Where would you rank Bud if he clears super-welterweight?

Without taking sides in this dispute, I'm always more favorably disposed to any rebuttal that includes "my guy"."

 

Top 50 I guess. I don't really see that happening considering Crawford's inactivity and age. What holds Crawford back is the lack of names on his resume. MAYBE one hall of famer in Spence. Most of the fighters he's beaten haven't gone on to have any success afterwards which kind of indicates that they were not that great in the first place. The accolades are nice but who a fighter achieved those accolades against have always mattered the most. Sugar Ray Leonard being undisputed at 147 is a nice accomplishment in of itself. Him beating Duran, Benitez and Hearns to do it made it excellent. With Crawford, the lack of names will hurt his resume as time goes on. I say top 50 because the accoldates do matter. They can't be ignored but not to the extent that he should be ranked anywhere near the top 25. Too many legendary fighters have more names on their resumes.

I have read some people saying they would rank Crawford over Floyd if it happens. Floyd has 9 hall of famers to Crawford's maybe 1. It's not even a comparison. Even if we factor in context (when Floyd fought them) it still isn't a comparison. Floyd was voted fighter of the decade in a decade where the majority of Crawford's career took place in. He was a P4P fighter for a significantly longer period than Crawford. Floyd was universally rated number 1 P4P from 2005-2007 and 2012-2015. Crawford did that only once (2023). Floyd has beaten significantly more champions. I can go on and on. It truly isn't even a comparison.

 

First of all, let's get away from your emotion kid. No where did you see me claim that you called me anything. Hell, I don't even know your emotional a$$.....lol. I respond to comments on here. I'm not checking for your names thus when I speak, I speak in general not referring to anyone unless I specifically say the name. I could debate you and agree with you in the same conversation and not realize it. If your comprehension is on the appropriate level to be considered an adult, you would understand that all I did was point out accomplishments of Crawford. I am arguing that Crawford is in the discussion based on accomplishments. You know things that ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Not based on hypothetical names that fans claim he would lose to etc...... When someone name drops, I look at what they accomplished.......not just the sexy names on their resume.

You push that Spence wasn't 100%....he had factors that took away from him competing vs Crawford. Those factors weren't barriers from him beating Danny..... They weren't barriers for him getting the utmost credit for injuring Ugas. But vs Crawford.....he's too broken for Crawford to get credit for beating......lol. Given he's went threw some situations, but WHO'S FAULT WAS IT that he's speeding drunk on a Tuesday night in a residential area in that car. Who's fault is it that his sparring partner punched him in the face and injuring him to the point he misses out on a fight vs Manny. Crawford went through personal set backs....Being shot in the head. Had to deal with an ex-girlfriend trying to exploit his name and break up his family. Had to deal with being locked up for aggressively trying to get his vehicle back from someone trying to hold it until they got more money than agreed to......but that's never a subject talked about when it comes to his fights because he doesn't allow any distraction to be an excuse.

You are more willing to compare Crawford to Adrien Broner than you are willingly to hear comparisons of him to Roberto Duran...... that's comical in itself. Broner being a 4 division champ.....

Out of Broner's 4 world titles in 4 different weight classes....How many successful defenses did he have. I can only think of 2. How many times did he unify.......ZERO. How many lineal statuses did he garner.......ZERO. Broner is NOTHING like Crawford. And that just goes to show that you simply just look down on him and his career.

Hell, Bob Arum once mentioned trying to put Broner in the ring vs Crawford after the Dierry Jean fight. Adrien in so many words expressed he wasn't interested. Broner has always been in or around Crawford's division yet, you won't ever find somewhere in which he mentions he'll attempt to take a title from him or challenge him. Mr. "Everybody Can Get It" doesn't even look in that direction.

When Crawford fought at 135.....he fought the CHAMPION and won....winning a title. You want to belittle that accomplishment because Ricky Burns isn't a Robert Duran or Sugar Ray or Marvelous Marvin, etc..... Ricky Burns is a 3x world champion across 3 weight divisions......but people talk down on him like he was a nobody. Had Ricky fought Floyd or Manny or someone like that....then it would have been a notch on their belt for being a champion....but for Bud.....he's one of the "nobodies" that Crawford has fought. Crawford followed that up with fighting someone WHO WAS RANKED TOP 5 ON THE P4P LIST by The Ring Magazine. Gamboa...undefeated and Crawford stopped him to become LINEAL CHAMPION.... You do know what that means right........

