We all know he’s skilled and he’s a great fighter, but is he a boxing purist in terms of mastering offense and defense?
It's not the one term that comes to mind for me. I do think he's a great fighter but I probably wouldn't call him a 'master boxer'.
Crawford has some abilities that are characteristic of a master boxer (timing). I would say yes hesitantly.
He looks amazing when he has a 6"+ reach advantage or is facing someone old/no power/some other glaring weakness. To enshrine him as a master, I'd like to see him in with someone who turns the tables on him physically. Someone with a longer reach and more power. We probably won't see that. I think the best we'll get is seeing him fight with an age disadvantage.
If you understand his style a little, and his temperament and strategy, he's about as good as you're likely to get in overall skill outside of Mayweather/Pete/Duran level guys. I'm not sure if he's closer to a Cotto or a Mayweather but he's at least in a fringe masterful territory, no less. His defense is not great, as Cotto's wasn't, but he gives something only to get something and it's usually a surprise the other guy doesn't like very much at the end.
Honestly that can’t be determined until he face better opponents. His best opponent is Victor Postol and his best performance is Felix Diaz or Jeff Horn. Hard to gave when that is the cream of the crop of your resume.
He beat Brook but that was a past it version of Kell and he was giving bud fits in the first part of that fight with regards to boxing and I reckon had Khan been a few years younger he'd have gave him a hell of a fight had he not succumbe to a ko vie weak chin. In fact Khan with a decent chin would have beat him a fe years back. Like others are saying he needs to step up against the top opponents and prove he is what he claims to be.
