Keith Thurman vs Shawn Porter

[Chepppaaa]

Sorry fella it sounded like you were calling thurman great now he's a b+ boxer I'm confused[/quote]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i think we have a different oppinion about the meaning a and b boxers.

for me b or b + are very good boxers, brook or thurman are b +, danny garcia is b, amir khan is b, i mean those 4 are quality boxers, i mean a guy like uchiyama is great, but he is also like b or b+. a is just a different level, for me a or a + are very rare boxers, realy rare fantasic talents, guys like rigo or roman gonzales or pac and may, just complet terrific boxers. so for me b + is great and a and a + is brilliant. thurman can be great, but he doesnt have the athletic ability or technical side that will him ever push to be a, but b is good enough for me, cause most boxers are c too z hahaha.....so b is already realy good.

[ajwesty13]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i think we have a different oppinion about the meaning a and b boxers.

for me b or b + are very good boxers, brook or thurman are b +, danny garcia is b, amir khan is b, i mean those 4 are quality boxers, i mean a guy like uchiyama is great, but he is also like b or b+. a is just a different level, for me a or a + are very rare boxers, realy rare fantasic talents, guys like rigo or roman gonzales or pac and may, just complet terrific boxers. so for me b + is great and a and a + is brilliant. thurman can be great, but he doesnt have the athletic ability or technical side that will him ever push to be a, but b is good enough for me, cause most boxers are c too z hahaha.....so b is already realy good.

ah i see thats that cleared up and i like your rating system..

See if i got this .... Andre ward would be an A+ but because of injuries and inactivity hes at A? i think i got this lol

[Chepppaaa]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i think we have a different oppinion about the meaning a and b boxers.

for me b or b + are very good boxers, brook or thurman are b +, danny garcia is b, amir khan is b, i mean those 4 are quality boxers, i mean a guy like uchiyama is great, but he is also like b or b+. a is just a different level, for me a or a + are very rare boxers, realy rare fantasic talents, guys like rigo or roman gonzales or pac and may, just complet terrific boxers. so for me b + is great and a and a + is brilliant. thurman can be great, but he doesnt have the athletic ability or technical side that will him ever push to be a, but b is good enough for me, cause most boxers are c too z hahaha.....so b is already realy good.

ah i see thats that cleared up and i like your rating system..

See if i got this .... Andre ward would be an A+ but because of injuries and inactivity hes at A? i think i got this lol

a + is top of the mountain, like prime floyd, prime jones, prime robinson, i mean a + is super rare, best of the best. no, ward is not on the "best of the best" mountain, but prime ward is a, he is technicly so well rounded, on top of having great footwrok and solid power, but he lacks a bit to much of athletic ability and speed and i wounder how he would handle the pressure and speed of a prime "vinny pazienza bout" jones, even a prime gerald mcclellan or prime julian jackson, so ward being a+, deffinitly not, but a is very good and ward is a.

i dont rate so much by record, a boxer is a b or c regardless of who he fights, i rate more about physical quality, skills, technical ability, i mean even when floyd or roy were young and had no big name on their record, you could pretty much say right away that they are a or a+, just because they were athleticly so great and fluid in footwork and in another level in terms of hand and footspeed.

[ajwesty13]

a + is top of the mountain, like prime floyd, prime jones, prime robinson, i mean a + is super rare, best of the best. no, ward is not on the "best of the best" mountain, but prime ward is a, he is technicly so well rounded, on top of having great footwrok and solid power, but he lacks a bit to much of athletic ability and speed and i wounder how he would handle the pressure and speed of a prime "vinny pazienza bout" jones, even a prime gerald mcclellan or prime julian jackson, so ward being a+, deffinitly not, but a is very good and ward is a.

i dont rate so much by record, a boxer is a b or c regardless of who he fights, i rate more about physical quality, skills, technical ability, i mean even when floyd or roy were young and had no big name on their record, you could pretty much say right away that they are a or a+, just because they were athleticly so great and fluid in footwork and in another level in terms of hand and footspeed.

Seems legit a much better system than saying either tom cans, journey men world class or elite. ..

[Chepppaaa]

a + is top of the mountain, like prime floyd, prime jones, prime robinson, i mean a + is super rare, best of the best. no, ward is not on the "best of the best" mountain, but prime ward is a, he is technicly so well rounded, on top of having great footwrok and solid power, but he lacks a bit to much of athletic ability and speed and i wounder how he would handle the pressure and speed of a prime "vinny pazienza bout" jones, even a prime gerald mcclellan or prime julian jackson, so ward being a+, deffinitly not, but a is very good and ward is a.

i dont rate so much by record, a boxer is a b or c regardless of who he fights, i rate more about physical quality, skills, technical ability, i mean even when floyd or roy were young and had no big name on their record, you could pretty much say right away that they are a or a+, just because they were athleticly so great and fluid in footwork and in another level in terms of hand and footspeed.

Seems legit a much better system than saying either tom cans, journey men world class or elite. ..

thanks man

[Lackeos]

No, his best win was his last fight.

Dominated a fighter superior to Porter.

Guerrero is not a superior welterweight.

Guerrero is overrated.

He is better than Porter.

No way Brook does to Ghost what he did to Porter.

As a matter of fact, pretty much the same reasons why Thurman would beat Porter is why Guerrero would as well.

Him (Shawn) going straight at Ghost would spell disaster for him.

Incorrect. Shawn Porter is superior to Robert Guerrero.

[koolkc107]

Yeah, except Ghost looked better in his last loss to Thurman than Porter did in his loss to Brook.

And Thurman is much better than Brook.

[Horse]

Yeah, except Ghost looked better in his last loss to Thurman than Porter did in his loss to Brook.

And Thurman is much better than Brook.

No, he didn't

He got his arse handed to him.

Porter is much better than Guerrero.

[koolkc107]

Yeah, except Ghost looked better in his last loss to Thurman than Porter did in his loss to Brook.

And Thurman is much better than Brook.

No, he didn't

He got his arse handed to him.

Porter is much better than Guerrero.

Guerrero came on the last part of the fight.

Porter seemed to never get on track against Brook.

[beatdown337]

For what its worth, I would love to see porter vs berto. I think some guys are overrating both porter and kell brook. Porter has a nasty habit of rushing in and smothering his punches. Its going to be hard for him to win at the top level because its so hard to see whether or not he's clearly scoring. As Floyd mayweather sr said, the guy rarely ever throws a straight punch lol. Kell brook beat porter by keeping him at bay and boxing him. The fight was close as someone mentioned earlier. Lets not act like he beat Floyd or something lol. I feel like Kell has a lot to prove and beating shawn is his first quality win in my opinion.

I could see Thurman boxing porter like brook did and getting a win that way, but why would keith take a fight like this when he has little to gain now that porter no longer has a belt? He would be better served to face brook.