Let's End This Debate: Was Spence 100% or Was Crawford Just Superior In Everyway?

Was he 100%, no probably not. But he's been cutting weight for years, it's not like he suddenly struggled for Crawford. So he's probably not been comfortable at the weight for years but it suited him to drop the weight and come him heavier than many of his opponents. It suited his physical style to be able to manhandle opponents and utilise that size.

Crawford was always the superior fighter, always more versatile, more skilled, which is why so many here picked him not just to beat Spence but to stop him.

It's also a matter of styles. Spence is a better fighter than that actual performance showed, but not because he was a shell of himself but because the style match up meant he was at a serious disadvantage. He's a pressure fighter being matched up against a natural counter puncher that welcomes pressure and also hits harder than Spence. That's a recipe for disaster.

 

Exactly. Looking on from overseas it was sad to see Boxing fans lap that rubbish up and even spout it themselves. Fact is their team knew how good Crawford was and they did everything they could to avoid him until they'd farmed as much cash as possible from their fanbase. Not so unusual in boxing sadly, but to then boast and glory in their shutting out the better fighter was a new low. Their fanboys who took up the same arguments didn't even realise how pathetic they sounded. It must've made annihilating Spence all the sweeter for Crawford, even if he had to sign on the dotted line to make it happen.

 

Spence definitely wasn’t 100%. But that’s on him. He just made crawfords night easy. Suppose a rematch at 154 might be more tellling and may put a bit of perspective on the first fight. Not a huge fan of either tbh but was really looking forward to the fight, as it appeared on paper to be a true 50/50 match up, which us boxing fans rarely get

 

A mix of both. The truth is in the middle in my opinion.

 

Even though Spence probably wasn’t %100, Crawford was just superior in everyway. The latter is why the fight went the way it did.

People only look for signs of weakness in a ring walk after the fight when the performance is flawless. The fact that same morons who’ve been sputing the “weight bully” garbage about Crawford are now the ones trying to discredit him by calling is opponent “drained” tells you all you need.

“Crawford doesn’t deserve credit because he cuts too much weight, he’s a weight bully.”

“Crawford doesn’t deserve credit because his opponent cut too much weight, the opponent was drained.”

Makes sense if you have the IQ of a pineapple.

 

Almost getting KOd by Ugas, who has an abysmal 12 KOs in 32 fights, tells a convincing story about Spence being past his best. Ugas was not there to win, he was there to be a punching bag, when he clocked Spence he knew he had done PBC wrong and let him off the hook.

You are using Ugas' win against Pacquiao as a determinant of Ugas's ability..lmao...Pacquiao was two years out of the ring when he fought Ugas. Not only that, but many people had Pacquiao winning. Look, you clearly do not understand fundamental things like how inactivity significantly affects performance. To add to that, Pacquiao beat an extremely inactive Thurman who got rocked the fight before. AS good as Pac is, Thurman win had question marks.

Yes, which equals one fight in 2 and a half years. If you cannot agree that this is inactivity, then you clearly can't be reasoned with. You are acting like 15-6 month break from fighting in the ring is fine does not affect performance....come on

"Spence got his brains scrambled in a car crash and has looked far from his best in subsequent fights, frequently getting buzzed and negatively reacting like spitting his gumshield out and turning away from his opponent. NOT a good sign."

Right, so you think Spence looked as good as he did fights post-car crash ...because this sounds you are straight up lying to give a man undue credit.

Right so you agree Spence is drained.,,and yes it's on their team.. but....okay,... so why does this make Crawford's win so spectacular if he beat a drained Spence? make it make sense

My boy? Spence is a weight bully with a below-par resume in the first place...just like Crawford

 

No defeated fighter was ever 100% that's one of the commandments of being a boxing fan. We have a whole vocabulary of verbal gymnastics for these occasions:

"Weight drained"
"Over trained"
"Not focused"
"Not in shape"
"Got old overnight"
"Worn down from the previous fight"
"Needs a new trainer"
"New trainer sucks"
"No plan"
"No plan b"

 

Spence was not 100%. But the asswhooping was so bad he beats him at 100% too.

 

Yep.

Ugas was the last fight that Spence was able to make 147 safely and still be effective. And that was SIXTEEN MONTHS AGO and 5 years of Spence saying making 147 was difficult.

Spence looked like an AIDS patient in the Crawford fight.

But you have guys like @Braindamage @Glass City Cobra @dinovelvet @Pimp C and others pretending (lying) that Bud beat a healthy and prime Spence.

 

Nothing you have said here is a reasoned counter argument to the fact-

-Spence looked drained as ****, and had one fight in 28 months. Inactivity not a thing, apparently? Inactivity = less sharp & rusty. Is that so hard to comprehend? Inactivity & being drained is clearly going to affect performance; punch resilience and reflexes.
-Spence has looked mediocre post car crash; close win against Porter that many argued Porter won, uninspiring getting buzzed by Garcia and getting held up by the ropes against a 35 year old pillow fist.
-Styles make fights, yes, but skinny shot Khan, part time Porter and unknown Kavaliauskas gave Crawford a better fight. It is either Spence was drained to **** or is just frankly not hyped up to what he should be (which would mean this win against Spence is nothing to gloat about)...or it's both.

Seems like you guys just want to credit a guy regardless of the state of his opponent...

I think you need to reassess your definition of IQ.

 

No, that Porter fight was before the accident, Spence's level was always right there, it's what happens when you finally fight the guy you avoided & is who is near level of power/strength of yourself.

 

Or why don't you just compare the ring walks for Spence's last 2 fights? Looked healthy in the Ugas fight and looked like a cancer patient in the Crawford fight. It's not difficult and the difference was stark.

 

There's a saying in boxing - you're only as good as your last fight.

In Spences last fight he chopped down the tanky Ugas in 10 rounds. . So the way I see it , Bud beat the same guy who bludgeoned Ugas.

 

This paragraph itself is enough to prove you’re nothing more than a butthurt, pea-brained hater who’ll say anything to discredit a fighter.

Yes, Porter was Spence’s toughest fight before Crawford, one can easily argue Spence looked better against DSG than he did against Porter. And it happened before the accident. (I wouldn’t be surprised if the simpleton is editing the post as I’m typing this).

And how a fighter “looked”, is an opinion, not a fact. Obviously you need more than half a brain cell to be able to comprehend with this.

 

Both guys had to make 147. If you contract at a weight and have issues making it, that's completely on Spence. If he won, nobody would be talking about "weight drained".

Sure, he had inactivity, but he still should be training during that time. If he just sat on a couch and did nothing, again it's on him. If he was training, he was still active just not a scheduled fight.

When Gatti fought Mayweather, he was clearly shook up at the fireworks during the ringwalk. But, he was never going to beat Mayweather and you can't use that as an excuse.

Spence lost plainly because he was outclassed in every aspect. There's nothing wrong with that, and no need to make excuses for him. Fighters sometimes lose because they are not good enough; making excuses for them doesn't change that fact.