Terence Crawford vs Pernell Whitaker

Yes, it was a terrible post.

You branded me as being a hater, despite the fact that I’ve said that he’s great, and that he could have beaten members of the Fab Four etc.


Regarding his resume, again, he’s fought absolutely everyone who he could have done.

Again, he’s chasing down a legacy fight with Canelo.

Now we can all commend such a thing.


However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that he hasn’t got a great resume, and that he’s never beaten any prime greats.

That’s not a slight on Terence.

It’s just a simple fact.


Now none of the guys you’ve mentioned were great or in their prime.

And some of them were completely finished.

Kell Brook was done.

Zero punch resistance.

There’s no way he’d have stopped Brook like that in his prime. And if you think otherwise, then you are kidding yourself, and you have zero knowledge of Brook’s career.

He was absolutely done.

Yet here you are, trying to convince yourself that it was some great win.


Ricky Burns?

Come on.


You’ve got guys on here claiming that he’d easily have stopped Pea in his prime, at both weights.

Do me a favour.

Based on what?

Wins over Burns, Khan and Spence etc?

It’s laughable.


Regarding Floyd, he absolutely gets criticised by knowledgeable fans.

He too never beat a prime ATG.

 

Unfortunately, there’ll always be people who are biased for whatever reason, who want to discredit guys.

Lots of fighters over the years haven’t got the credit that they deserved.

We also know that there’s some extremely ignorant fans on this forum.

Just a quick point regarding Brook though, I watched his entire career. And he was absolutely done against Terence. It was really sad to see. No punch resistance whatsoever. Terence could never have stopped him with those same shots, pre-GGG, and that should be clear to anybody who’s knowledgeable of his career. Nobody even wanted to see that. He wasn’t redeemed or inspired. He was finished.

 

Terrence might as well be a white MAGA man the way most blacks see him. Its honestly a joke

 

And ofc some of YOUR own posts criticize Crawford, but sure he's "got his props".

These weird cult fanbases want to annoint Tank Davis as ATG LW despite the fact he has literally NEVER fought a LW champion...and he's 31 years old - **** is embarassing.

Cult fanbases wanna crown Benavidez...he's got some good wins but he's far from the next coming and his severe limitations at 175 revealed that.

And dont get me started w these Boots threads...dude getting caught by C level fighters. He's definitely a champion caliber fighter but we've seen the Wilders, Spences, Thurmans, and Fultons...yall are just some hype train cheerleaders.

 

I disagree about the Brook win but the rest of your post is solid. Weird tribal people here and in boxing in general

 

I haven’t criticised Terence.

Criticising his resume, is not criticising him personally, as I keep saying that he’s fought everyone possible, as well as trying to chase down the Canelo fight.

Saying that he hasn’t got a great resume, and that he hasn’t beaten any prime ATG’s, is just a wake up call to guys like you, who have him down as being able to have knocked out Whittaker, despite the fact that he’s never even seen a guy like that before.

So it’s not a criticism to him personally.

It’s an observation aimed at guys like yourself.

Terence has got a weak resume.

It’s not his fault, but that’s just the way it is.

 

Okay.

But what do you disagree with?

Did you follow Brook’s career?

I did.

He had a very solid chin.

He should never have fought Terence. He should already have been retired. It’s absolutely crystal clear that he was compromised.

You could see his lack of punch resistance compared to in previous fights.

The stoppage was awful.

There’s no way that Terence could have stopped him with those same shots a few years earlier.

You saw the GGG fight.

The shots that he’d taken.

That wasn’t a great win for Terence.

 

I liked Kell Brook. Helluva fighter. Loved his Porter win. PBC crew tried robbing it and made it razor close when it was really like a 9-3 masterclass.

I also thought pre-GGG Brook beats Spence outright. Brooks confidence and body werent the same after going up and down 2 weight classes...just ask Roy Jones Jr.

Brook wouldve had more success earlier in his career if he came to States sooner but he still had a great career.

In saying all that, Crawford hit Brook with a punch he did not see coming at all and those punches always hurt the most. Brook was ahead on 2/3 scorecards going into 4th round - he looked good. It wasnt pre-GGG prime Brook but that was a good version. I think that Brook beats any version of Thurman, Danny, or Porter, for example.

 

You need to relax buddy nothing that I said above isn't a fact.

Spence was inactive and had been in 2 car crashes you'd be a fool to think Spence was 100 percent for the Crawford fight.

I still don't think Spence would of ever beat Crawford though. And I always picked Crawford to beat Spence regardless and I can quote an old post of mine as proof if you want.

Spence is a good win on paper but of course the circumstances of the inactivity and car crashes has to be taken into account. It's not Crawford's fault of course Spence was a moron behind the wheel but it is what it is.

As for the other posts in this thread I don't think @Loudon has said anything wrong. Hes given Crawford his props as I have but it's a fact he hasn't beaten great opposition. Is that Crawford's fault ? No. But it's still a fact he hasn't beaten great opposition. You can be impartial and respect a fighter and still be honest and admit Crawford hasn't got a great resume.

