More skilled is pretty vague, Canelo does some things better than Loma and vice versa. There’s a lot more factors that make a great boxer than just ‘skills’. The only way of truly proving your worth is through resume, until Loma or Crawford beat someone of GGGs standing I can’t rank them above him.
I have no problem if people think Crawford is the better fighter and have him as #1, however, I do have a problem with people stating it as matter of factly as that, like this is some sort of settled business that's been established for ages, especially by those working in the media. To me that is clearly agenda pushing of some kind. I mean people do this with Loma as well but at least Loma in most people's eyes has a (slightly) superior resume, so there's at least some level of justification. In my own opinion though, this whole p4p #1 business between the two needs to take a step back from both camps, both guys are contending for the title but there are questions and we'll need to see both guys in more demanding fights before we can crown one or the other as the best with any real certainty.
I think everyone has different criteria which adds to the subjectivity. -Resume -Recent resume (Pacquiao easily has the best resume of any active fighter, but his great wins over Cotto and De La Hoya were like 10 years ago) -Eye test / perceived skill -etc.
Absolutely. You can't be P4P top 3 unless you've actually got some big names on your record. I won't put him in my top 3 until I see him against an elite level opponent at either 140 or 147. From what I can see, I fancy Josh Taylor beating him on points, but the rest he beats for me. That includes Spence on a close points win. Yeleussinov also beats Crawford, but he's not far enough down the line yet for a matchup like that to happen soon. But until I see it, I'm not going to believe it.
