Lomachenko has FIVE better wins than Crawford!

Golovkin unified in one of the weakest MW era's ever , yet it didn't stop people calling him one of the best MWs of all time.
He was picking belts up off the floor it was so bad.

The only champ he ever beat was Lemieux - a paper titelist who won a vacant belt dropped by Jermaine Taylor after he was carted off to the looney bin.

When a mentally shattered , past prime Taylor comes back to MW years after he left it to capture a world title ... that pretty much tells you all you need to know ...

This content is protected

 

Perfect example!

Look Lomachenko and Crawford are BOTH exceptional talents, They are both only now coming into the "peak" of their careers, their biggest career defining fights are still ahead of them, Neither has had that one HUGE mega fight yet, Why people can't simply appreciate both fighters is beyond me, Anybody who can't see that they are both exceptional talents DKSAB. Arguing over resume this early in their careers is just plane silly.

 

Indongo got destroyed in 2 rounds by Prograis, Postol lost but got a gift decision against little known Najmiddinov and is a 9-1 underdog against Josh Taylor. They were the champs at 140 Crawford beat ..

This content is protected

 

Something smells in London and has seeped into this thread.

 

Postol is alright but Indongo is complete crap. But yeah you have to question those who rate those kind of wins highly but nitpick just about everything Golovkin does in his career. Crawford is a good fighter who did what he had to in most of those instances, but great wins those are not.

 

Crawford has good quantity of ranked opponents. Certainly missing some spice on his top wins, though. I don't think the Martinez win clearly rates above Postol and maybe not Beltran/Horn/Burns depending on who you are, and I've long rated Martinez higher than everybody else on here ever did (of course, that changed a little bit magically when he was announced as Lomo's opponent).

 

Is it just me or is the general forum more disgusting than ever? The biases and motives on both sides are getting increasingly obvious. It should stop because these days alot of the discussion has more to do with how a fighter looks than with his boxing styles or ability and everybody here damn well knows it.

 

Both the 135 and 140 divisions where far weaker than 160 and Golovkins era is no weaker than Hopkins....plus Golovkin was never dropped off a fighter of Mercados level and scrape a draw....he also never needed to fight a fighter like Robert Allen three times to claim superiority.

 

I don't know, it's always been poisoned by two broad fan bases.

Generally in my time on here it is: pro-American, doesn't hate black fighters, doesn't like European fighters, can enjoy a fighter with a sub-500 KO%, Mayweather fans vs. anti-American, hates black fighters, likes European fighters, can not enjoy a fighter with a sub-500 KO%, Pacquiao fans

The best behaved and least agenda ridden the general forum was since I have been on here was the 6-ish months after Mayweather/Pacquiao.

It sucks everyone cares more about nationality and fighting style more than ability and resume and lets the former influence their perception of the latter.

 

He's a 3 time champ

 

Look at Crawford fanboying Loma:

This content is protected

Hold my t shirt bro.. Yessir!