If Crawford beats Canelo he is the P4P Goat

No it isn't the context of the victory makes a big difference Toney KO'ed Nunn where as Canelo got a highly controversial decision vs Golovkin.

 

Spence is not a great.

 

Again you're talking about something without the added context.

Hopkins "Draw" vs Mercado was because he fought Mercado in 10,000 feet altitude in Ecuador and didn't acclimatise himself properly hence it wasn't his best night.

When Hopkins had an immediate rematch vs Mercado in America he stopped him in 7 very one sided rounds.

 

WHEN you mean

 

Hell no!

Someone is smoking the good stuff!

Beating a declining Canelo, even at 168 does not put Bud above Duran, Hearns, SRR etc!!!

One needs to remember that Crawford has freakishly long reach and has managed to boil down to lower weights - he will be of a size with Canelo (at least based on dimensions if not density) when the square up.

 

The best timing ever, the best finisher ever.

You are in love with this guy.

It would not put him the top of the mountain.

Take your emotion away.

He has a weak resume compared to most other greats.

 

It is not.

You're in the clouds.

The official accolades sound great. But when you apply context, they aren't.

By your own admission, he hasn't beaten an ATG.

So he just has a resume of mostly B level guys. And many off them were faded.

 

Absolutely not.

GGG was faded, and he'd barely beaten Derev and Jacobs.

Mike was better, and still in incredible form.

Nunn was also great in his prime, and it was a very tough stylistic match up.

 

Look.

This is getting to the point, where I think that I'm being trolled.


WTF are you talking about??


Mike was a GREAT fighter at 2 weights.


You're going to tell me that Sumbu Kalambay, Michael Watson, Herol Graham and Steve Collins etc, weren't better than Shawn Porter??

GTFO!


Mike's resume is levels ABOVE Terrence' resume.

Jackson, Watson, Curry, Kalmbay, Collins and Graham etc, were better than Burns, Gamboa, Brook, Khan and Spence etc.


Better fighters and harder challenges, where most of them were in their primes.


You are actually delusional if you think that Terence has a better resume than Roy and Mike.

 

Why would he have 2 better wins?

He would have one better singular win.

 

It isn't.

And we're comparing wins, not looking at his whole career.

 

It doesn't matter if he wasn't prime. You can see in his fights, including the one against Roy how good he was back then.

Just because he didn't have a high ranking at the time, that has nothing to do with how talented he was. He just hadn't had the break that's all.

He drew with Mercardo in Equador, due to the altitude. But he easily beat him in the rematch. He then went 12 years without losing.

That version of Hopkins was better than Spence. And especially the specific version who Terence had fought.

 

Rubbish.

A few years later, Hill went on to win a belt at CW, after stopping Tiozzo early.

Hopkins was still a great fighter at that point, which you can clearly see, just by watching the fight.

Also, Spence did not look great against Ugas.

 

He thinks that Kalambay and Watson weren't better than Porter.

Baffling.

 

What's puzzling me is that he keeps calling Spence a great based on what ? Resume wise ? H2H ability ? I don't think he's a great in any of those categorises.

Put it this way if I were to name some very notable Weltweights like....

Quartey
Mosley
Tito
Leonard
Hearns
Duran
Whitaker
Mosley
Forrest
Curry
Starling
Napoles

Would anyone really favour Spence against any of those fighters at their best ? And that's what I mean.....I don't think Spence is a great at all certainly not on a H2H ability.