T-Bud's stance against Spence?

[bobcatbox]

there are advantages to him switching against Errol. It will make it harder for Spence to time his jab. It might expose some lapses in Spence’s defense that we’re not seeing because he hasn’t fought another elite level southpaw.

The obvious reason why neither Terence Crawford nor Errol Spence Jr. has faced an elite-level southpaw at welterweight, is because other than Manny Pacquiao, there aren't any!!!

You can only face the fighters that are available. Look at the welterweight rankings and list the southpaw fighters that Spence Jr. should have faced, but didn't?

I’m skeptical enough to believe Spence’s handlers may fear southpaws for a reason they’ve seen in the gym. Crawford and his camp are savvy enough to pick up on it if it’s there.

What on earth are you talking about?

A southpaw facing a southpaw is the equivalent of two orthodox fighters fighting each other. It won’t be a problem for Spence Jr.

There’s no proof of him being unable to cope with southpaw foes.

And Spence Jr. is highly experienced against orthodox fighters.

So the only advantage Crawford “potentially” has over Spence Jr., due to him being a switch-hitter, is that it forces Errol to adapt and improvise on the fly… and potentially disrupting his rhythm

However, as we witnessed during the Brook bout, Crawford didn’t really gain the winning momentum until he switched from orthodox to southpaw, which was clearly evident during the third and fourth rounds.

This means that Crawford’s experimentation or switch-hitting doesn’t guarantee success. This tactic could backfire, resulting in him needlessly losing rounds on the judges’ scorecards, which is something you can't afford to do against an elite-level opponent.

Anyway, back to what you claimed… where on earth leads you to believe that Team Spence Jr. are “fearful” of southpaw opponents? Be honest, did you make it up?

I think you misunderstand what I said and took it far too seriously. Of course I’m merely speculating about if Spence has a latent weakness against southpaws we haven’t seen yet. There would be no way to know it for certain. I can assure you I do not have sources leaking me info. It is merely a conjecture based upon the fact that Spence is a southpaw and has not faced an elite southpaw.

On that note, yes, you are correct - there are not any. Which is why he hasn’t faced any. That also does not change the fact that he has not faced any. Which means we don’t know what he’ll look like against a southpaw. Which is why I said what I said. It is equally as likely that Spence will demolish any southpaw in front of him. I think it’s less likely than that he’ll struggle against a good southpaw but hey we might just get to find out.

Using the Brook fight as a comparison is useless because Brook is not a southpaw and is also not Errol Spence.

Crawford has a better chance of neutralizing Spence’s jab if he’s fighting orthodox. His jab will also be neutralized. He relies far less on the jab to win fights and therefore advantage Crawford. Also, with his hand speed and power, I do not think he should give up the lead right hand - THE most effective punch against a southpaw - just to get into a fight from the southpaw stance. Because, why? He knocked out Kell Brook doing it?

You clearly feel strongly about Spence’s impending domination of Crawford. (I don’t necessarily disagree since he will probably wait until Crawford is 35 and fight him at 154.).

[Enlightened-One]

It is merely a conjecture based upon the fact that Spence is a southpaw and has not faced an elite southpaw.

On that note, yes, you are correct - there are not any. Which is why he hasn’t faced any.

Agreed.

That also does not change the fact that he has not faced any. Which means we don’t know what he’ll look like against a southpaw.

Agreed.

However, let's not forget that Terence Crawford has never faced an elite-level southpaw at welterweight either, which is something you've failed to comment on.

Which is why I said what I said.

You actually said you that Errol facing a southpaw "... might expose some lapses in Spence’s defense that we’re not seeing because he hasn’t fought another elite level southpaw" and you were also "skeptical enough to believe Spence’s handlers may fear southpaws for a reason" and that "Crawford and his camp" were "savvy enough to pick up on it..."

Those were your words.

Using the Brook fight as a comparison is useless because Brook is not a southpaw and is also not Errol Spence.

Agreed. Spence Jr. is not Kell Brook. He's a better fighter than the Brit.

However, let's not forget that Crawford's constant switch-hitting was ineffective against a weight-drained opponent that hadn't defeated a universally recognised top-ten world-rated fighter for more than 6½ years. And hadn't won single a bout at 147lbs for 4½ years.

Crawford only gained the winning momentum against Brook when he refrained from switch-hitting and resorted to employing his natural southpaw stance.

This proved that Crawford’s experimentation or switch-hitting doesn’t guarantee success. This tactic could backfire, resulting in him needlessly losing rounds on the judges’ scorecards, which is something you can't afford to do against an elite-level opponent.

Crawford has a better chance of neutralizing Spence’s jab if he’s fighting orthodox.

