (I.e P4P). Most people would agree that it was a razor close decision. How else am I supposed to look at that, especially as, apart from Brook, this is the only fight we can really judge him on?

[techliam]

But who did Crawford dominate that's A level?

Crawford has dominated 2 divisions and is fighting in his third. With most people, the assumption is that Crawford’s ceiling hasn’t been identified yet

Spence isn’t dominating any division, and is instead struggling with the fighters there. His ceiling is pretty visible

I agree that Crawfords resume isn’t that strong, and so his overall standing should reflect that. But arguing that Crawford shouldn’t be ranked that highly isn’t a valid argument to say Spence should be. You can’t just flip the absurd logic around to justify it

[sicko]

I put him in that 5-10 Range, he holds 2 Belts in the Deepest Division in boxing so he is Top 7 P4P Worthy. Whoever unifies 147 is P4P #1 Unanimously but it won't be a easy road at all to unify that Divisions as seen last night. Pacquiao, Crawford, Porter, Thurman, Danny Garcia, Ugas, Lipinets that Divisions is going to be Razor Thin, nobody is going to walk through or run away with that Divisions

Styles make fights and they all have totally different styles

[boxinggod101]

Yes he is...

[Jubei]

Brook beat Porter more easily, so no way. If he beats Crawford then he surely is, but not if he beats the likes of Danny Garcia who hasnt done shi.. at 147 and is 2-2 in his last 4.

[BIG GUNZ]

I feel his stock went down a little bit last night. He’s definitely an elite level fighter but last night showed he’s not levels above the other top welterweights like originally thought. I’d personally place him in the top 10 but not top 5 right now.

[Combat Talk Radio]

A thinly veiled attack on me as an ‘eye test’ guy. Come on. If you want a decent debate on something, don’t lower the standards..

As for your ‘who did you beat’ framework, I would question whether or not you have the additional nuance of ‘how?’, as that is a pretty vital area to gloss over.

"At the end of the day, who's hand was raised?"

Period. That's what matters. It's a business.

Crawford beat Khan. The fact he used a blatant low blow to do it does not negate the win in the books; the ref allowed it. But in terms of how I JUDGE Crawford, it's an asterisk. And from my eyes he has an asterisk on every win at 147.

Who did you beat and how is a fairly solid framework to use. In Spences case, he had competitive fights with both Brook and Porter, which is a lot different to ‘Spence beat both Porter and Brook’. Unless Porter is p4p no.6, I don’t see how you can rank Spence no.5

Spence had a competitive fight with a damaged Kell Brook.

Porter had a competitive fight with a 100% Kell Brook.

Both were close, but Porter's has more credibility, because he fought the best version of Brook.


Thurman had a competitive fight with Porter but couldn't drop him. Danny Garcia had a competitive fight with Porter but couldn't drop him.

Spence had a competitive fight with Porter AND dropped him.

Spence's win over Porter has more credibility than Thurman or Garcia BECAUSE he managed to do what they couldn't.

Porter is a two-org champion. He's held the IBF and WBC. Spence beat a now-former two-org champion. Keith didn't, Danny didn't.

Thurman and Danny were even odds with Porter. Spence was assumed to whitewash Porter and KO him out. SIGNIFICANT underdog. The bookies even had Tyson/Douglas like odds on a draw.

Had Spence not gotten that knockdown, it would have been a split draw.


No matter how you slice it, Porter's achievements DO put him up there compared to the others. And when someone beats him, it elevates them as a result.

You can keep on disregarding him, but not one thing I said up there is opinion. You can verify every one of those facts yourself.

[techliam]

"At the end of the day, who's hand was raised?"

Period. That's what matters. It's a business.

Crawford beat Khan. The fact he used a blatant low blow to do it does not negate the win in the books; the ref allowed it. But in terms of how I JUDGE Crawford, it's an asterisk. And from my eyes he has an asterisk on every win at 147.




Spence had a competitive fight with a damaged Kell Brook.

Porter had a competitive fight with a 100% Kell Brook.

Both were close, but Porter's has more credibility, because he fought the best version of Brook.


Thurman had a competitive fight with Porter but couldn't drop him. Danny Garcia had a competitive fight with Porter but couldn't drop him.

Spence had a competitive fight with Porter AND dropped him.

Spence's win over Porter has more credibility than Thurman or Garcia BECAUSE he managed to do what they couldn't.

Porter is a two-org champion. He's held the IBF and WBC. Spence beat a now-former two-org champion. Keith didn't, Danny didn't.

Thurman and Danny were even odds with Porter. Spence was assumed to whitewash Porter and KO him out. SIGNIFICANT underdog. The bookies even had Tyson/Douglas like odds on a draw.

Had Spence not gotten that knockdown, it would have been a split draw.


No matter how you slice it, Porter's achievements DO put him up there compared to the others. And when someone beats him, it elevates them as a result.

You can keep on disregarding him, but not one thing I said up there is opinion. You can verify every one of those facts yourself.

I don’t disagree with what you say. Yes Porter and Spence are definitely the same calibre fighters as seen by his resume and common opponent.

However, looking at it this way runs the risk of looking at it in a circular way - I.e they are all great fighters because they beat each other. This is wrong

I argue that the group of 4 - I.e Porter, Spence, Thurman and Garcia, are not at all great fighters, instead being good in a weak welterweight era. To justify that view, we can just look at outside opponents for them. For example, Kell Brook gave Spence an equally competitive fight, and Pacquiao clearly beat Thurman, despite being over 40. That tells me, that this group of 4 (who are all around the skill level, as seen by their fights with each other), are levels below the prior Welterweight era of Pacquiao, Mayweather, Cotto, Bradley etc.

As I keep saying, today’s Welterweight division is loaded with names, but lacking with talent.

[The Big Dunn]

The expectations are irrelevant.

Porter is not a highly ranked fighter in the grand scheme of things (I.e P4P). Most people would agree that it was a razor close decision. How else am I supposed to look at that, especially as, apart from Brook, this is the only fight we can really judge him on?

I don’t think you should judge the fight based on where you see Porter but on how he fought this particular fight.

We agree that Porter is not considered a top p4p fighter. That stated, he came in Saturday night and fought the best I’ve ever seen him fight. He would’ve defeated almost any other ww.

Spence had to dig deep. He didn’t win this fight as much with talent as he did heart and guts. That should be commended.

Further, if you had him losing the fight going into the 10th, he won the last 3 rounds, including the 11th with the kd, to win the fight.

I understand your points I just think this win confirmed he is a top p4p fighter because imo that is the only type of boxer that would’ve beaten the porter we saw Saturday night.