Terence Bud Crawford vs Sugar Ray Leonard @147

Kalule never looked like winning.
Prefight, Leonard had given himself ten rounds to beat him and got the job done inside his target.
Kalule was unbeaten and had never been knocked down, let alone stopped.
And Leonard did so fighting flat footed and essentially going toe-to-to with the bigger man.
Leonard also damaged his left hand early in the bout.
It was a comprehensive win.

I disagree that Crawford is "certainly" better than Benitez.

 

Bud is great, but imho, peak Leonard was greater. Did Bud really walk around at 180? Then why did they make such a big deal for him to come in at 167 1/2? That doesn't make sense.

 

Well it is debatable. Separately from this discussion, though

 

People keep saying Crawford is bigger than all of these guys. Take away Crawfords steroids and make him weigh in on the day of the fight and get back to me.

 

Crawford has IMO beaten ONE HOF worthy fighter.. Canelo .. SRL beat multiple.. Crawford lacks any real depth in terms of athletic boxer types in his resume.. SRL beat multiple... SRL wasn't on SNAC either.. he fought at the weight he was closest too .. he didn't hydrate 25lbs the next day & no one can argue he did! Take away Crawfords next day weigh ins & PEDs & lets see him get to 147 naturally the day of the fight.. Hed be a gassed corpse & Leonard would fold him... SNAC fighters are tainted goods.

 

You're right , it shouldn't be a debate, because Crawford isn't better than Benitez.
And really, not much better than the average top ten fighter of Benitez's era TBH.
Beating the overrated Alvarez, ( Max Kellerman certainly made it seem as Alvarez is something special Saturday night, especially him going on about " His devastating power" as if he was the reincarnation of J.Jackson, or Mugabi for Pete's sake. But he had to make that one-sided fight interesting I guess. )
Alvarez has faced two above average in skills fighters. And in 24 total rds, he may have won two against them.
He's nothing special, never was, just happened to be born in an era where a fighter that wouldn't have been in the top ten, 30 yrs ago and earlier , now is considered an ATG.
Where does that put a fighter like Crawford? Yes he's beat the best of this era, but he has plenty of holes in his game a fighter like Benitez, and especially Ray Leonard would've capitalize on.
Hell, Kellerman said himself Alvarez didn't use his jab against Crawford, both Leonard and Benitez were expert with their jabs , and wouldn't take almost 8rds before they started unleashing combination punching, as Crawford did, waiting on Alvarez to slow down.
Alvarez was never anything special, and Crawford is just a tad better than he is.
They've made a ton of money in this era's watered down boxing.
Good for them.
But they are not ATG'S in comparison to boxers 40 yrs and earlier.

 

Name a single hole in his game I'll wait.

 

That one win urinates heartily and heavily over anything Crawford has on his CV and, yes, that would also cover Bud's recent win over Canelo. Come to think of it, so does Benitez's win over arguably the greatest 140lb'er of all time (Cervantes) at just 17 years old.

Factor in a very solid win against a prime lineal champ in Palomino and that he fought on near-even terms against a prime Hearns for much of their contest, and I'd be tempted to say the performance ceiling of Benitez is demonstrably higher than that of Crawford.

 

It doesn't need to. I'm not discussing résumés. I'm highlighting superior performances.

Who on Crawford's ledger is superior to Cervantes and Duran, or even Palomino while we're at it?

 

More proof that your only understanding of boxing is looking at Boxing Rec. Sad!

 

Hi Buddy.
You have attributed in your time on the forum many good and informative posts, and I have found myself hitting the like button in appreciation, so just to say to you, it isn't a good look when a poster states certain fighters are better than other fighters with out ending with " imo " because that's all it is, when comparing boxers from decades ago, it is impossible to determine who will win, unless there is a vast gap in overall skills, and furthermore debate is the life blood of forums like this, no one poster knows everything, its healthy to debate, sometimes it changes your opinion on fighters and fights, it certainly has for me, there is dearth of very knowledgeable posters on our site, and when they are told there is no debate, its makes them slightly agitated, as it would, so tell me to get lost if you want, but my sincere and friendly nudge would be, don't be so dogmatic going forward, hope you take my post in the spirit it is meant.
stay safe buddy, chat soon.
Mike.