Josh Taylor's one of the..

Totally agree.

 

Taylor is awesome.

 

He has had a great run.
Seeks out the BEST and fights them.
Really enjoyed his last bout-great exhibition of skill and will from BOTH men.

 

Agreed. He does everything well, but nothing exceptionally well. Well rounded is an excellent way to describe him. I think he's missing top power and speed. Otherwise, he would belong in the top 10 p4p conversation.

 

You saying he doesn't belong in the top 10 now? His resume sh*ts all over that of Crawford.

 

No, it doesn't. None of the guys either man has fought were world beaters, although Khan and Brook were at least well known. Four title fights to fifteen is perhaps the only reasonable way to compare the quality of their careers. Meanwhile, Crawford is clearly the superior boxer based on the eye test.

I currently have Taylor at number 18 on my p4p list and Crawford at number 3.
1.Inoue
2.Lomachenko
3.Crawford
4.Canelo
5.Usyk
6.Chocolatito
7.Estrada
8.Ioka
9.Beterbiev
10.Bivol
11.Spence
12.Joshua
13.Garcia
14.Saunders
15.Lopez
16.Davis
17.Wangek
18.Taylor

 

He is top 10 now for sure

 

He's like a lightweight version of Tyson Fury.

Does everything well.

 

Then explain why he's better than at least eight of the people I listed ahead of him.

 

He does eveything well. Kinda like Hopkins, not in style, but they do many things well. Well rounded and well schooled.

 

How can you possibly still have Loma at No2? He lost to Lopez and Lopez is at 15? Come on.... I agree those 2 are both higher than Taylor but seriously.... Crawford's best win is Viktor Postol, Taylor beat him in his 13th fight, he has had 18 fights and is still fighting better competition than Crawford. Taylor's win v Prograis is better than any win on Crawford's resume.

 

Prograis is nothing. About the same as Viktor Postol, a tad below Brook and Khan. Typical contender stuff.

I have Loma at 2 because despite losing once he hasn't declined. He's still the fighter he was before that decision. He lost because he fought the wrong fight. He lost the first six rounds waiting for Lopez to tire and then he dominated Lopez for the last six. Lopez won more because of what Lomachenko failed to do rather than for any initiative or skill of his own. That is not what earns you pound for pound status. A shitty win over a great fighter doesn't mean that you get their place and a loss where you show that you still have your boxing ability doesn't lower you. Lomachenko was beaten not bested. If they fought a rematch, then I would expect Lomachenko to win it. Paradoxically, Lomachenko looked better in defeat than Lopez did in victory. Sometimes, wins and losses are matters of luck or game plan rather than an indication of pound for pound ability. That's why he is where he is and Lopez is where he is.

 

I would definitely expect Loma to win the rematch however the fact is he did not win the original fight so cannot be 13 places higher on a P4P list than someone he lost to. The shell's of Khan and Brook are not good wins they are good names, hell neither of them should be anywhere near the top 10 in that division, if Crawford had beaten Brook instead of GGG then that is a great win for TC, likewise Khan was absolutely iced by Canelo and hadn't been the same fighter since Danny Garcia even tho he had some ok wins since, that is not a great win for TC it's an ok win against a high named gatekeeper. Crawford's resume is Bob. And Taylor definitely deserves to be top 10 P4P. And back to your point before I missed, I do believe Crawford is better than Taylor, but what he has done and who he has beaten does not prove it.

 

Taylor is a top 5 p4p right now. He doesn't appear to have many weaknesses