Crawford is the best ever.

Great post Jacko

 

I'm just curious. When someone has real strong opinions on this sport, I kinda like to know what experience they have in it to see if I can understand their reasoning.

 

Delicious Orie is in the mix

 

Phil, appreciate the reply. I don’t think anyone in this whole thread has had a bad word to say about Crawford, everyone rates him as they should do, he’s elite. The facts remain though, that unfortunately for him he has not had the opponents that others have had in their careers to put him in any GOAT conversation.

He comes across as very humble and most importantly he is a technician and can fight, whether it’s going forwards and on the inside or boxing at range, on the back foot, going backwards, he can do it all. You are obviously a big fan of his, as I am too.

 

I agree, mate.

On the eye test alone, Bud is absolute quality. He's quick, powerful, skillful, tough, defensively sound enough (not Mayweather or Whitaker levels, but good enough) and he has some real dog in him. His mentality is as good as you can get.

However, like you eluded to, he just doesn't have the resume to match his talents, so we don't really know how good he is or could be. That's not Bud's fault. He has fought nearly everyone he could. He is just one of those unfortunate fighters to have fought in an era without loads of elite opposition. Plus, until the Saudis rocked up, he has unfortunately spent most of his career fighting in an era that has largely been defined by the best avoiding the best and boxers fighting more infrequently than in past generations.

Great fighter no doubt, but if you don't get the opportunity to test yourself against other elite fighters who can bring the best out in you, I find it difficult to rate that person as the greatest.

 

Ridiculous.

 

Don’t forget Freddie Flintoff!

 

Thats an interesting rationale Phillip. I imagine in your world, Sven Ottke is also in the GOAT conversation.

I think that’s enough internet for you today.

 

Crawford is very special fighter , and a ATG definitely.. Shame that top rank messed up his prime years , unfortunately is resume is not that deep but mostly not actually his own fault ..

 

I've got to disagree here, mate.

Who you fight has a big say in if you win or lose. As stated earlier, Bud's resume is weak compared to many past greats. If you are facing weaker competition you will stand a greater chance of going undefeated. If you fight greater opposition you stand an increased chance of being defeated.

Give me a career of fighting a hundred 6 year olds and I'll go 100-0 (maybe). Unfortunately for me, that doesn't make me the greatest. It doesn't even make me greater than Charlie Zelenoff.

 

I like your admiration for Bud, he really is a tremendous fighter, a great technician who is one bad mofo.
I admire your history of the sport to an extent as well, but I completely disagree with your rationale. Like I get why you think that way. Maybe in a few more years time you may look at things differently.
Go and study a fighter like Ezzard Charles, (not saying you haven't) don't look at his wins and losses, just look at how often he fought and who fought.
Now throw Bud Crawford into that mix, against the same opposition at the rate Charles fought them and asked yourself this.....does Bud keep his zero?