The difference between the wins over Fury and Canelo

I felt sorry for you and helped you correct your error with the thread title. But I can't always be there to guide you.

You are going to have to take a deep breath, a leap of faith and try and be independent. Do things on your own. Good luck.

 

Be brave now. Baby steps at first...

 

I was at ESB years before you and I'll be here long after you are gone.

Baby steps now...

 

He looked great against Munguia and Berlanga. The knockdown against Munguia was spectacular. The performance against Scull was bad, that had a lot to do with Scull. I agree it was very close with Canelo barely landing anything vs next to nothing from Scull.

I strongly disagree that Canelo looked like "dog ****" against Crawford. But he didn't apply enough pressure and land enough meaningful shots to win. Crawford fought a great fight, and he beat a great fighter, in a close competitive fight.

 

Brother you said prior to the Canelo fight that if Crawford beat Canelo it would be a much better win than Usyk beating Fury because Canelo is at a much higher level than Fury.

So I'm not really understanding why you're changing your tune.

Also a few things to add.

You say Fury fights down to the level of his opposition but he hasn't fought that many notable top 10 Heavyweights ? So how can you say that ?

He had a good win on paper vs an old Wladimir but that fight was horrendous and one of the worst Heavyweight title fights of all time.

Fury struggled immensely vs Wilder in 2 out of their 3 fights almost getting KO'ed.

A solid win over Whyte.

But then what else is there in regards to notable wins ? Chisora ?

Also there's nothing to suggest that Fury took Wallin lightly infact he was in better shape vs Wallin than he was vs Usyk the 1st time they fought. Fury weighed 254 pounds vs Wallin and wasn't out of shape, compared to 262 pounds vs Usyk the 1st time so you can't really use that as an excuse.

Maybe Fury's H2H ability isn't as good as some people think ? He's had far too many struggles and has been down almost 10 times in his career that's not a H2H monster to me.

You can rubbish Canelo's performances all you want but atleast he was fighting top 10 ranked fighters Fury hasn't beaten a top 10 Heavyweight since 2022.

Objectively I will say Fury is more of a stylistic issue for Usyk due to his size. But then on the flipside Canelo is a much great fighter than Fury in regards to resume and accomplishments.

 

Both were stopped after losing to Canelo, but in Jamie's case, he had already proved how good he was. And unlike Berlanga, he already showed how good of a chin he has. Berlanga hadn't proved himself against the kind of fighters Jamie had, but he put up a hell of a fight against Canelo which I found entertaining. Then what happened with Sheeraz happened and now Berlanga is considered a bum. But I don't think that's accurate. I thought Edgar put up a good fight against Sheeraz until he got hurt.

With Surace, he just hit Jamie with the perfectly placed shot which surprised him. Jamie also had a big KD of Surace in that fight and was in control up to that point, but one punch can change a fight and that happened. And then Jamie then took care of him in the rematch. I don't agree that Jamie or Berlanga are as bad as you are making them out to be. And I certainly don't agree that Canelo performed poorly against Crawford. He looked better than he did against Scull but that's not saying much. But when you look back at his fights against Charlo, Ryder, Munguia and Berlanga, I don't think there's much to criticize. He pretty much dominated each of those guys and scored big KDs against each of them. But naturally given Canelo's relatively lackluster last 2 performances, these performances would support the narrative that he's been in decline all along. There might be something to it, but I think it's largely overblown, especially considering that Canelo hasn't ever really gotten the credit he deserved for much of his career. So I think many fans that don't like him would be trying to find any reason to discredit him, win lose or draw.

 

Munguia was literally groomed and manufactured as an opponent for Canelo.

 

I don't know how many rounds you gave to Rosado, but the notion that it was too close to comfort, that's not what I saw. I saw an impressive domination of Rosado who was in the midst of a career resurgency. I came out of that fight very impressed by Jamie and how he handled Rosado.

The point that Munguia was a blown up Light Middle and had no business at 168, and especially against Canelo, is sort of out the window know that Crawford came up from Welter and did what he did. I don't know about losing to Hogan and Derevyanchenko, but the point is, he has proven himself in tough fights like that. What I like about Jamie is that he's a fighter, he comes forward, throws a lot of punches and loves to be in wars. That style was well suited for Canelo who likes having fighters come towards him, Canelo doesn't do as well against fighters who retreat. But however much you dislike Jamie, or disagreed with some of his decisions, surely you have to admire his fighting spirit and his willingness to fight regularly against anyone. 43-0 is still 43-0, and he didn't get to that point by beating bums.

I don't really see what there's to dislike about Jamie, as a fighter. He always comes to fight and has been in some bangers so I don't know why you dislike him so much. Also, didn't you score Canelo Crawford for Canelo? Now, if that was scored like you scored it, and had Canelo actually got the decision against Crawford, you could easily argue Canelo would deserve to be P4P #1 right now with that win instead of being P4P #10, a wide gap based on, frankly, rounds that I think you'd agree could go either way.

But the point is, if you believe Canelo actually beat Crawford, which is a reasonable argument in my mind, then that sort of dispels the myth that he's been on the decline, if he could beat a Top P4P fighter like Crawford. But then again, this goes back to what we discussed before the fight, that if Canelo wins, he wouldn't be given the credit for taking on someone coming up. But as I pointed out, he also doesn't get credit when he fights undefeated fighers in his weight class like Munguia or Burlanga, so he's likely not going to get credit no matter who he fights, unless it's Benavidez at 175 of course.

I would just say generally that none of these kind of arguments resonate with me, I find it just a way for fans to make excuses or to discredit fighters for winning big fights. Even with Crawford like here with ellerbe, trying to discredit Canelo to make Crawford's win look worse. I don't know about you, but I can't stand this kind of negativity.

 

Crawford is the undisputed p4p king. He's better than Usyk, in my opinion.