My take on the state of welterweights

Thurman was not coming off of an elbow injury in the Pacquiao fight. That's the whole point of a tune up, to see if you're still functional and good to go for a more difficult fight. It's why i didn't criticize Brook for fighting guys like Joe Joe Dan after he surgery for getting stabbed.

Thurman's fight with Pac was a full 7 months AFTER the Lopez fight which was more than a year after the elbow surgery. It's quite a stretch to think it was a major factor. Getting rocked by Lopez means nothing, if nothing else Lopez can bang and Thurman got caught by a shot he didn't see coming. No big deal, happens to everyone. You're acting like Lopez knocked him down and battered him from pillar to post. If anything it's impressive Thurman took all those shots without going down. You're also conveniently forgetting Lopez was ranked #7 and Thurman knocked Lopez down.

So yes I'm giving Pacquiao plenty of mileage for the Thurman win considering he is 10 years older and Thurman was na undefeated belt holder. Let me know when Crawford beats a champion 10 years younger than himself.

You can't just ignore his wins over Bradley because they happened a few years ago. All 3 bouts were at 147 and we're comparing resumes at 147. What's the problem? It doesn't count if it was more than a year ago? Do HR reps ignore jobs people had more than a year ago when interviewing people?

I wasn't making out his wins over Broner, Vargas, Rios, etc to be marvelous wins, but they were decent fighters. You talked a lot if crap about Broner and yes he was inconsistent, but he was ranked #6 and the fight was ONE year ago when Pac was 40 years old. Hence why i said "quantity over quality". Right now Crawford doesn't have quality OR quantity. absolutely nothing he's done comes close to the Thurman win, let alone the Bradley trilogy.

 

Nowhere did I say Pac "destroyed" him. No need for straw mans. Still a great win.

What? If Crawford beats Spence that automatically makes his resume 10x better than Pacuiao. I will be the 1st to give him credit.

I'm saying it's more impressive that Pac beat Thurman IN SPITE of his advanced age. It would be less impressive if he were 10 years younger.

Here's what this boils down to because you seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room: Thurman, even if you want to argue was 75% of his old self, was still an undefeated champion coming off a win over a guy rated #7 in the world AND he was 10 years younger than Pacuiao. That is statistically more impressive than Crawford beating damaged goods Brook and glass jawed Khan.

I was not suggesting Crawford "needs" to beat someone 10 years younger to have a better resume at 147. I'm saying the fact Pacuiao did so against a good much younger opponent is the cherry on top that separates their resumes. Again, you're acting like that's the only thing Pac has done and just completely wrote off the wins over Bradley, Rios, Vargas, etc. Crawford has a thin resume. Get over it.

I made the comparison because you are ignoring Pacuiao's huge body of work at 147 and insinuated matches like the Bradley trilogy shouldn't be factored since they were a while ago. Hence me using the HR analogy because I'm confused how when certain bouts take place matter when we are simply looking at who accomplished more. Never in my LIFE have I ever seen someone make the arguments you're making. If this isn't what you believe then I will retract my statement for putting words in your mouth. If however you do believe we shouldn't look at Pacuiao's mid 2010's resume at 147 because it was a few years ago, then boy oh boy is this going to be a short conversation.

Yes, the fact boxing is a perishable skill and that reflexes and athelticism get worse with age are EXACTLY why Pacuiao gets bonus points for beating Thurman. Thank you for supporting my argument.

The irony here is that I'm actually one of Pacquiao's biggest critics and here I am needing to defend his resume against the paper thin resume of Crawford.

Even if I withdraw my claims that Thurman and Broner were in their primes, they were both ranked. Broner was ranked #6 and Thurman was the WBA champion and undefeated. You are basically saying Thurman and Broner being a few years removed from their prime outweighs Pacuiao being a DECADE past his prime when he beat them. Do you not see how absurd this line of thinking is? It's a transparent attempt to devalue Pac's wins so Crawford's resume doesn't look bad. He's being outdone by a 40 year old man in his 8th division.

