He would be undefeated and have wins over Spence, Brook, Thurman and Ugas. Would be P4P 1 IMO. Just shows how having judges on your side changes your entire perception as a fighter.
He lost all of those fights because he never evolved as a fighter under his father's tutelage. He can only fight one way and he doesn't know how to even lead with a jab. Brook beat him quite comfortably by using his superior ring IQ and accurate jab. Thurman beat him with his superior movement and outside fighting. Shawn Porter and Danny Garcia are held back by their fathers. I like Shawn Porter he's fun to watch but he's never really evolved as a boxer and he bull rushes way too much leading him to get hit clean too much or hit the canvas.
This would just make him switch places with Spence, maybe a notch higher. It wouldn't get him past Canelo and those who rate Crawford over Spence would rate him over Porter as well.
I agree but, I think what the op is pointing at, is that Porter could have all of his close fights, even Brook, go in his favour and those results would have been nowhere near the most controversial robberies in each respective year. Thus, it goes to show how much judging plays a role in the perceived difference between P4P and good contender.
He isn't even half of Canelo as both talent and skill level. Thurman neutralized his aggressive style and won the fight smartly. Brook outboxed him clearly. Spence had tough moments but he also won. Canelo is vastly superior than Porter in every department of boxing. Maybe except footwork.
Never seen anyone call for robberies as much as I have this morning. The solution is less robberies, not more ffs.
