stick him in with anyone from 135 - 168 in the history of time and he finds a way to win, don't come at me with guys from the 80's and 90's, don't let nostalgia rule you, athletes are better now than last century in every single sport, it's life, the future will always be better than the past.
Sugar Ray Robinson fought 104 times in the 40's, winning 101, drawing 2 and losing 1, he avenged that defeat a few times and that was early in the decade. That's just one example of what an amazing decade for boxing the 40's was.
Whilst I understand your point and agree to that Crawford is up there with the very best to ever do it, could one not make an argument that if those guys from the 80s fought today they would be better athletes ?
In swimming there are literally no world records from the last century, the oldest record is from 2008. In athletics there are only like 7 or 8 from mid 80's earliest, nothing before. Football players today are nigtht and day from the Pele era. Body building / gym is night and day from the 20th century. Golf they hit the ball way further. In tennis they play 5-6 hour matches of intense play, last century was just serve and volley every point. It isn't a knock on previous athletes, it's just the truth, due to improvements in science and equipment and training etc.
First of all Sugar Ray Robinson fought 3 times in the 40's. In his 51st fight he beat a guy who had a record of 19-8-1. Lol, a few fights later he fight a guy with a record of 7-16-3. Lol. Same as Chavez, just because he was like 90-0 people say he is the goat, lol Crawford could fight 100 tomato cans now with records of 7-16-3 and retire 140-0 lol, beating loads of bums padding a 100 fight record doesn't make you great.
Does my point not make sense? in his 51st fight he fought a literal journeyman with 8 losses in 28 fights, any elite fighter could fight 12 guys like that a year and pad a record to 100-0, it isn't that impressive, just like losing 19 times isn't that impressive, how is that a guy that is the best ever? fighting bums in his 51st fight and losing 19 times, one of those loses to a guy who had lost 23 fights, Plus you weren't young enough in the 50's to actually watch him. How is that hard to understand?
Phil, you start by stating he fought 3 times in the 1940's, it's not a good start. You then pick holes in certain fights he had during that time and completely dismiss some of the legendary ones that he had in that decade. Your original post dismisses a lot of things with statements that are unfounded, it's weird and now we're here with you skimming through 104 flights to pick holes in some. Did you really think he'd fight hall of famers every fight? And records then were very different to the ones of today, they didn't protect their 0's and fight twice a year. I'm going to agree to disagree with you on this, I didn't post to argue, merely contribute to the conversation but you dropped the ball with your response.
Perhaps, i think it was much more prevelant in the 90s than the 80s where everyone was on party drugs , that said im sure the science of PEDs has improved since then and lets be honest if any of the top guys today got popped for PEDs would any of us be shocked ? Thats not a dig at individual boxers just the state of boxing.
Anytime I take part in comparisons between boxers of different eras it's on the basis of,'all things being equal' ie, if the 50's boxer were to receive similar nutrition, sports science, same opportunities to train full time, same gap between previous fights to recover etc. Otherwise, why even bother making the comparison? If your argument is Crawford wins based on current sports science, what are you actually saying about him as a boxer?
that isn't my argument, i just added that in, my argument is earlier in my comment 'he finds a way to win', which is what he would do, like going up 3 weights and walking Canelo down at times, no one expected that, whatever style he fought, he would find a way to beat them.