Who did better against Thurman?

I thought Thurman beat Garcia close. and I honestly though Porter won. he over whelmed him and threw so many punches Thurman couldn't keep him off. Thurman did cleaner work but I felt it was too far inbetween. I can see why anyone has either one close.

 

If Thurman couldn't stop him, I highly down Crawford would be able too. Thurman is faster and more powerful.

 

Porter can beat Thurman in a rematch

 

It's all good.
But i am again going to double down and say that a draw would have been atrocious that night. I can't find my own scorecard but i remember barely giving Shawn any of the opening rounds.
He was just getting countered too much.

It was a razor close fight, but in terms of round, Shawn clearly lost it.

 

People seem to forget what the first 8 or 9 rounds looked like. It would have been dumb on a whole other level if Keith just went to war in the last 2 rounds like he did with porter for example, imo at that point the only way Garcia could win was land one big shot and get Thurman in trouble.

 

9-3. My bad.

 

I disagree. Porter is head and shoulders above Horn. Porter actually has some boxing skills, more grit, better chin, better defense, more athletic, and he is much better at cutting the ring off and fighting in the pocket. Could Crawford win a decision? Possibly. But, he has never been in there with someone as big, strong, and tough as Porter. The reason Brook and Thurman had success is due to their size, strength, skill, and power. Although Crawford has the skills, he lacks the strength, size, and power to fully neutralize Porter. Like I said, I see no one stopping Porter at 147(and that includes Spence)