IF Crawford becomes undisputed at 154 where does he rank?

Crawford is gunning for being rated higher than Pernell Whitaker, not Floyd or Pac.

 

Fair enough my post wasn't really directed at you per se more to the creator of this thread. Since hes comparing Crawford to Jones resume wise who I think is still considerably far behind RJJ.

Alot of the arguments for Crawford are based on his Lineal achievements, but as I said above context is needed and when you break it down it's not anywhere as impressive as it appears when you see its Ricky Burns, Viktor Postol, and an Errol Spence who only had 2 fights in 3 years after 2 car crashes.

I agree Crawford should be rated high based on his dominance, and how impressively hes beaten his opposition even if they aren't amazing names.

But for me Crawford does still need 1 or 2 wins over stand out names before I start rating him against the upper echelon greats of the past.

 

What a strange immature response.

So every single person who considers PAC as greater than Floyd must be a Floyd hater?

Does the converse work true in your mind? That everyone who considers Floyd greater is a PAC hater?

Plus your linked thread is about Duran, so not really relevant at all.

 

You're a sweet pea hater.

 

How many of the fighters he beat for those alphabet titles will go down as all time greats or even hall of fame fighters?

Indongo went on to lose six of his next eight fights. Postol went on to lose four out his next seven and Dulorme wasn't even a champion, that was for a vacant belt. I could go on with every one of his title opponents but won't.

Beating paper champions for belts in three different weight classes is unprecedented, but unprecedented doesn't automatically mean utterly amazing or even good.

 

Yes, because pacquiao won to floyd.

LOL

 

I'm on about Crawford. Where I'd rank Crawford.

 

I would rate him directly after floyd and pac.

I think he would KO pac, though. But since we never watched that fight (because pac never wanted it for very good reasons), we have no choice but to rank pacman higher, since he has a way better resume.

 

Pound for pound #1
With nobody in sight for an Omaha Mile.

 

Pac lost to Floyd. That's a fact, so Floyd is over Pac. That's all. Any other thing is pure bias. It's ok being biased, though, that's what sports are about, but it doesn't change that obviously Floyd is a better fighter than Pac.

 

In the spirit of your posting style, go back and reread my post carefully, and tell me if you still think your response is accurately characterizing it.

 

Yes, I believe my response accurately characterised it.

 

I'm talking about where I'd rank Crawford. I'm saying I'd have Crawford above Floyd but below Pac under this scenario.

 

"Floyd is above Pac and most people agree, other than haters."

It says "most," not "all."

 

And I'm saying that it implies that pacman is above floyd and that's not true, so crawford cannot be placed there.