Inoue has been tested but @ lower weights,McDonnell @ Bantamweight could hang with anyone till Inoue came along. IQ Inoue has it,this man is special in a boxing ring & I don't think we seen the best of him yet.
When you see these kinds of statements, what you realize is there are those who accept official biases built into the sport (better known as corruption) and then you have the others who use their own empirical knowledge, who draw their own conclusions, based on their years of experience observing the sport. So the first group is going to simply say the judges scored it as X, whereas the second group is not going to simply accept the decision, they are going to see what consensus was among Press Row, in addition to what they saw with their own two eyes. This keeps popping up, the judges' rulings in the two GGG-Canelo fights (and many, many others). We all know the sport could be cleaned up tremendously, and actually pretty easily. You can never allow judges to be appointed by the governing bodies. They have too much conflict of interest. Outcomes of fights should not be determined by 3 judges alone. It should be judged in 3 ways. One, the 3 judges should be chosen based on merit and it should be done by Press Row. The judges should account for 1/4 of the judgment. Two, Press Row should account for 1/2 of the judgment, since they are a much more diverse and broad group with good knowledge of the sport and far less bias tied collectively to a given outcome. Lastly, the viewing public should account for 1/4 of the judgment. And they could easily employ metrics that would eliminate bias due to the popularity of a fighter. So, together the 3 judges and the public could create a draw if they both disagree with Press Row. But the judges and the public could not throw the fight to a given fighter.
Canelo has the best resume of any prime boxer. I still have Crawford ahead on account of total domination of his opponents. Crawford: B+ opposition, A+ dominance Canelo: A+ opposition, B dominance Lomachenko: A- opposition, B+ dominance.
While I don't give P4P ranking much thought, I don't think its fair to suggest that Crawford's domination of his lower caliber opponents is greater than Canelo's close fights against elites. If Crawford could look more dominant against Spence, Thurman, Garcia, Porter than Canelo did against Trout, Lara, Golovkin and Jacobs, then I could see you using his performance over Canelo's. If you look at Canelo vs his B level opposition like Khan, Angulo, Kirkland, Smith, Fielding, old Mosley, he was extremely dominant over them.
You say this like Crawford didn’t unify 140 already. Those guys you listed for Canelo are C level not B level (Khan isn’t a 154). Crawford covered new ground with the way he dominated Postol, Indongo, Benavidez, Horn, etc. I’d put Postol above Trout and right below Lara....Gamboa had some success but also got knocked out for the first time.
I swear Loma has been completely dominate over his opponents (other than the Linares KD, which he still dominated almost every other round).
Clearly not to the same extent as Crawford. Loma had trouble with Linares, did worse against Pedraza than Tank, and lost to Salido not that long ago. Crawford’s resume reads like a career worst performance for most of the guys he’s fought.
As long as Lomachenko (and to a lesser extent, Usyk) are boxing, then this P4P is not up for any question or doubt, as it UNDOUBTEDLY belongs to Lomachenko by default and then to Usyk in 2nd place. The rest are all insignificant in comparison!