On what basis do people rank Crawford so highly pfp???

Yeah and none of them are A level fighters.

Based on just quality of wins there's no way you can put him on the pfp list

 

who you talking about

 

P4p discussions just make most posters sound like wanna be experts...

 

He's ranked high for the same reason Wlad is ranked higher than many HWs who have better wins than him: Dominance and longevity matter. Legitimate champion in 2 weightclasses, one of which he completely unified, now a titlist in his 3rd weight class but can't get the others to fight him. He's in the same position at 147 as GGG was at 160 between 2011-2016.

 

it's pretty hard to find a word substitute of "bum" in my head, dude. "Bad boxer" is too long. hahahahaha. I'm trying, though.,

 

And that's all there is to it folks.Canelo doesn't dominate his opponent's,never has in any division and has lost a few times imo.

 

Then why the **** are you here? This is a thread for people who want to discuss in a serious way the legitimacy of ranking C highly on the pfp list based on his accomplishments. Take your confrontational attitude and shove it up your ass.

Gamboa was once a prospect who never delivered and he was regarded as such long before C got to him. He's not a nothing win, but he's not a top level opponent.

No, that's not a top level opponent that would qualify someone for the pfp list.

If you are NOT interested in discussing what is the topic of this thread, then why the hell are you here?

 

Khan makes Crawford p4p Bud want's to be great then fight the right guys please.

 

lol don't worry I know right now I couldn't find any other word than bum to describe Hughie Fury.

 

Crawford

 

I have only one criterion for determining where you rank pfp and I thought this was universally accepted as the only legitimate criterion - who'd you beat and whom you'd lose to.

Things like dominance and longevity shouldn't be considered. Just wins and loses. And CERTAINLY not whether you held some belt or not nor how many weight classes you fought in (unless you fought legitimately bigger guys).

 

sorry I'm ******ed

 

ATTENTION, GUYS: Please give your list of criteria for ranking him on the pfp list. Don't just go on and on about this or that.
Give me the list of wins that you think make him pfp material

 

We don't have any say in it though do we?There's a thing called the eye test and to the majority of folk and those involved in the sport Inc his peers Bud Crawford is rated as an exceptional talented boxer,hence why he's always the favourite even in a new weight class.

 

Each to his own, p4p lists are subjective. Longevity and dominance should matter in my view, which was why Wlad was in the p4p rankings before he lost to Fury and so was GGG, before he got Canelo and Jacobs. And you can only beat the best available, which is what Crawford has been doing. And considering there have only been 2 other fighters who have done it in the history, unifying all 4 of the belts is important.