When Crawford fought at 140.....what else can one do to prove he's the best than by beating the other belt holders so that you have them all.....UNDISPUTED.... And he walked through them showing that he was levels above the competition all while barking about how he wanted the fight vs a future first ballot HOF'er in Manny Pacquiao..... Crawford become LINEAL CHAMPION for the 2nd time.

Moves up to 147......having to deal with politics and promotion wars as well as dealing with situations with his own promotional company, but ultimately repeats his previous accomplishment by becoming UNDISPUTED for the 2nd and is now a LINEAL CHAMPION for the 3rd time.........Something no male boxer had ever accomplished in history.

Moves up to 154......first fight he goes after the Madrimov.....a world title holder. The win gives him his 10th world title and he's now won at least one in 4 divisions.

Take Crawford's name out of this post and insert whoever and they easily are in the discussion for ATG. But for some reason, people get butt hurt when Crawford's name is mentioned with the great ones. Why is it no one is mad at the Hall of Fame selection committee/voters. They have already have taken Crawford through the fist casting ceremony to be displayed with the other Hall of Famers that have been inducted. He serves as THE ONLY active fighter to go through that process. Manny Pacquiao's fist isn't even engraved yet.

20 years from now, Crawford's name deserves respect as of an ATG. His name deserves to be in the discussions.....period. If you don't think so, then please tell me who was in his divisions that he should have fought that would have changed your opinion. Or are you saying that no matter who he would have fought, he had no chance of being an ATG because he's not..................

 

Agreed.
But in time when we are dead & gone only the on paper achievements will be remembered / immortalized.
Terrance Crawford, GGG both have weak resumes compared to their counterpart ATGs

 

@JusABoxinFan

I couldn't quote your post because too many long paragraphs.

Brother it's not that deep all i did was disagree with you on your claim that Crawford is a top 15 ATG no need to write out huge paragraphs ranting about it.

You don't look at names on a resume ? so you don't look any context behind a resume that's what you're telling me ?

When did i say the car crashes wasn't Spence's fault ? of course it's his fault he was behind the wheel. But the fact is Spence was involved in multiple car crashes and had only fought 4 times in 4 years. Of course that has to be taken into account when assessing the fight and Spence wasn't 100 percent which is fair to say. I've already said regardless of car crashes and inactivity Crawford would always win and i backed Crawford to win prior to the fight.

I think it's comical that you would even make a comparison with Duran. Since when has Crawford beaten an ATG in his prime like Sugar Ray Leonard ? or beaten fighters like Ken Buchanan, Ernest Marcel, Esteban De Jesus ? or beaten someone with a huge size advantage like Iran Barkley way above his best weight ?

I never compared Broner to Crawford i'm giving you an example of context. Obviously Crawford is far greater than Broner but you're bringing up his Lineal achievements with no context.

Ricky Burns is a solid name and an overachiever but he shouldn't of even been champion everyone knows he lost to Ray Beltran.

Viktor Postol again another solid name nothing special and it was for the vacated lineal championship again context.

Errol Spence....well we've already discussed that above.

Crawford has not beaten any great fighters and has only beaten 1 fighter who realistically would be considered a Hall of Fame fighter. So yes you do need to look at the context of the opposition because you're hyping up Lineal achievements against the likes of Ricky Burns and Viktor Postol.

Ricky Burns is the same guy that lost one sided decisions to domestic rivals like Alex Arthur, Carl Johanesson.

I'll give him credit he overachieved and did well for himself and had some solid wins vs Martinez, Katsidis. But realistically he was just a belt holder and there's no way Crawford vs Burns should've been for the lineal Lightweight championship. Especially after Burns got a total gift vs Beltran and was beaten up and got a broken jaw, how can you justify Crawford vs Burns being for Lineal Championship when everyone knows Burns lost handily to Beltran ?

I think Crawford is great but i don't think he's an ATG no.

The names i mentioned earlier.....

Muhammad Ali
Joe Louis
Sugar Ray Leonard
Floyd Mayweather Jr
Manny Pacquiao
Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Willie Pep
Ezzard Charles
Roberto Duran
Archie Moore
Joe Gans
Harry Greb
Bob Fitzsimmons
Mickey Walker
Sam Langford

Crawford cannot how a candle to their resume and that is a fact.