How can you criticise Spence Jr's for lack of experience against southpaws, but then claim he'd find it more challenging to defeat an orthodox version of Terence Crawford, especially considering the fact that Bud has never defeated an elite-level welterweight or even a southpaw that competes at 147lbs?

Make your mind up, look at what you previously wrote about Spence's alleged "fear" or reluctance to face southpaws, due to perceived flaws that The Truth's team and Crawford have picked up on, but then go on to claim Errol would actually fare worse against an orthodox version of Bud.

You clearly feel strongly about Spence’s impending domination of Crawford.

I never said that and that's not what I believe either, but it's abundantly clear that Crawford's most recent notable victory happened almost 3½ years ago.

Bud will also be approaching 34 years of age the next time we'll see him step foot inside the ring and (in the context of him considered a top-three rated pound-for-pounder), he hasn't achieved anything of note within the sport of boxing since his twenties.

And suppose he abides by the terms of his current contract Top Rank...

In that case, the situation isn't going to change for another year, which will only serve to diminish his chances of defeating a younger bigger fighter like Errol Spence Jr., who continues beating the top-dogs at 147lbs, whilst Crawford defends his WBO strap against anonymous unproven names or has-beens.

[bobcatbox]

I don’t disagree that Crawford switching to Southpaw is how he won the fight against Brook. I’ve even said so myself:

Crawford won the fight when he made the adjustment to southpaw. Shut down everything Brook was doing in one move.

I still say that doesn’t mean a thing because he was fighting a right hander who was not nearly as skilled at ESJ.

You’re not understanding the comments I made about Spence’s potential weakness against lefties because you’re taking it out of context. I was trying to give some respect to another user’s opinion while also sticking to my personal opinion that this is a better fight for Crawford from the orthodox stance. My personal opinion is based upon the fact that he needs to neutralize Spence’s best weapon - the jab.

You believe that Crawford should fight in the southpaw stance because Crawford is more dominant from it. Do you think Spence will defend Crawford better if he’s facing a southpaw Crawford or an orthodox Crawford?

[Enlightened-One]

You’re not understanding the comments I made about Spence’s potential weakness against lefties because you’re taking it out of context.

I quoted your words verbatim.

...my personal opinion that this is a better fight for Crawford from the orthodox stance. My personal opinion is based upon the fact that he needs to neutralize Spence’s best weapon - the jab.

I definitely believe an orthodox fighter is capable of having an effective jab against a southpaw.

It just has to be thrown from a slightly different angle (over-the-top from the outside), with the lead foot also on the outside. A southpaw would actually be closer to the orthodox fighter’s lead hand.

However, Crawford is more effective as a southpaw, which was pretty apparent from the Brook fight. And Spence Jr. is highly-experienced at facing elite-level orthodox fighters.

You believe that Crawford should fight in the southpaw stance because Crawford is more dominant from it.

Crawford is more effective as a southpaw. His switch-hitting achieved very little success against a fighter that is vastly-inferior than Errol Spence Jr.

Do you think Spence will defend Crawford better if he’s facing a southpaw Crawford or an orthodox Crawford?

I honestly don’t know, because neither Crawford nor Spence Jr. have ever faced an elite-level welterweight southpaw. Who knows what will happen?

That said, if we completely ignored their resumes, Crawford superficially appears to be a more talented and adaptable fighter, capable of improvising well and adjusting on the fly, than Spence Jr. is.

However, despite being slightly one-dimensional and less flashy, Spence Jr. is equally skilled at what he specialises in doing. And he’s also younger, bigger and more athletic than Crawford. Errol has also been operating at a much higher level than Bud has for the last 3½ years.

So I feel that Crawford can beat Spence Jr., but he has to start fast and stick to his main strengths, which means operating from a southpaw stance and closing the distance.

Bud is a notoriously slow starter, as we saw in the Brook bout, whereby his switch-hitting and experimentation was ineffective, which resulted in him needlessly losing a couple of rounds. He can’t afford to fight that way against Spence Jr.

However, he turned things around immediately against Brook when he fought from the southpaw stance.

It's as if he's always trying to solve a puzzle that doesn't exist (i.e. Dulorme, Gamboa, Postol etc.), because sometimes it's clear he can achieve the same outcome just by keeping things simple, by sticking to what he does best. And he should only adapt and work out what plan-B should be when plan-A isn't working.

[Post 4 Post]

Now that the fight is officially, will the southpaw or orthodox stance bother Spence more?

Is Crawford best fighting at a righty or lefty against Errol?

Crawford may want to start out as a southpaw and stick with that.

[Yuzo]

when you are boxing and you both jab at the same time your jabs will run parallel.



but when you are boxing with a southpaw and you both jab at the same time your jabs will become obstructed and essentially cancel out.



thats why when a southpaw jabs he can keep you from throwing your jab just by throwing his jab.



between spence and crawford who do you guys think depends on his jab more?