Is Spence a top 5 p4p fighter?

[New England]

Not top 5 prob top 10 though. He isnt unbeatable. Has cement feet and no head movement, he can be touched up.

his head movement was fine. it's a part of why he counters so well. you won't be on balance to throw back if you move your head too much. again, his head movement is fine and always has been.

it's his feet that gave him issues against shawn porter. he keeps them dug in so he can punch. he should have waited a few rounds until porter slowed down so he could step to the side and avoid the fillow up mauling. porter was a football recruit and probably oculd have played division 1 college football at a small school he's plenty athletic to give guys problems given that he's content to go in there swining his head, elbows, and fists, and whatever else.

[DaNeutral.]

No he isn't in the top 5 he just isn't good enough. There is a weak case he could be top 10 but I'm not sure I have him in mine.

[Combat Talk Radio]

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.

Those prior fighters, except Manny, are gone. People need to STOP raising the bar. Compare today's fighters against each other. And Pacquiao went RAZOR close with Thurman who fought ****** the first half.

In TODAY'S landscape, we have a modern day Four Kings being created by AL Haymon: Porter, Thurman, Spence and Danny. All four highly skilled FOTY fighters. If Thurman retires you've got Manny. But the point is, exciting, intriguing matchups all around.

Heavyweight we might be on the verge of seeing another one with Wilder, Ruiz, Fury and Joshua.

My point is, people need to look at today and judge on today.

[alexguiness]

Top 10 P4P maybe...

Top 5? GTFOH.

[SplitSecond]

I already have him as an ATG. So yes TS. At least top 5.

[NachoMan]

Well, as ever, when discussing placement within the P4P, we all need to be clear about the criteria. Is your assessment based purely on resume or is it based on perceived potential? If its the former, is it just the record (the numbers), is it the guys they fought or is it the fighters they fought and actually beat? If its based on pure resume, then Canelo must be #1, but it seems to me that most people make their picks based on more subjective criteria. How good have they looked against their competition? Do they have a pleasing style? What level of (perceived) skill and athleticism do they demonstrate?

I personally think Bud Crawford is the overall best fighter in boxing, but I respect anyone who wants to make a case for Lomachenko, Monster Inoue, Canelo, etc. I think Bud is best because he's the guy I would pick as the winner against ANY possible opponent he could get. I don't bet on boxing (because its corrupt), but if I had to make money, he's as much of a sure thing as I could ask for. His resume certainly doesn't stack up (mostly because of politics) to other guys (Canelo, etc), but, to me, he's outclassed his competition and demonstrated the right mix of skill, power, athleticism that makes me think that he is, right now, as close as you can get to an unbeatable fighter (of course there is no such thing) in boxing. Lomachenko is up there, but I don't see him as unbeatable. If he punched with more power, he would probably be my #1. Inoue seems pretty damn unbeatable, but time will tell how much craft he has. Spence, for me, is Top 6 or 7.

[techliam]

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.

Well this is simply where the difference lies. Your view is based on that personal assessment, whereas my view is based on mine, which clearly differs.

There’s no right or wrong

[Combat Talk Radio]

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.

And bold is very important. And can only be truly measured from the quality of opposition.

Shawn Porter has taken every single opponent to deep waters. The ones he didn't beat HAVE to be rated high because as you said, it takes true top tier talent to stop that type of attack effectively. Think about it - if Porter were the bum that NSB wants to say he is, he'd have lost to guys like Berto. AS-is he's only ever lost to UNDEFEATED champions.

Porter's like Duran. Duran LOST to all three of the others. Yet people still rated him because he was not a cakewalk. Why does Porter not get the same consideration?

It's a good measurement: how good does a guy need to be to beat this guy BASED ON WHO THEY FOUGHT AND BEAT OR NEARLY BEAT IN THAT WEIGHT CLASS?


Not based on a smoky 'eye test' of "guy over here smashed this B-level and knocked him out with a vicious low blow, so he's #1" - bounce that noise. It's Jeff Lacy all over again.

[WhatDisButtonDo]

I have Canelo/Lomachenko/Crawford/Usyk/Pacquiao ahead of him.

[KTFOKING]

No, he didn't seperate himself from Porter

What does this mean? Because it was close? Did GGG separate himself from Jacobs? Did Usyk separate himself from Bredis? Did Canelo separate himself from Lara or Trout or GGG?

Any competitive fight and a fighter can't be top 5 P4P? I mean if you don't think he is top 5 P4P, that is perfectly fine. But what is your logic here? Any close competitive fight and that fighter is automatically disqualified from being in the top 5 P4P list?