Alright, so many fighters have controversial wins. Some get beat but still get the decision, happened to Mayweather, Pacquiao even Canelo. I have never seen Crawford be involved in a controversial fight, he smoked all his opponents without a doubt or controversial wins. What does this say about his level of skill compared to Mayweather, Pacquiao, Canelo and other elite fighters?
To be fair, those guys fought a lot of good fighters. The only big name on Crawford's resume is Spence. And I don't care what anyone says, Spence was not that good and he hasn't fought decent competition himself in years.
Because Mayweather, Pacquiao, and even Canelo who i'm not a fan of have fought a way superior list of opponents than Crawford has. Prior to the Spence fight Crawford's best win was Viktor Postol.
I like how we are on the Bud hypetrain after his masterclass but lets be real that his resume has weak names.
His best wins prior to last night are Porter who was coming off double hip replacement surgery and the fight was close prior to the finish Postol who he outweighed by a division Gamboa who he outweighed even more in what was a grotesque size mismatch. Gamboa's form at 135 is garbage All of which in his home country That's weak Brilliant fighter, one of the four most skilled in the game, looked great last night, and he's a problem for anyone but his resume for a 39 fight vet and top 3 P4P fighter going into last night has always been weak and he's fought very few punchers. It only takes a split second and the tiniest mistake when you're facing big punchers and KO artists. A KO bomb out of the blue can erase everything in the blink of an eye.
Crawford has no controversial wins but his opposition remains vastly inferior to that of Pacquiao/Mayweather/Canelo.
Of course but its they have a lot more solid nanes to their resume where Crawford has a few outside Spence.
No sense in trying to hate on Crawford or Spence, styles makes fights and Spence brought the wrong style to the game. Regardless of Crawfords resume or assumed lack of. The fact is that the man's skills can't be denied. Just because Spence loss doesn't transform him into a bum. People who had him tagged to win the fight are now saying that he was a bum and they knew it all the time. Losers who love to kick a man when he's down. Like buzzards. I think that Spence should take the rematch because that wasn't the best of him. He may not win the rematch but I am sure it will be a much better accounting of himself.
It's easy to look invincible when you simply don't have the competition to test you. Fact is as others have said Crawford has really only fought one exceptional fighter in Spence and even Spence's resume which was lauded as so superior to Bud's isn't great, his best win is over the remnants of Brook after Golovkin had finished with him and even then Spence was losing before Brook got injured again. Honestly have always thought pre GGG Brook was better than Spence. Now it's not Crawford's fault the divisions he's competed in haven't been deep, reality is most divisions lack depth most of the time. It's a shame he couldn't have fought in a better era to really showcase how good he is but it is what it is and there's other ways to carve out a legacy if the competition isn't there. He's still active and even though he's 35 he may still have years ahead of him. 5 years from now him being undefeated still might not be out of the question given the lack of opposition at 147 and 154 and with each win past his prime his legacy will grow and maybe someone will emerge one day that really will be a worthy test.