Terence Crawford vs Pernell Whitaker

Both at their peak I would Sweet Pea on points.

 

3 of those names Pernell didn't defeat himself, boy. (Though I'd argue that he should have gotten the win over Oscar)

Crawford has defeated/dominated the top guys in every division he's been in. It's ignorant to suggest he needs to be chasing the ghost of boxers past. He's only required to compete against the guys who's active while he's active.

You can't name a single opponent he's faced since 2014 when he won his first world title that wasn't ranked in the top 15 of his division outside of Hank Lundy. Everyone else were ranked and/or champions and all but 3 of those 18 opponents were stopped. 11 of those opponents were world champs. 8 of them were undefeated going into the fight. 2 of those undefeated champs were ranked top 5 p4p by all the major boxing sanctions at the start of the fight.

Your name dropping holds no water without context. Chanting names of fighters who have finished their careers and are respected by their fan base, but discredit fighters who came after them and/or are currently active as if it proves a point. Especially with the fact some of those names have accomplished as much or more than a name you chanted so passionately.

My opinions are based off FACTS.....you know, things that can and have been proven to be true. Documented via stats, a timeline, etc..... You want to base yours on other people's opinions and emotions. You don't like a certain fighter and you love another so he's better than that guy because of it. You aren't fit to hold this conversation with me. Because reality has to be a factor somewhere. And the reality is.....you don't know how well a McGirt/Oscar/Vasquez/Tito/Chavez would do vs a Horn/Benavidez/Porter/Spence Jr./Kavaliauskas/Madrimov/Brook......

 

I'm sorry..... but you are basically saying Crawford is in that class when Nothing seems to prove that. The best fighter he ever fought was Madrimov which is lesser than the fighters Pernell fought.

 

Car crash victim Spence who showed signs of neurological damage and who had only fought twice in 3 years. And who hasn't had a single fight since losing to Crawford is on the same level as those fighters ?

Behave.

 

I disagree, the best opponent defeated by Crawford in my opinion was Spence. And it doesn't matter if someone says that Spence was no longer the same after the car accident, Errol in the match before the one with Crawford had offered an excellent performance against Ugas, winning inside the distance. If you present a Fight as a superfight you can't say afterwards 'but that boxer was no longer himself, or he was dehydrated', you need consistency. Crawford's victory over Spence was a great victory and a great performance by Crawford, Spence had the possibility of a rematch but preferred not to do so after taking a heavy lesson from Crawford.

Crawford also has other victories over very good boxers like Gamboa, Postol, Burns and was the only one to beat a tough guy like Shawn Porter inside the distance. Then we are talking about an Undisputed Champion in two weight divisions. Crawford is a classy boxer, I'm not saying that, his career says it.

 

Context matters:
Spence was weight drained in that fight
Burns was never elite
Brook and Khan were past it
Porter was on his way out.
Gamboa was too small.
This is the issue I have when talking about resumes. It's not always "who" you fought but "when". The first time Crawford fights a prime very good fighter all of a sudden he doesn't look so dominant(granted it is his 5th weight classes). People are on this site placing him in a class of Pernell, Floyd, Leonard, and Duran when he isn't even in the class of Vernon, Mosley. Oscar, Tito, or Benitez

 

I disagree, to what I wrote above I add that Crawford is currently 3rd in the Ring Magazine p4p ranking.

Boxers' careers must be judged objectively, not by sympathy and objectively Crawford is a great champion, the insiders (like Ring Magazine) agree on this. Then obviously everyone is free to think what they want.

 

Never said he wasn't a great champion. I'm just making the point he hasn't defeated anyone great to assume he would draw with pernell. He'll, has he even defeated someone of the caliber as McGrit or even Meldrick Taylor.

 

No there really isn't.

Did Spence not have 2 fights in 3 years ?

Did a doctor not suggest Spence had neurological damage before the fight ?

Wasn't Spence in a horrific car crash ?

Has Spence fought since losing to Crawford ?

Yes that's what I thought.

And as for "revisionist" I picked Crawford to win the fight and wasn't that high on Spence and had noted about his punch resistance.

 

Wait a minute, I also think Whitaker has defeated better opponents than those defeated by Crawford. And I think it's quite objective, among other things against Chavez he had won very clearly and was robbed (and Chavez is not Spence). We agree on this but for what he has shown in his career I think Crawford would have held his own against Whitaker and their match could have ended in a draw. You think differently than me and that's fine.

 

At any weight Sweat Pea wins. He's the more complete/versatile fighter. Crawford's the bigger puncher but nothing he's ever done has given the impression he could outsmart Pernell's defence and land on him continously enough to do damage. Whitaker wasn't even at his best by the time he beat Chavez, an ATG. Crawford, even when having the advantages of being a massive weight bully, has never fought anyone that good and has looked meh loads of times (Madrimov, Porter, Kava).