Terence Crawford's Resume at 147lbs

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Maybe the potential hughie fury has?

[Enlightened-One]

Maybe the potential hughie fury has?

A year or so ago, if you said anything minutely negative about Efe Ajagba used to cause hideous outrage, even if you were discussing his painfully obvious stylistic flaws.

But I don’t think anyone’s as keen on Hughie Fury as they once were about Ajagba.

I’m sure I’ll accidentally tread on a landmine at some point, whereby someone will blow up on me for stating the obvious about something I previously considered an innocuous topic.

[margaret thatcher]

hughie's just a wee lad of 27, hasnt gotten his man strength yet. when he grows up he'll be next level

[KiwiRider]

hughie's just a wee lad of 27, hasnt gotten his man strength yet. when he grows up he'll be next level

That was being said 5 years ago. Shame it never happened. He had the size and a reasonable skill set back then. Just never improved or got any more entertaining. We have had more fun on here discussing his bacne than his fights

[caldo2025]

The Crawford-Porter bout is basically between two inactive 34-year-old past-their-prime fighters, with neither man considered commercially big draws.

One of them hasn’t faced credible opposition for 4½ years and the other one has arguably won only one fight within the last 39 months.

This isn't 2018 - we're almost in 2022.

Your hard on for inactivity statistics are really only applicable in the case of inactivity as a result of injury. Terrance Crawford is one of the world’s greatest athletes PERIOD. Do you think he’s not working just as hard week in and week out regardless of fight dates?

Those fighters suffering from timing and cardio issues really only apply to the injured boxers unable to consistently train inside the ropes. Not guys like TC who could have been a pro athlete in 3 sports.

[oogiebe]

hughie's just a wee lad of 27, hasnt gotten his man strength yet. when he grows up he'll be next level

[Bandog]

The Crawford-Porter bout is basically between two inactive 34-year-old past-their-prime fighters, with neither man considered commercially big draws.

One of them hasn’t faced credible opposition for 4½ years and the other one has arguably won only one fight within the last 39 months.

This isn't 2018 - we're almost in 2022.

Right on point from a well known Troll.

[Enlightened-One]

The Crawford-Porter bout is basically between two inactive 34-year-old past-their-prime fighters, with neither man considered commercially big draws.

One of them hasn’t faced credible opposition for 4½ years and the other one has arguably won only one fight within the last 39 months.

This isn't 2018 - we're almost in 2022.

Right on point from a well known Troll.

Pick a sentence, any sentence, and highlight any inaccuracies?

[margaret thatcher]

if we are going by 'arguably'', ive seen cards with porter beating spence, thurman, and brook........therefore porter is arguably undefeated his entire career, with several wins over top welters and p4p recognizable names!

[Enlightened-One]

if we are going by 'arguably'', ive seen cards with porter beating spence, thurman, and brook........therefore porter is arguably undefeated his entire career, with several wins over top welters and p4p recognizable names!

Here's what you said about the Porter-Ugas bout:

I mean I just thought Porter lost to Ugas one fight before Spence and looked pretty humdrum.

Here's your scorecards for the Spence Jr.-Porter bout:

115-112 Spence

And here's what you wrote about Spence Jr. beating Porter:

Of course Spence beat Porter clear too and beat Brook as well as the superior fighter...

Therefore, you 100% wholeheartedly agree with everything I previously said.

So what’s it to be, did you previously lie, or you lying right now?

[margaret thatcher]

im just one opinion bruh, others had porter winning each of those fights, therefore it's debatable

i know you've dedicated plenty of time to brook-porter!

[Enlightened-One]

im just one opinion bruh, others had porter winning each of those fights, therefore it's debatable

i know you've dedicated plenty of time to brook-porter!

So you agree with me.

You literally submitted posts word-for-word that accurately reflected my opinion, as well as the majority of those who watched both of those bouts.

Isn't it rather painful for you to attack my claims, only for them to be exposed to accurately reflect your actual opinion?

[margaret thatcher]

yep, porter is 'arguably' an unbeaten p4p beast and 'arguably' took dat L against Ugas and has only won 1 fight in 2.5 yearss or whatever it is

[Enlightened-One]

yep, porter is 'arguably' an unbeaten p4p beast and 'arguably' took dat L against Ugas and has only won 1 fight in 2.5 yearss or whatever it is

Isn't it rather painful for you to attack my claims, only for them to be exposed to accurately reflect your actual opinion?

