If Crawford retired now would he be a hall of famer in your opinion?

Yes, but it's hideously easy to get into the HOF.

 

HOF for sure =

This content is protected

all

This content is protected

f

This content is protected

ADED

 

Despite having the talent, no of course not as his resume is too poor to considered.

 

Yes
Arturo Gatti is a hall of famer

 

Was lucky to have everything fall into place to collect all the belts and I’d never hold that against him but as of right now he needs to be fighting that solid top eight in the welterweight division to be considered best of the current crop.

 

I remember when the Hall of Fame meant something.

 

Isn't Sylvester Stallone on the Boxing Hall of Fame?

 

You can be a HOFer for other things than pure ability. Gatti whilst limited was an icon of the sport and involved in a number of classics that will be forever remember despite their relative lack of quality to other more forgettable fights.

Crawford hasn't really done anything Broner hasn't/couldn't have done at this point. He looks much more the part than AB for sure but he needs them bigger names on his resume. Unfortunately it looks like Spence won't be an option now.

 

Understand your point about Gatti and obviously Stallone and some media/officials and artist's are in there. However HOF in my opinion should be based on in ring accomplishments and by that standard if Gatti is there then Crawford is a future HOF. Lately I have been noticing Broners name mentioned when referring to Crawford as a comparison tool. Give me a break! An ass clown who got beat EVERYTIME he stepped up in class.

 

I mean technically him being Undisputed at 140 should make him a HOFer in most cases but level of comp wise I wouldn't put Bud in there, I would say he has potential but the guy is 30 years old if he doesn't make some big time noise I wouldn't consider him one.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with inductees purely being in there for in ring accomplishments but understand why those who have done a lot to raise the profile of the sport get nods.

Under either system though I don't think you can make a case for Crawford getting in at the moment though. He's not won a fight he's not been a hugely overwhelming favourite in with a number of mediocre - by world standards - fighters no doubt able to replicate his current resume given the chance.

Add to that him not providing the entertainment factor of a Gatti either and there's no case for him at the minute,

As for Broner - it's not a comparison to Crawford the fighter, just his standard of competition. Who on Crawford's resume would you have confidently picked to beat Broner back when he was regularly winning world title fights?

Crawford tools AB and is a much better fighter but that's not what's being compared.

 

Fair enough, decent reply mate. Personally, I have never really rated Crawford p4p number one as seems common in the media. I used to think he was overrated but I think he's done enough by now to be right up there.