The size was the main difference in that fight. I was impressed with Gamboa's fluidity and speed. He was special in some ways. He was clubbed down by a bigger fighter who is also good obviously.
You have to be trolling... Have you ever considered becoming a curling fan and stop watching boxing? no offense, but you dont seem to really know what's happening in the screen of your tv when you watch a boxing match. Maybe you will have more luck if you try with curling....
Yeah a fresher Gamboa would have gotten the job done. Crawford is also a much bigger fighter and that's probably the main reason he won. But to be fair it's true. Only fight where he's had any serious issues in.
Sorry but Crawford made Postol look awful and the knockdowns were legit by the rules and in one round so what happened the other 11? Crawford figured out Gamboa at the end of the 4th round and dominated the fight from that point. Gamboa was down 4 times and would have been down twice more but for the ropes.
Since the fight with Gamboa did not go the distance you comment about "scoring bias" is ignorant. Gamboa won 3 of first 4 rounds and got his ass kicked the rest of the way.
The problem as I see it is the Postol fight happened 5 fights ago ( 2 years ) and its still Crawford's best win. Crawford really needs to step it up. Usually those who cherry pick do it after beating #1's, #2's, and #'3 when they are older! Postol at best is 5th rated in his division, and the fact that he recently lost via a wide margin to a 12-0 fighter ( Josh Taylor ) takes the luster off Crawford's best win. I took a look at Crawford's best opponents today, and they are close to his age, meaning he won't be able to wait until a big name guys is 34 an the slide to take him out while he's 31. While I think Crawford has top drawer skills, something is not quite right with his choices of opponents. We might learn why later.