And it makes me laugh people are trying to big up Kell Brook who literally got a broken eye socket that never truly recovered after a mismatch fight vs Golovkin at Middleweight. Brook was done at world level when he fought Crawford and only someone with no knowledge on Brook would think that was some great victory.

All in all Crawford is a great fighter with alot of talent and I respect him alot. Unfortunately hes not in a great era for Welterweights like the early 80s and 90s where he could really be tested against greats and ATGs.

 

I mean if you want to play dumb, I'm okay with that. Though there are multiple videos on Youtube discrediting Crawford, multiple posts/comments/forums even on this site in which Crawford is consistently discredited, you want to act as if my comments are coming out of nowhere. I'm okay with that. But what I don't understand is that if you are responding to a comment in which you weren't tagged in and/or I wasn't responding to you directly to question me on who I am talking about or referring to. If you are willing to read my posts maybe you should pay attention to the fact that I'm speaking in general regarding those who find an issue with Crawford being argued to be an ATG. If you don't fall in that category then just skip over my comments. Ignore me.... Whatever. The fun part of this site and the internet in general is, people don't exist unless you click the REPLY under their comment. I'm nobody important to you, so you aren't required to give an ounce of your attention. Pretty cool, right?.....lol.

 

You are trying too hard little man (or lady, whatever you are). Claiming Crawford is great then following it with reasons why is isn't great is illogical and you have to be an idiot to think that people are suppose to just respect YOUR OPINION over the facts. Fighters are labeled great usually because of their resume and accomplishments....but your stance is that Bud's resume is less than stellar, but you claim he is.....great......lol

All 6 of those names I mentioned will be in the HOF.....does that hurt your feelings? 3 of those names are first ballot HOF'ers....being that Shawn Porter has already gotten the call. Gamboa & Spence being undefeated and top 5 p4p, yet you feel they weren't in their prime is the most idiotic argument to me. YES I said Ricky Burns. A man who won multiple world titles will be HOF. There are an abundance of fighters who have accomplished less sitting in the HOF today. Burns won another world title even after Crawford beat him....So, what, you going to argue he was a shell of himself? Or are you simply calling him a bum.

And your ignorant a$$ had the nerve to ask me "who am I referring to" in your other response to one of my posts. You are going out your way to state that the facts I brought up regarding these 6 names mean nothing because YOU BELIEVE they were shot, had no punch resistance, etc..... You clearly know nothing about competing at the highest level. No punch resistance would be YOU stepping in the ring with any of those names today. guarantee you wouldn't last half a round vs them.

There is an extensive physical done for these fighters to be cleared by the sanctioning committees to make sure the fighters are healthy enough to compete against another world class opponent. It's done and signed off by licensed doctors and officials because if something is purposely ignored it leaves those committees open for civil lawsuits by the fighters family/loved ones. So, Kell Brook stating repeatedly that he was in his BEST SHAPE of his career going into the Crawford fight. Out his own mouth he said he felt better coming out of that camp than he did in the camps vs GGG & Spence. He gave no excuses for his loss vs Crawford. He said in the post conference that Bud hit him with a something he never experienced before. He pointed to no injury. Didn't say anything about being slowed from a surgery he had 3 years prior. He got in there and competed. He fought a three 154 lb'ers before fighting Crawford. Got 3 wins, with 2 of them being by stoppage. But he had zero punch resistance vs Crawford at 147lbs?

I've giving you too many facts. I've lived long enough to understand that ignorance is truly a choice. You don't want to hear or even attempt to comprehend what I'm saying because you are prone on pushing your agenda or whatever. It's all good. You enjoy that. Facts live longer than opinions so I'm coo with it. 6 HOF'ers. If that offends you. So be it. Someone can be undefeated & becomes top 5 p4p in the sport but not be in their prime is your stance, thus I look at everything you say casually.

Enjoy your week buddy. There's no need to continue this conversation. I'm not interested repeating myself no hearing you talk in circles.

 

I could care less about hype trains and I do call out all fighters, including ones I support when they're doing shady business.

Crawford's entire career is a case of carefully selected opponents. Spence should NOT have been cleared to fight. A quick look at his interviews prior to his accident and after ands you'll immediately see how damaged he is.

That fight is worse in quality than his fight with Khan and those two fights are his biggest. The guy is a complete farce.

 

"crawfraud would beat the fab 4" "crawfraud would ko whitaker" love sum bud matches but pls y'all need to chill with the hyperboles, especially with his resume

 

Ricky Burns shouldn't of even been champion when he fought Crawford everyone knows his "Draw" vs Ray Beltran was a robbery in which he had his jaw broken and was well beaten.

Trying to claim Kell Brook was at his best after a broken eye socket that never recovered vs Golovkin is laughable aswell. This guy just reads boxrec and hasn't got a clue what hes talking about everyone knows Brook was done at world level.

When it's all said and done the only disprectful comments in this thread is the poster who said Whitaker get's stopped at both weights. That's the only actual ridiculous and disrespectful comment in this thread.

Whitaker who was never stopped in his prime and fought far greater fighters than Crawford. Aswell as taking on Trinidad way past his prime and suffering a broken jaw and was still never stopped.

But yeah let's assume Crawford stops Whitaker based on what exactly ? I'm still baffled by it.