Why ask the question in the thread if you won't accept one side of the argument. Broner is **** at welterweight so no it doesn't make it look better.
Broner was legit at LW. More than just legit, he would have been hard to beat there. Despite his flaws as a fighter and his antics outside the ring, I'll give him credit where it is due in regards to making a *****y, if ill-advised move up to WW. I'll agree that Brooks win doesnt look better based on Porter's win over Broner. It was a good win for Brook though.
To me it doesn't. Porter was always the best "prime boxer" right after Thurman and Brook when Brook beat him, and he was always the heavy favorite against Broner. So Brook's win was great before Porter beat Broner as well. Now it could somehow switch the minds of some casuals who can't appreciate a boxer's talents by watching him fight but just keeps asking "Who did he beat?". It happens with GGG too quite often.
Always the heavy favourite against Broner you say? I understand it suits your agenda but be a bit more of a man and be upfront about it.
He was always the betting favorite and the fan favorite. Check the odds, check the polls. Broner's only chance was a robbery decision which proved to be in the making with one of the judges outrageously scoring the bout 112-114. I don't have an agenda, whatever that means for a boxing fan anyway.
Brook would stop Porter with a good ref. Porter vs Thurman would tell us a lot about the landscape of the emerging division.