So a lot of people have Errol Spence as a P4P fighter. I can respect that, but I don’t know yet. I think Spence’s record is hard to evaluate when looking for a P4P distinction and has a lot of unknowns.

Mikey Garcia - Mikey’s best was at 135, he had a good showing at 140 but whether he could even beat a Danny Garcia is unknown.

Carlos Ocampo - Nice win, but never been proven at world level.

Lamont Peterson - Good win but Lamont Peterson was not a top 5 WW and not near being considered elite.

Kell Brook - Spence’s best win. A win over a solid Kell Brook is very impressive and could be P4P worthy. Problem is I personally just don’t know how good Kell Brook was at this point, having been stopped by GGG prior and then looking kind of shot against Zerafa. Maybe Kell Brook was at 100%, maybe not, funny enough but how Spence does against Porter illuminates this.

Bundu and Algieri- Decent wins but not P4P worthy. Algieri is pretty decent at WW but his best showing is a loss against Amir Khan. Bundu hasn’t proven himself when it came to world level competition.

So anyway none of this is to nitpick Spence’s record. I’m a Spence fan actually and I want to see him earn that P4P status (most excitingly with a fight against Crawford). I’m not someone who really buys that much into the eye test for this kind of thing. I love the Porter fight because I feel like it will reveal pretty accurately whether or not Spence is an elite fighter.

What do you guys think? Should Spence already be considered a P4P fighter?