Both Spence and Thurman won very close, hard-fought decisions over Porter. Who do you think did better overall?
I think without the knockdown the decisions could be comparable. But the KD sealed the deal. Spence edged a close fight. Thurman vs Porter was like; if the table was to be turned and Porter had been the undefeated A-Side champ while Thurman had been the B-side contender with a loss on his record, then the decision would be other way around. Thurman won the decision on being "more marketable" grounds.
The Spence fight was the best prepared Porter. This Porter probably would've stopped a Keith Thurman.
There's zero evidence that Porter came into this fight any better prepared than he has for any other. That's just a talking point and a narrative that's being pushed by Spence fanboys. Since I scored the Spence match for Porter by more rounds than I did the Thurman match. Thurman it is. An argument can actually be made that Thurman won his match.
Spence did better! He scored a KD and beat Porter close but clear in a gutsy war. Thurman was on his bike most part of the fight.. An argument can actually be made that Porter beat Thurman.