Crawford is the best ever.

Maybe they were finished 50 years ago because they boxed all the time, not twice a year like many of today's champions.
Champions today have learned from the past where many ATGs developed pugilistic dementia.

 

Are you a child?

 

I've had enough laughs here already. LOL!

The sooner they introduce age limits here the better. A simple IQ test would also help eliminate some of the nuff nuffs.

 

Is he the best based on him beating Canelo?

Floyd beat a younger, less worn Canelo. Floyd is also unbeaten.

Floyd would more than likely beat Crawford.

I just havent seen anything to show me Crawford beats the best fighters from 135 - 168.

 

Tbf, with better training, nutrition, recovery from injuries and PEDs it's becoming more common for athletes to still compete at the top level into their late 30's and even up to 40 across most sports now.

In rugby the average age of world cup winning teams keeps going up and you 100% can't say that the sport isn't many magnitudes more demanding now than it was in the past.

With boxing sparring has a lot to do with longevity with fighters and trainers now understanding that going hard all the time isn't a good idea.

 

It would be interesting to see how both Alvarez and Crawford got on against Joe Calzaghe. Prime Calzaghe probably boxes the ears off Alvarez in some rounds, both he and Crawford would be a brilliant fantasy match up.

 

Crawford will never quite sit above certain historical greats in the mainstream — and it’s not down to his ability, it’s the lack of rivals. The all-timers usually had a dance partner (or several) that defined their era. Leonard had Hearns, Duran, Hagler and Benítez. Ali had Liston, Frazier, Foreman and Norton. Mayweather had De La Hoya to break him into the mainstream, a young Canelo, and Pacquiao after years of build-up.

Crawford, by contrast, was stuck in the wilderness thanks to promotional politics. Spence built his name cleaning up the PBC stable, and when the fight finally happened, Bud dismantled him — but the car crash had already dulled what could’ve been a defining rivalry. Name anyone else from Crawford’s era, even Pacquiao in his twilight, and they didn’t want it… and now we all know why.

Because honestly, who else was there? Mikey Garcia at 135? Thurman at 147? Danny Garcia, Broner, Josh Taylor, maybe even Loma? Look at how their careers panned out — does Crawford really get tested by any of them?

Back in the day, Leonard–Hearns–Duran–Hagler only happened because Arum had them under one roof or worked with King, with HBO as the broadcast powerhouse and just two belts to unify. Crawford never got that luxury, and that’s why — for all his brilliance — he’ll never be held in quite the same mainstream light as those names.

 

Using this logic, an absolutely brilliant football team would not be in the conversation for best team ever the moment they lost a game?

 

If he’d been fighting so often his whole career he probably wouldn’t be in as good a shape though.
You seem to be rating him so highly based on Canelo, Canelo isn’t the same as he was 5 years ago, and even then he was struggling bang in his prime with old man Golovkin.
Before that he was getting schooled by Mayweather, later on by Bivol.
It’s a very good win for Crawford but he hasn’t lost as much as Canelo has, and Canelo was never great.
Don’t say ‘everyone is a bum when they lose’, I’ve never thought that highly of Canelo and neither have many others. He should have about 6 or 7 losses on his record too.
Basing Crawford being the best ever on a shot Canelo win?
I’m guessing you have Marciano above Ali and Holmes then since he never lost?
If Crawford fights until he loses , does that lower him then? Very childish.

 

It’s also like saying Terry Marsh was a better light welterweight than Niccolino Locche