Who was more competitive? Shawn when he fought Spence or Keef when he fought Manny?

[Ryannn]

Both came in their respective fights as the underdog. Both gave their opponents fits. Both lost a split decision.

Who was more competitive tho?

Personally I'll give it to Porter. Thought Porter vs. Spence being a draw wouldn't be too bad. On the other hand, Pacquiao definitely beat Thurman even though Keith showed up in the middle rounds and made the fight interesting.

[champion4ever]

Don't get me wrong. Keith put up a very spirited and courageous effort against Pac but he still lost. There's unanimity in that verdict. However, this Spence/Porter fight is very controversial. Some say Spence won while others say Porter won.

I say that Shawn Porter was the more competitive of the two. That performance came out of nowhere. Spence was considered invincible and the most avoided and ducked man in boxing.

Shawn on the other hand was coming off one of his worst outings/performances of his career against a gatekeeper and not many people on this forum gave him much of a chance.

Now since he has exposed Spence, many would like to walk back their original comments and say that they knew Porter was a very great fighter all along.

They always knew that Shawn would give Errol a very tough fight. Which is all a bunch of bullshit when you come to think of it

[MaksBox]

Thurman lost clearly!

Porter... was screwed. I thought he did enough to win the fight or at least a draw, in any case, the final decision was already paid for long before the fight.

[champion4ever]

Thurman lost clearly!

Porter... was screwed. I thought he did enough to win the fight or at least a draw, in any case, the final decision was already paid for long before the fight.

I agree. The fix was in no matter what Porter would have done in that fight. They was always going to steal it from him anyway short of a KO. The officials was going to ensure that the money man and the house fighter would win at any cost; Meaning Erroll Spence, Jr.

[Ca$ual Fan]

Underdog Thurman was kinda like 50/50 between him and Pacquaio. Fight justified itself. Porter made a better statement. He was like a 9-1 underdog who was expected to lose via TKO by almost majority and he made the fight a different story. He may have lost but his performance killed the Spence hype

[Roadblock]

Thurman said he was injured, Porter said he was in the best shape of his career.

[ShaneMosleySr]

Porter was more competitive against Spence.

[boliodogs]

In my opinion the Pac vs Thurman fight was closer but Pac clearly won. I think Spence beat Porter by at least 116 to 111 and the judge who had Porter winning robbed Spence.

[Larry the boss]

Porter and it is not even close

[Damn Wicked]

Both fights were neck-in-neck. Very competitive fights and all 4 of them fighters were in deep and feeling the level of difficulty.

Boxing fans are really in love with the idea of a "Superman" existing in this sport, as if certain men can't be beaten. It's a nice fairy tale to have when you're a kid but a little bit of reality should be more common by the time you're over the age of 25. Crawford, Spence and Pacquiao are not any measurable distance above many other welterweights. Any of them can be beaten by guys we aren't even aware of yet. Boxing is a bit of a popularity contest though. Porter, Thurman, Ugas, Garcia can all cause an upset if they go about things in an intelligent manner....Although Danny Garcia's output is a particular weakness with guys who have a good workrate....BUT they all have certain weaknesses.