So you agree with me!

I quoted your words.

Did you lie back then, or are you lying now?

[margaret thatcher]

at no point did i attack your claims bruh, just showing how they co-exist with other claims. in fact, my argument is to show both can be true, which is the opposite of trying to undermine you

if something garcia-porter is an arguable loss for showtime shawn, all his losses are arguable wins too

[Enlightened-One]

at no point did i attack your claims bruh, just showing how they co-exist with other claims. in fact, my argument is to show both can be true, which is the opposite of trying to undermine you

You did, but you're backtracking, because I used your own words against you.

Lesson learned for you, I guess.

I pay attention to what you say. Apparently you don't recall your own words.

Remember the sentences I actually wrote. Remember your actual posts. They both agree.

[margaret thatcher]

not backtracking at all my man, absolutely 0

by the same standard that some of SP's wins couldve gone against him (i.e. some ppl scored them for the opponent), so too could his losses be wins. im sorry if saying that makes you feel 'attacked' yet again

i actually wasnt disagreeing with your original point at all, so you seem kinda lost about what im suggesting my bruh

[Enlightened-One]

not backtracking at all my man, absolutely 0

by the same standard that some of SP's wins couldve gone against him, so too could his losses be wins. im sorry if saying that makes you feel 'attacked' yet again

You challenged my post.

But your own sentiments were 100% the same as my own.

You can't deny that.

You submitted posts that 100% reflected my claims.

If you've changed your mind, then own it, and also denounce what you previously wrote.

Make your mind up. You either agree with me or you don't, but don't pretend your previous posts don't 100% accurately reflect my own.

[margaret thatcher]

i didn't challenge your post at all, merely showing how another truth could co-exist with it using the same standards

in other words, some people thought sean lost fights that went his way. and so to did some ppl have him winning the fights he lost. making both positions 'arguable'

that really makes you feel 'attacked' and 'challenged'? jesus my man, what is with the persecution complex

[Enlightened-One]

i didn't challenge your post at all, merely showing how another truth could co-exist with it using the same standards

in other words, some people thought sean lost fights that went his way. and so to did some ppl have him winning the fights he lost. making both positions 'arguable'

that really makes you feel 'attacked' and 'challenged'? jesus my man, what is with the persecution complex

The Crawford-Porter bout is basically between two inactive 34-year-old past-their-prime fighters, with neither man considered commercially big draws.

One of them hasn’t faced credible opposition for 4½ years and the other one has arguably won only one fight within the last 39 months.

This isn't 2018 - we're almost in 2022.

I mean I just thought Porter lost to Ugas one fight before Spence and looked pretty humdrum.

Of course Spence beat Porter clear too (115-112) and beat Brook as well as the superior fighter...

[oogiebe]

Someone forgot to take their pills today.

[margaret thatcher]

some people had porter losing ssome fights that went his way, therefore he arguably lost them

some people had porter winning the fights that went against him, therefore he arguably won them


same thing, if porter arguably hasnt won in 3.5 years then he's also arguably an undefeated beast, an absolute animal

[Enlightened-One]

some people had porter losing ssome fights that went his way, therefore he arguably lost them

some people had porter winning the fights that went against him, therefore he arguably won them


same thing, if porter arguably hasnt won in 3.5 years then he's also arguably an undefeated beast, an absolute animal

if we are going by 'arguably'', ive seen cards with porter beating spence, thurman, and brook........therefore porter is arguably undefeated his entire career, with several wins over top welters and p4p recognizable names!

I mean I just thought Porter lost to Ugas one fight before Spence and looked pretty humdrum.

Of course Spence beat Porter clear too (115-112) and beat Brook as well as the superior fighter...

[margaret thatcher]

Someone forgot to take their pills today.

im just sorry that i've made him feel 'attacked' and 'challenged', i didnt mean to scare him like that

[Enlightened-One]

Someone forgot to take their pills today.

im just sorry that i've made him feel 'attacked' and 'challenged', i didnt mean to scare him like that

if we are going by 'arguably'', ive seen cards with porter beating spence, thurman, and brook........therefore porter is arguably undefeated his entire career, with several wins over top welters and p4p recognizable names!

I mean I just thought Porter lost to Ugas one fight before Spence and looked pretty humdrum.

Of course Spence beat Porter clear too (115-112) and beat Brook as well as the superior fighter...