To this day nobody can explain to me why crawford is p4p #1

I dont think so, Burns is largely a fake at world level, with one good win against Katsidis and the rest is contrived. A chain of fake wins in Glasgow.

Saying Indongo and Beltran are worse just makes Burns worse, they beat the **** out of Burns, and that was prime Burns.


Ricky hould have stayed at eurolevel or with the commonwelathbelt if his "honest rick" image was anything he lived by, he'd have built an honest legacy there.

 

On the other hand Mikey Garcia had EVERY opportunity to come to that weight class and choose not to until Crawford left. Interestingly now he is gone a lot of "elite' boxers are interested in the 140 weight class. And the stigma will be off the class because the Crawford haters have moved on.

 

tis a tossup between crawford, 3g and perhaps kovalev.

 

Lomanchenko had the luxury of a promoter and to come in to the pro game without having to work up. Crawford had over 20 wins when he accidently got an opportunity because of being a sparing partner for a world championship fight. Are you dumb enough to think every boxer gets the opportunities Lomanchenko has gotten in his first 11 fights?

 

Well done.

What you've just done is undermined most of TC's legacy here...

So what you're saying is TC beat a fake?

That softened up by Beltran & TC fake (Burns) went on to essentially give TCs second or first best win (Indongo) pretty much his claim to fame too thus undermining that win also!

Finally Betran beat Burns too.. This is also his main claim to fame! To add to that he beat Burns before both of them so he has contributed to undermining both of those wins in a way as well as you, considering he beat the snot out of the fake Burns thus softening him up.. But then again he's a fake anyway so Beltran beat a fake. Another win undermined.

As for Indongo beating a prime Burns?! LOL I don't think a guy who's 35 with 50 fights, multiple losses & who in your words is a 'fake' could be ascribed the word 'prime'.. How can a u assess the prime of a 'fake'?! Makes no sense by it's very nature..

Like i said i was trying to be kind to TC but you kinda destroyed TC for us here LOL Turns out Beltran is probably his best win & Crolla & Regis Prograis can pretty much match Crawford's best wins

 

What is Indongos best win?

 

koing troyannovsky in 1 easily

 

thats your interpretion, but its fake, because yours is built on the lie that burns is his best win.

Crawford has beaten many better fighters than burns.

I am saddened that you feel the need to intepret what I wrote as your own lie.

 

You destroyed Crawford's resume

 

Is Ricky Burns better than Indongo?

 

so u dont tihnk a ko in 1 is a better win that a points decision at title level?

ok.

but why?

explain why tysons ko1 of spinks is worse than pts over smith

 

I'm a fan but I dont see him as P4P # 1. Not yet at least. Youre going to have a hard time finding a good explanation for this as IMO there isn't one other than hes good and has beaten some good fighters whoa lot of people though were going to give him problems. Now who do you think should be P4P # 1? I myself find myself at a crossroads giving the #1 spot to any boxer at the moment.. Cant really say for sure

 

I dunno now.. I always believed in him until HG put the doubts in my mind that he was a fake.

 

surely the word "better" makes it better? thats what is normally means.

explain how me saying crawford has beaten many fighters better than burns make crawfords resume worse.

perhaps you have a unique interpretation of the word "better"