Arguable with Pacquiao but Porter has been in with more prime guys: Prime Devon Alexander Prime Kell Brook (lost but still competitive) Broner Prime Keith Thurman (competitive fight) Prime Danny Garcia Andre Berto (maybe a little aged) Prime Spence Ugas (a little aged, and I had Ugas winning) His resume absolutely pisses on Crawford and Spences trash resumes
Bit over the top, but I agree with you that he gets lowballed a bit and I almost always really enjoy his fights.
Didn’t he lose pretty much all these fights? It’s like saying Khans got the best resume because he’s fought Canelo, Crawford and Garcia
Resume is different to wins... And many of them were close competitive fights (8-4, 7-5 kind of fights). A good resume indicates someone is willing to fight the best
Should be faced the better opposition and not best resume. A good boxing resume is based of wins and not who you faced. As mention earlier, going by your standard Amir Khan has one of the best resume.
It's actually subjective, resume can mean just total opposition and has been used time and time again to refer to that. Regardless of petty semantics, I'm talking about who Porter has faced and how he has performed against top prime guys. Objectively his resume in this sense is the best at 147. And yes Khan has a good resume too, but his fight with Caenlo was not at welterweight and that pathetic performance against Crawford is nothing like how Porter approaches his fights (must be said that Khan was shot at this point). It's really not hard to understand, Porter has fought several prime guys at welterweight and consistently given a good account of himself in close fights. More so than anyone else.. In fact I had it 114-113 Spence and many on this forum had Porter winning
There's tons of fighters in history who have "great resumes" because they weren't good enough. The promoters give them the elite boxers all the time because they know they'll lose most times.
But Spence beat up two of the people on his resume (one he stopped, the other he gave the most lopsided loss of their career), plus Spence actually beat him. Also, Porter lost to the 3 best people that he fought, has a draw (could've been a loss) to Julio Diaz to go along with the razor's edge win against Ugas. It's not just resume, it's actually winning the big ones. Porter's best win is Devon Alexander, and that win doesn't look so great in hindsight. He falls short.
Its the prime opposition you face and how you fare in each of your fights. Spence beat a weight drained Brook come off a GGG beating and meh aged Danny Garcia. Porter has been in competitive fights with prime opposition. And you can very well argue he in fact beat Spence people had that fight anywhere from 116-112 Porter to 116-112 Spence.
This is why I don't understand those who criticise Canelo. Just look at the list of names he's fought.
Weight drained but he had made weight every single time prior to their fight. He also made the WW limit in his last fight (albeit he is currently a shell). As for Danny, Danny isn't that aged or declined, he's given a good accounting of himself against everyone except Errol (including Porter) however if you wanna take that position, Errol was coming back from a life threatening accident, can he not be given a pardon? As for the Spence fight, I know no one that had 8 rounds for Porter, that's quite insane. I had it 116-111 (let's not forget the knockdown) for Spence. Porter has always been competitive (that's his modus operandi), but he's consistently shown he can't get over that hurdle.