Could Emile Griffith be champ today @ 147?

When have I said that number of fights doesn't mean anything? I have pointed out, that certain high level, long-serving amateurs don't need an awful lot of pro fights to bring out the best in them. That's not the same as saying that, generally speaking, number of fights means nothing.

But how about Spence - do you seriously feel, that he would present no problem at all for Griffith?

 

I don't see why that's controversial. We're talking about a guy who struggled with, and failed to out-box, a weight drained, previously stabbed Kell Brook.

Griffith has ATG physicality, his chin is cast iron and he's the first guy who has the strength, speed and skill advantages over him. Given he's already shown notable weaknesses against mediocre opposition, why should we pick him to give the best Griffith fits?

To be honest, if Spence won 5 rounds, it'd be the highlight of his career.