To this day nobody can explain to me why crawford is p4p #1

Do u mean read?

 

It's not about giving them 'credit' is it? It's about giving them more credit.

Lomachenko could weigh 240 pounds, but he still wouldn't be able to compete with heavyweights because of his height.

P4P is pure fantasy.

 

Who have they beat?

 

No-one on Loma's resume is anywhere near the level of Wlad.

You're also completely disregarding his amateur career.

Being unwilling to turn pro and staying an amateur for longer isn't impressive to me.

 

burns, or is that "mainly burns" 2 u. lol

u shuld quit n move on.

 

Nice duck.

Who have they beat?

 

explain how it is a duck to mention the guy that was used to disprove you.

 

Explain how Indongo is known to you?

 

Crawfords simply the most complete fighter in the game, he literally has it all. Fights as well off the backfoot as he does coming forward, switches effortlessly between orthodox and southpaw, excellent ring IQ, workrate, power, footwork, handspeed, reflexes - if there's any area the guys lacking in I can't see it.

2 weight lineal world champ at 135 and 140, beaten everyone that's been put in front of him with ease. Not many fighters have done that in the history of the sport, let alone active fighters. No idea how people put Loma ahead of him p4p at this stage, there's no rational argument to do so whatsoever.

Crawford is the clear p4p #1.

 

The phrase P4P needs to be changed.

If Crawford weighed the same as Joshua are you seriously saying he would win?


P4P only considers weight not size.

 

Can't agree with that, Golovkin was lucky to get the W against Jacobs and didn't beat the smaller, stamina challenged Canelo convincingly.

Brook is his best non-controversial win.

If we're talking single best wins in boxing Joshua and Wilder both have better wins than Golovkin in Wlad and Ortiz, yet nobody mentions their names in a p4p context.

 

Pound for pound is bull****.

You can't compare guys from different divisions separated by maybe 100 pounds or more body weight, or fighters in completely different divisions with zero common opponents.

You can't say, this guy is the best at 112 pounds let's ranking him concurrently on a list with a 168 pound guy, and a 245 pound guy, and put them in some sort of ranking based on current result.
It would be like ranking a marathon runner and a 100 metre sprinter and a 400m hurdler on the same list.
Silly and pointless.

 

for you rating him below burns, at the moment

 

I fully agree in regards to GGG, my main problem are the majority of guys who derided Golovkin for his competition are the exact same guys who go out of their way to overhype Crawford.