What do you mean, who are we to say that he’s never faced someone as good as Duran or Hearns? We KNOW that he hasn’t faced guys of that calibre.
You could put toward an argument based on his ability. But as great as he is/looks, it’s unfortunately a weak era. He’d have had peers in a stronger era.
Weaker sneaker. Had Crawford just dominated one division I'd agree with that assessment but if he's done it from LW to SMW it doesn't really matter because of the spread of divisions. I have Fitzsimmons ranked number 2, was his resume any better than this hypothetical one? I have Langford 6th, was his much better? I have Pep 7th, was his much better? You mention Leonard, I have him 10th. Incidentally if Usyk beats Fury I have him 11th. 2014 Crawford beat Burns to become the number 1 LW in the world. If a decade later he's the number 1 SMW in the world, after unifying every division he's competed in, I have no qualms putting him in the mix.
It simply has to matter who he’s fought, and who he fights. Yes, he beat Ricky Burns to become the number 1 LW. So what does that tell you? I used to watch Ricky Burns. He was a good, solid pro. He was good, with good wins. But Ricky Burns was never a great fighter. What have Zoo and Charlo done? Yes, a Canelo win at SMW would be huge. But if we were in the 90’s right now, then look at who his peers would have been. It would have been unthinkable for him to have gone from LW-SMW whilst having faced the best opponents at those weight classes. And that’s the point. We can also look at the 70’s-80’s. Terrence looks to be an exceptional fighter, but he’s currently in a weaker era compared to previous eras.
Like I said, if you add Zoo, Charlo and Canelo to him I'm not really convinced his resume is any worse than Fitzsimmons, Pep or Langford and those 3 are all firmly in my top ten.
Well of course it’s subjective. You can have your own favourites/ranking criteria. But again, it would have been unthinkable for Terence to have beaten the best from LW-MW/SMW, in a stronger era such as the 90’s.
I'm not sure anyone would do what they did in a stronger era. Would Fitzsimmons have been lineal MW, HW and LHW champion in the 90s? Would Langford beat the best fighters from LW to HW in the 90s? Would Pep lose 2 in 150 fights at FW in the 90s?
Which is why you can only rank on what they did, under traditional ranking criteria, unless you’re making a case for a spot based upon H2H. I don’t think Terence has done enough, or can do enough to be ranked that highly.
So all 4 are unlikely to achieve what they achieved in the 90s. Doesn't really change anything imo. In yours maybe it does, but not in mine.
I think the argument gets stronger when you don’t just look at the names on the resume but when you actually watch the fights back, and look at the way he dominates his opponents and the adjustments he makes on the move on the front foot on the back foot, throwing switches and fighting just as comfortable southpaw as orthodox and dominating his supposedly biggest rival Spence in such a way that it was almost embarrassing for Spence. His resume might not be as impressive as some but his ability and quality of his fights will hold up well compared to any other fighter from his weight class historically. He is in my opinion one of the most complete fighters and one of the most composed fighters. He has fought whatever he has had available and hasn’t ducked anyone so. Then he’s the first fighter in history to become undisputed champion in two different divisions. I can see an argument either way for classing him as atg or not but as soon as you watch his fights you will be pulling for him. He isn’t finished yet and he definitely doesn’t look like he’s slowing down so let’s see what happens in future. You can’t judge a career until it’s over and that’s the ultimate truth
But you have to look at the names of his opponents. There’s just no way around that. Because when you’re rating a guy as high as some of these posters here rank him, you simply have to ask questions, such as: Could he have been as dominant against higher calibre opponents? Now obviously that is highly debatable and subjective. We can’t really know the answer to that question. But until he dominates some truly great fighters, or very good-great fighters who are at their best, then those questions have to be asked. Yes, his ability looks to be amazing. And you can see his great technique etc, in all of his fights. We can look at the nuances. The switch hitting. The ring generalship. The fact that he’s undefeated. But he’s done that against Spence, Porter, Brook and Khan etc. But could he have done the same against Floyd, Oscar and Manny etc? You can’t look at one thing, whilst not the other. You can’t look at his dominance, without looking at who it’s been against. At the moment, he currently has a weak resume.
I agree with this statement I’m not saying that his resume is an all time great or that he has defeated opponents who filled the criteria. I’m saying that the performance has to matter too, it can’t be irrelevant it should hold some value. But it can’t be ignored that he is first boxer in history to become undisputed champion in two divisions, and he did it without controversy in dominating fashion. Spence was classed as the future of the sport by some and was expected to win by probably the majority of people on this forum. I think he beats a prime Pac-Man but and I think he gives Floyd the toughest fight of his career but it’s difficult to say if he wins or not because Floyd always found a way to win, it would have been some fight that though. I think Oscar would give him a hard fight just because of his pressure like porter but with accuracy.
