Errol Spence is top 10 h2h at welterweight

Dear lord this thread isn't about Floyd, you need a new hobby.

 

You're arguing against a straw man. I never said the technical fighter always wins nor did I say that's always the determining factor.

Your statement that technical fighters lose as often as they win requires data to back it up. You haven't provided any, you just listed a handful of fights where the technical guy lost. For that statement to be true you'd need a MUCH larger sample size (at least 500). I can easily list a dozen fights off the top of my head where the more technical guy wins.

Mayweather alone is proof that your other absurd statement that being the more technically sound fighter means nothing is not in line with reality. Mayweather was 70-80% technical and rarely relied on athleticism, size, power, etc. He had an entire successful career being a technical fighter and is arguably the best defensive fighter of all time and easily top 25 HOF. You also have very cerebral boxers such as Whitaker, Young, Locche, etc who had very few physical tools/talents and were elites who relied on almost pure technique.

 

Manlets? Was Ugas a "manlet"? Brook was pretty huge too and was really a 154-160 guy killing himself to make weight. Both were champions when Spence beat them. So was Porter who was short but was at his best and coming off the best win of his career. The undefeated 5'10 Manriquez...? 5'11 Barrera?

I don't know what fights you've been watching but Spence has beaten several big prime welterweights.

 

Three of the boxers I mentioned were champions and amongst the best in the division at the time, what more do you want? Should Spence get in a time machine to fight Robinson?

 

Name the "true elites" that Spence could have been fighting.

 

No I was addressing the idiotic claims you made and then you went off on a tangent.