Biased against Crawford? Dude, back in 2015 when Crawford moved up to 147, I argued with Pac fanboys telling them to stop making excuses for Pacuiao and that he should stop ducking Crawford and fight him!!! In this very thread I said Crawford is top 3 in the divison, top 5 p4p, and briefly touched on the fact team Pac wants no part of him.

If you think THAT'S bias and hatred, then man you do not want to see me in a bad mood discussing fighters I despise.

Good for them. I'm not allowed to have an opinion? We're bickering over 2nd or 3rd place. If we're including overall resume based only on the last 5 years or so, Crawford is way above Pac in p4p. I just think he needs to do more to convincingly be placed above Pac because Jeff Horn, damaged goods weight drained Brook, and glass chinned Khan (who quit) aren't enough to convince me. The condition of the opponents and the matter in which he beat them are huge marks against him (they were only good on paper/name basis). Sorry if that bothers you.

However, if he beats Porter fair and square then I have no issue placing Crawford above Pac. Now I have a question for you: if Crawford cannot secure a unification match, do you want him to fight Porter, yes or no?

 

Of course not. He was worse in the Spence fight than he was against Golovkin and even worse with more mileage in the Crawford fight.

What, you expected me to say he was fresh as a daisy when he fought Spence?

 

Again, we are discussing 2 different things.

I thought it was obvious I was ONLY referring to Pacuiao's body of work at 147. I explicitly stated this numerous times. Of course Pacuiao's accomplishments far exceed anyone at welterweight if we include literally everything. Similarly, one could argue Crawford deserves a higher p4p ranking over Spence due to his accomplishments at 140.

So do we have that cleared up now?

I did NOT suggest that how Pac looked at 35 is an indicator of how he would do today. That is an entirely different subject. For the record, i think both Spence and Crawford should be favored to beat him but again, totally different subject.

Your comparison to Tyson is pretty horrible. Mcbride and and Berbick bouts were 19 years apart. And if the discussion was purely about resume, then yes the Berbick fight would count. I have been on 3 forums and have talked with people about boxing for more than a decade and you're literally the only person who has come up with this weird goal post shifting to diminish another fighter's body of work. Yes the Bradley fight was 5 years ago, it doesn't simply go away because it's inconvenient. What you are arguing for is from a p4p/what have you done recently sense. I was strictly going off of which fighter has done more at that weight class period. If the Bradley fight was say 10-15+ years ago or in a different weight class, I could see the logic behind what you are saying. But that still wouldn't change the fact Pac's resume at 147 is clearly above Crawford's.

In an NBA discussion, if we compare the records of Steph Curry vs Rajon Rondo, it doesn't matter that Curry has been inactive the last season and Rondo recently won a championship. Curry's overall body of work is clearly above Davis. Discussing who would beat who 1 v 1 or who has been the more effective player in recent memory are 2 completely different subjects.

Glad we agree Crawford should have been fought Porter. I have to honestly question his intelligence re signing with top rank.

He literally just called out Spence.

Never said he beats him or Crawford.

I stand by what I said that Pac's accomplishments at 147 being above Crawford's. That is not up for debate. Unless you think Khan, Horn, and Brook are MUCH better wins than 2 wins over Bradley, Thurman, Rios, Vargas, Broner, and Algieri. If the conversation is about who has done more recently, then yes Crawford has a slight nod (just barely) if we're going to pretend like the Thurman fight was ages ago and not last year.

The thing you're not getting is anything you accomplish at a weight class doesn't just go away. It gives you an edge over a less accomplished fighter when discussing resume. Period. You are thinking of sanctioning body/top 10 rankings and p4p rankings when you keep talking about Pac's inactivity and the fact many of his best moments at 147 were several years ago. Completely different subject.

Pac being 43 is irrelevant. He is still ranked as the WBA champion and a huge money fight for anyone. So he's relevant. But I do agree that if he won't unify or defend his title his old ass needs to go. I covered all of this in my very 1st post.