My point exactly. An argument could be made that Crawford would be much better back then due to the fact he would've had much better fighters to compete against and prove his greatness.
No one, but if he beats Spence, Charlo, and Ennis I think it would be fair to say that he would beat Pernell since all three would probably beat Pernell due to size, strength, power, and skill.
You still have not answered the question who has Crawford beat that is anywhere near Whittaker`s opponents?
Tito would've been 50/50 against Thurman, Spence, Porter, Charlo, and Maybe even Andrade.Tito was basically a poor man's Hearns who benefitted from fighter in a weaker era and receiving gift decisions.
So athletes are better in football, NBA, NFL but not in boxing? How is that possible when boxers have advanced training and medicine?
The emphasis is on "If" he beats those fighters. unfortunately he hasn't fought any of them so we will never know. I assume that you're a troll account as your knowledge and rational thinking are both in the toilet.
Porter was at the end of his career if that is the best you can come up with then you are really struggling
Just based on this, you should promptly find the biggest staircase you can and throw yourself down it. Downright idiotic.