Why down on G but not Crawford?

Crawford, He's over rated.
I saw his recent fight , nothing special and got hit a lot. He's one dime fighter.
Wait till he fights a live boxer and then we can re evaluate.

 

Not really. Jacobs and Murray are better than Postol. Brook was small for GGG, but Gamboa was even smaller compared to Crawford.

Golovkin's resume is better than Crawfords. And David Lemiuex is one of the hardest punchers in the sport p4p.

 

You can't win a world title when GGG is hogging all the belts defending against all man. And the other lone belt is being held hostage by another fighter who openly admits "GGG knocks both me and you out on the same night".

That is bona fide dominance right there. Any world class fighter just straight up saying I'm going night night if we fight means GGG is ****ing people up.

 

Golovkin is Eastern European fighter and so many in America hate them..........................geeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, I wonder why?

 

Postol was never rated before he beat a war torn Matthysse whose previously injured eye got injured again in the fight. How was Lemieux a paper champ when he beat N'Dam clearly? You say Jacobs wasn't rated yet morons made several threads about how Golovkin would duck Jacobs etc. Crawford's resume is not superior you are once again biased as hell. Crawford beating Gamboa = Golovkin beating Brook. Both were name but smaller opponents who achieved nothing at the weight TC/GGG fought them. Crawford beating Postol < Golovkin beating Jacobs. Postol is a very limited fighter, he is slow, stiff, isn't very strong and has no punching power. He has some good fundamentals but that is it. Jacobs is much more talented than Postol athletically and he also has some skills therefore it is a better win, and it doesn't matter that some guys here hyped Postol after he beat a past prime Matthysse.

 

Kinda like you hate on every American fighter despite yourself being American. You stupid SOB. You're a hypocrite you dumb bot troll.

 

I think Gamboa is probably a better victory than most of GGGs victories and that your mentioning Gamboa and Beltran in the same category is so stupid.

 

Nice try but the difference is that Gamboa was already currently at 135 when he fought Crawford and was a paper champ at 135. Brook was dragged up to fight GGG at the full limit of 160 and was a career WW. Lemieux was a paper champ he won a vacant belt FFS.
I don't remember threads saying that about Jacobs, infact I remember just the opposite threads saying and bashing Jacobs for ducking GGG. I also know for a fact there were tons of threads talking about how GGG was going to brutally stop Jacobs. No one here picked Jacobs to win including me and you. With Crawford-Postol there were tons of posters here picking Postol to beat Jacobs some of them said Crawford wouldn't even fight him and you probably picked Postol to beat him as well, so don't try and change it up now to suit your agenda. It's easy to say now Postol is nothing special after Crawford tooled him but before the fight that wasn't the case he was seen as one of the great new EE fighters.

 

Can't take him seriously when it comes to GGG.

He thought Quillin and Jacobs had better resumes than GGG. Then, after Jacobs essentially ended Quillins career in a minute and a half, he acts like GGG beating Jacobs wouldn't mean anything.

And here I thought beating an opponent with a better resume could only boost your stock lol

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...ers-currently-in-the-fight-game.574673/page-3

 

Did you read my whole comment? Crawford doesn't receive as much criticism as Golovkin because he's not regarded as highly as Golovkin is. Golovkin is widely believed to be on a higher level than Crawford.

Are you arguing just to argue? Do you not understand relativity and context?

 

A lot of people on here have selective memory. Quite a few people were picking
Postol to spoil against Crawford. Postol, pre-fight was being considered as a dark horse
and number 1 or 2 in the division. Pre-Golovkin Daniel was not considered the number 2
guy at MW, he was "a contender with a tender jaw, he was a guy that got exposed by Pirog"
yadda yadda yadda, then overperformed. Now in hindsight everyone is making Daniel into
a monster that he wasn't before the fight. Crawford cleaned out two divisions and his
resume is better, objectively.

 

both are excellent. I feel GGG gets hated on more b/c he is more high profile and russian. To me GGG is higher based on resume. Crawford is getting better. I believe he has the most potential of any american boxer right now however

 

age is a factor and it good factor for crawford not a negative. if bud is 35 yrs old still fighting the guys he is fighting then yes. he will get criticized. an for the weight cutting who doesnt. i dont kno the facts if ggg cuts weight or not but im sure he cuts weight. and the weight cutting is normal for anyone.

an ggg doesnt move up in weight another reason getting criticized. when bud is 35 years old he will be at 154lbs i bet .

im a huge ggg fan by the way. just keepin it real. hope ggg takes out canelo.

 

it shouldnt be better. ggg is 35 years old hes been at it longer. when bud is 35 and ggg is retired then we will see in comparison.