Thurman-Porter: Final Predictions

Porter would have run Shane to a draw and Thurman would have beaten him.

 

LMFAAOOOOOOOOO!!!!

 

Pete quillin would have defeated hopkins

 

Jean Pascal would have outclassed Bob Foster.

 

agree

 

Kell Brook would have pounded out a convincing decision win over Sugar Ray Leonard

 

Haha! 'Preciate it Dog...You GOT the Digits...Text or Call ya Boy...





REED:mj:

 

Chris Arreola hammers a young Foreman

 

Bad joke, Mosley was no Leonard. Leonard was multi dimensional and legitimately great. Mosley was a one dimensional speedy slick slugger who was a one hit wonder (first de la Hoya fight). Aside from that win he beat guys like Rivera, Wise, Diaz, Taylor and Stone.

 

Just because Mosley wasn't Leonard doesn't mean he wasn't several levels better than Porter and Thurman. Neither of them see the final bell via the circa 2000 Mosley. Especially not Thurman, given how weak he is to the body and given how devastating Mosley's hook to the body was.

Neither one has much to bother Mosley with. Porter is dependent on his physical strength.... Mosley was a lot stronger. Thurman is dependent on his speed.... Shane was WAAAAYYYY faster. They're both fucked.

 

No Doubt, if Sugar Shane Faced Thurman and Porter 10 Times Apiece, he'd WIN 16-18 Times, Minimum

 

Maybe the Mosley that Floyd fought....because that Mosley was a season veteran with incredible skills.

The "prime" Shane Mosley you folks speak of, who beat De La Hoya 15 years ago...was an overrated speedster who had yet to develop into the finesse fighting machine, that Floyd took apart.....

Secretariat has spoken..

 

Sly is same one who once claimed that Mamadoodoo Thiam would beat Mosley. He also once said that Mayorga would give Shane a career ending beating.

 

Speaking of Mayorga, Porter & Thurman lose to prime Mayorga, let alone Mosley.

 

Probably. But i think that Mayorga was a really good fighter

 

indeed

 

Keith Thurman befuddles and stops an overmatched Marlon Starling

 

Shane's speed was useless against boxers...how many times do I have to tell you that? Thurman is a better boxer than Shane...Shane's handspeed advantage would be meaningless. Body punches...I agree with you. Shane has a chance to stop him based on body punching...but he's not winning any other way. Shane really wasn't that good y'all. Thurman is a better fighter and had he been a contemporary of Shane's he (Shane) would have been exposed earlier. Put it this way...if Forrest was fighting now and never fought Shane people would be saying that Forrest is too slow to have beaten Shane, to straight up and down no special effects etc. But we all know that now to be false. Forrest was the first competent boxer than Shane faced (that actually used his boxing ability). Thurman would have beaten Shane...in the exception of some body shot homerun.

 

Haven't you guys heard? The division is on fire! Fab 4 redux!

 

At least I've been consistent. I was never impressed with Shane Mosley. He was a solid fighter but waaaaaaaaaaay overrated. Evidently, he's still overrated.

 

if you or anyone else on this thread are under the impression that when I mentioned the fab 4, that I was saying that these guys are as talented/great as Hagler, Leonard and Co...then y'all are very stupid. At the very least y'all suck at context. I'm talking about having a good four way rivalry out of these guys...which the Fab 4 had. I'm not saying these guys are as great. You fellas are silly motherfuckers I must admit.

 

The fact that you can't envision a guy like Porter getting holes punched in him by Shane Mosley says it all really...

 

I mean "Thurman is a better fighter than Shane"... You've got to desperately NEED that to be true to say it... It's objectively false

 

Shane wasn't that good. He simply wasn't. I was telling everyone who'd listen that Forrest was going to expose him. People thought I was mad at the time. Many were saying he was better than Roy Jones, I kid you not, I can't make this up.

 

Mosley may have been overrated but he was still LEVELS above Porter and Thurman.

He'd KO them both, no sweat.

 

Stop reading after this sentence.

One of the most comical and ridiculous statements in boxing message board history.

 

How bout this Sly? BREAK DOWN for us how in the living Hell Thurman beats a prime Mosley. I'd loooooooooooooooveee to hear it.

Thurman's effectiveness is 100% based on having a quickness advantage over his opponent. All that jumping in shit he does works against a short, relatively slow midget like Porter.

How's it gonna work against Mosley when Shane was 2 inches taller, had CONSIDERABLY longer arms, and a HUGE advantage in handspeed and athleticism. Explain to us how it's gonna work.

You mean to tell me that a man who was tagged and hurt by one of the slowest fighters of all time in Soto Karass is gonna avoid Mosley's punches?

Mosley lands big on Thurman EARLY and OFTEN and there's little to suggest Thurman is durable enough to handle Mosley's firepower all night. Whereas, we KNOW Thurman ain't hurting Mosley.

If Mosley can eat DLH's best left hooks all night without flinching and whip Oscar, then he's laughing at Thurman's best hooks.

 

Thurman is a leap amateur if ever there was one... Mosley boxed like Ismael Laguna compared to him

 

Don't confuse Sly. He doesn't know who Laguna is. But he'll assume he was shit cause Laguna have lost.