Crawford is the best ever.

Regardless though, the fighter is judged on what they did in their era….

that’s like saying the inventor of the phone wasnt as good as clever as the techies now as we have better phones now. But the inventor was the innovator

 

Your point was boxings better now wasn’t it?
Crawfords mostly fought around welter, Spence and Kell Brook are hardly Duran, Leonard, Benitez, Hearns or Napoles are they?
They’re not Mayweather, Forrest, or Judah level either.
In fact looking at the top ten rankings in general welter specifically has steadily got worse in quality from the 80s to Crawfords era. We don’t know how good he could have been the competition just wasn’t there.

 

The metric of having a brain. You think spence is beating Duran, or Haney is beating Leonard ?

 

Because they moved boxing forward in bigger fights that got the publics attention more, when there was less marketing or media out there.
They did this by having many tough fights, being consistently in the ring and consistently performing. Boxing was a full time career, many nowadays treat it like a well paid side hustle.

you can’t compare different eras head to head, but you can compare what they did in their respective eras. For example odlh did way more….