Honest Question: Who Rank higher: Crawford or Cotto?

Alot of media scorecards scored it for Trout infact it was probably about 50/50 in terms of opinion.

But let's be honest Trout never had a chance of winning a decision as evident by the scandalous 119-108 scorecard.

As for Cotto vs Crawford's opposition we can't have Cotto vs Crawford's Lightweight opponents as he never campaigned at that weight.

But in regards to Cotto vs Crawford's opponents at Jr Welterweight/Welterweight I don't see Cotto losing to any of Crawford's opponents personally.

On paper Porter would probably be the toughest stylistic challenge for Cotto as he's a swarmer and physically strong but I think Cotto could win a hard fought decision over Porter.

Spence in his prime would've been a formidable opponent for Cotto but not the version who fought Crawford as you already know my thoughts on that.

But I still think Crawford beats any version of Spence just for your information.

 

It made plenty of sense

Assuming Cotto would go undefeated vs Crawfords opposition is wishful thinking

 

Great post, DP!

 

Crawford stops Cotto.

 

Yes a very bad arguement can be made for that

 

Correct but people arent saying that Crawford would go undefeated vs Cottos opposition

 

Urkal was an absolute nobody. In a golden age at WW he was not even a Berto level opponent.

You literally looked him up online and saw his record was okay and thought he was relevant. He was an amateur. Please show yourself the door.

 

Oh dear
I realise now that you are commenting on an era you never witnessed first hand and have done exactly what you are trying to accuse me of and say looked up online.
No. I was watching back then and watched Urkal beat Magee. It was on live at the time and was a big fight for Magee.
Also watched Urkal give Tsyzu a fight
He was a European champion in 2 weights

I decided just to further my point with your lack of knowledge yet still feeling you had to say something when clueless and looked at The Ring annual rating

Sure enough starting in 2001
LWW Urkal at 8

2002 #8

2003 #7

2004 #10


2005 at WW
#8

2006 #7

2007 #10


7 years seems quite a while for a nobody or amateur to be in the top 10 between 2 divisions.
It was another top 10 rated opponent that Cotto beat which as I noted, people forget just how many good wins

I think you know where the door is...

 

Urkal was club level. And there's nothing wrong w that. When people bring Cotto up 95% of time this urkal fella wont even be mentioned in passing.

 

Of course they wouldn't bring Urkal up now. He wasn't a big global name, but he was a decent win against a top 10 rated opponent who had been top 10 for a while in his career and was a decent win at the time.
You had to be following the division at the time to appreciate
European champion isn't club level

It's like I would say Ndou was a good win for Mayweather at the time against a big punching top 10 rated opponent.
Many wouldn't site it as a big one of Floyd's big wins and I am not citing Urkal as one of Cottos big wins, but am saying it was a decent win over a consistently top 10 rated opponent at the time

 

Every time he stepped up he lost. He has zero notable wins which is why he was a DOMESTIC "champion" and not a world champion. Cotto has enough worldly wins that one can leave low hanging fruit off the list.