IF Crawford becomes undisputed at 154 where does he rank?

Crawford is gunning for being rated higher than Pernell Whitaker, not Floyd or Pac.

 

Fair enough my post wasn't really directed at you per se more to the creator of this thread. Since hes comparing Crawford to Jones resume wise who I think is still considerably far behind RJJ.

Alot of the arguments for Crawford are based on his Lineal achievements, but as I said above context is needed and when you break it down it's not anywhere as impressive as it appears when you see its Ricky Burns, Viktor Postol, and an Errol Spence who only had 2 fights in 3 years after 2 car crashes.

I agree Crawford should be rated high based on his dominance, and how impressively hes beaten his opposition even if they aren't amazing names.

But for me Crawford does still need 1 or 2 wins over stand out names before I start rating him against the upper echelon greats of the past.

 

What a strange immature response.

So every single person who considers PAC as greater than Floyd must be a Floyd hater?

Does the converse work true in your mind? That everyone who considers Floyd greater is a PAC hater?

Plus your linked thread is about Duran, so not really relevant at all.

 

You're a sweet pea hater.

 

How many of the fighters he beat for those alphabet titles will go down as all time greats or even hall of fame fighters?

Indongo went on to lose six of his next eight fights. Postol went on to lose four out his next seven and Dulorme wasn't even a champion, that was for a vacant belt. I could go on with every one of his title opponents but won't.

Beating paper champions for belts in three different weight classes is unprecedented, but unprecedented doesn't automatically mean utterly amazing or even good.

 

I'm on about Crawford. Where I'd rank Crawford.

 

Pound for pound #1
With nobody in sight for an Omaha Mile.

 

In the spirit of your posting style, go back and reread my post carefully, and tell me if you still think your response is accurately characterizing it.

 

Yes, I believe my response accurately characterised it.

 

I'm talking about where I'd rank Crawford. I'm saying I'd have Crawford above Floyd but below Pac under this scenario.

 

"Floyd is above Pac and most people agree, other than haters."

It says "most," not "all."

 

"Other than haters"

As I said, I believe my reply accurately characterised it.

 

Well Pacman is above Floyd, and if Crawford does this, so will he be.

This isn't a subjective opinion, it's a definitive objective statement.

I can load up my spreadsheet to prove to you without any shadow of a doubt that I rank Pacman above Floyd.

 

Most reasonable people favor Floyd.

Most reasonable people+haters might fraudulently swing it in Pac's favor.

 

I showed you the stats and you pretended it was only about Duran and Floyd.