My unbiased opinion on Terence Crawford

Haven’t read the thread, and have no desire to read the thread of someone who is foolish enough and that lacking in self-awareness/honesty to believe it’s possible to have an unbiased opinion on anything.

 

Errol Spence has beaten Kell Brook and who else? How was that any better than a victory over Gamboa ?

 

His resume is lacking despite having been a unified, undisputed champion but I think it's clear he has the skills to contend with anyone at welter at the moment.

I think he beats Porter convincingly. Porter is a good fighter but I think he's a level below Crawford, Spence and Thurman. He did well vs Thurman but that's because I think Thurman styles matches up well against his, Spence beats Porter more convincingly too.

Thurman has been out for so long you have to wonder if he'll be the same and if his elbow injury will leave him a handicapped fighter. I think Crawford beats even the best version of Thurman though, he's too open to Crawford's counters.

Spence Jr is the real test for Crawford and the one guy that might beat him. I think Crawford is the more skilled boxer but Spence is naturally bigger and fundamentally very solid, not a lot of holes in his defence to exploit like Porter and Thurman. But I still favour Crawford, it will be a very competitive fight but I think Crawford has the variety and more complete game which will give him the edge.

 

His resume lacks depth but Brook is the single best win anyone has in the division right now. Brook schooled Porter and Porter gave Thurman a tough fight. So using that logic Spence is number 1 right now in the division.

But having said that the Brook fight showed Spence was as vulnerable as he was formidable. Spence isn't invincible, Brook without the weight issues and eye damage could of very well beat Spence. Spence is good at what he does but Brook took him out of his normal style by forcing him back and that made him look vulnerable.

I'd love to see Spence vs Porter or Thurman if he returns their aggressive styles could see Spence on the back foot again and be forced to move more which with his wide stance isn't easy for him.

 

When you fight the elite, it should not be easy. By the way, Spence broke the other orbital socket, not the one that GGG broke....he stopped Brook legit. The Brook that gave GGG hell in the 2nd round of their fight and Spence hell for 4-5 rounds beat Crawford.

 

I agree. Never rated Postol and Gamboa was small.
But Crawford DID pass the eye test, until his recent fight. Benavidez used his size advantage well and Crawford had trouble when he has to come in. Since Benavidez's jab was weak and he had no legs Crawford find his rhythm.
I think Crawford does well against smaller and equal sized fighters but has a problem with tall, reachy.
Anyone fighting him has to stop his rhythm because he gets real good once he finds it.

 

I think you are working to hard to discredit Crawford. His resume is good and solid. Not to many people becoming 3 weight world champions and remain undefeated. By the way you mention Josh Taylor beating Postol. Has it occurred to you that Josh Taylor is a very good prospect now contender on the way to winning a world title. Don’t be shocked if he wins the WBSS Mohammed Ali trophy.

 

They were the same size and both top of the division, the only knock for me with Spence v Brook is that I cant see how Brook was even close to 100% ready

 

Crawford's biggest problem is his lack of power at 147 and insistence on fighting as a southpaw despite not being a good southpaw. Benavidez can't punch, so Crawford got away with eating a ton of counter rights and Benavidez is nowhere near being a top 10 fighter.

For Crawford's sake I hope he isn't arrogant enough to test the waters with Thurman or Spence by starting the fight as a southpaw, since Thurman is easily three times the fighter either Benavidez or Jeff Horn is and will flatten Crawford with a counter right if Crawford fights him as a southpaw while Spence would expose Crawford's defense.

 

People are becoming crazy. Floyd was untouchable and Crawford got caught on several occasions against a 32 vs 1 underdog. Can we stop comparing them?!? Not in the same league at all!!!

 

What the heck?

You talk like if spence had a woderful CV or even better CV than crawford, why? he's basically fought noone but Brooks coming out of a broken eye and cutting weight from middleweight.
You talk like if porter knew how to actually box, why? he's basically a caveman.

I give you the thurman one, but... hey, isnt thurman one of the best p4p fighters in the world? isnt it normal to have a tough fight vs him, no matter your name?

Crawford a bad southpaw? are we crazy? crawford is better southpaw than orthodox, his an amazing southpaw.
Lacks of power in 147? sure he doesnt have the same power he had in 140, but why dont you ask benavidez if he lacks of power? he will anwser if his jaw let him talk today.

Honeslyt, I dont see these comments very unbiadsed.

 

So you're saying Floyd never lost rounds? Do you remember when he lost a few to a fighter who many people here consider a caveman. He was getting hit cleanly in the later rounds.

This content is protected

Floyd is one of the best, but you don't have to polish his knob this much. You're not gonna 12-0 every guy every time.

 

Thurman is overrated.

 

Thurman will probably never be the same again once/if he's back

 

Best wins:
Postol
Gamboa
Indongo
Burns
Beltran
Horn

Leaves a little bit to be desired. Those are six notable wins and he supports them with scalps Benavidez, Diaz, Molina, Dulorme, Lundy, and Prescott. That is a list of six and twelve wins, feel free to stack them with the top six and twelve victories of the other guys among the top P4P. Maybe he does better or worse than you expect.

If I am making the argument for Crawford, I am pointing to his quantity of wins spanning three divisions. His best wins listed above, aside from Gamboa (though undefeated) and Burns (though on the road), they were all at the peak of their careers. He has faced six undefeated fighters. And he has only had a couple fights that stayed competitive through round 5-6.

His opponents' ratings at the time of the fights on paper total up pretty darn well but the argument that he lacks a true top scalp (Spence, Thurman, even Porter in his current division) is valid and somewhat glaring.

I'm back and forth on where to rank Crawford. The top 8 P4P guys are stacked close right now. You can angle things to validate him probably as high as number one at the moment. But on the flip side, does he have a better resume than Kazuto Ioka?