Crawford IMO hasn't got the resume of an ATG so i don't class him as one. I don't blame Crawford it's not his fault he hasn't had the opposition. But the fact is his resume isn't that great especially when you compare his record to actual ATG's.

As for what Crawford can do to improve it ? if he beats some of the notable names at 154 who are threats to him then i'll be the first one to call him an ATG. 154 is quite a hot division atm and there is some good fights for Crawford to improve his resume considerably.

 

Yeah, Spence was fine. His fine motor skills, speech, speed, timing, reaction time, balance, punch resistance, and movement never suffered in the slightest from 3 car crashes, years of yo-yo dieting, and eye issues. None of that had any effect on his performance in the ring. It's not like it's easy to fake a medical or pay off the people meant to inspect you, it's not as if there are numerous examples of this happening in combat sports or football. I can't imagine being weight drained, having a detached retina, having a broken rib, having altitude sickness, and neurological damage from car crashes and stepping into the ring in Spence's condition. That man was in no way fit to fight.

This content is protected

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/12910079/errol-spence-injuries-hospital-car-crash/
Thanks for implying I'm a fat ass who doesn't box btw. I've boxed since I was 15 and weigh 140lbs so pipe down mate.
And I'm not a Spence fan either before you go there. I don't even like watching him fight. I just don't like severely compromised fighters stepping into the ring.

 

The majority of people (myself included) have already anointed him as the top of the mountain in the division after one fight. I think depending on who and how many more times he fights, gathering the other belts is a foregone conclusion.

Honestly I don't think I'd rank him any higher historically. I think he's set as probably top 40-50 whether he grabs the other belts at 154 or not

 

Oh, so now we are crying about having to read too much. Well, let me try to shorten it so you do lose your mind......lol.

Yes, I said I don't simply look at names on a resume. I didn't think I would need to explain what I meant. The obvious is...who you beat matters. But you are sitting arguing and dropping names like everyone on the list you mentioned outclass Crawford with their resumes. Why is accomplishments not a factor.... Doesn't everyone fight for a world title. Even someone wins a world title, doesn't that mean they were at least pretty damn good. Crawford's opponents have stellar amateur and pro careers. Not all, but enough for him to be ranked in a p4p ranking. And has been there for almost a decade. Similar to many of names of the examples you mentioned. Of your examples, some of them fought in a time where most of the guys they were competing against were prize fighters.... not world class competitors. I don't want to go into too much detail because a great deal of those names I respect a lot...... From Archie Moore to Mickey, to Duran (who's one of my personal top 5s) to even Manny.

There are guys that many of those guys did not fight who were at their peaks in the same division. Yet, Crawford is penalized in your mind from the same respect because, he hasn't beaten guys who respect as elite competitors...... Floyd....he fought a lot of his best names well outside of their prime....De La Hoya, Canelo, Sugar Shane, even his career rival Manny Pacquiao.....but he gets the ultimate respect because those guys are in the Hall of Fame........ Most of Crawford's best opponents are either still fighting or have recently became inactive. Guys like Porter, Gamboa, Spence......those guys will eventually be in the Hall of Fame. Maybe not all first ballots but will eventually will get the nod. Shawn Porter has already gotten his notification. Kell Brook, Amir Khan, Ricky Burns,.....those are guys who had their entire country in their corner and each had a damn good career. Maybe they get the nod too.

If you have a guy become LINEAL champion, that means he is the best in the division because he outclass those in the top of the division. Crawford did it 3x. 2 of them resulting in undisputed. Damn the names, that's the best in the field and Crawford walked through them. Showcasing he is levels above the field. And he's still moving his feet by getting in the ring vs 154lb champions.

Yes, Duran is closer to a Crawford than a Broner......I don't need to convince you of that. I've seen and read where some of the previous greats feel Crawford deserves to be in the conversation as the "4 Kings" due to his skill set, IQ, and what he's doing to his opposition. It's not Crawford's fault other guys haven't gain the respect of the casual fan to be an ATG. Crawford is aiming for whomever is at the top of the mountain and thus far he has knocked them off their pedestal in every division he's step in.

It's simply hypocritical to say Crawford has never beat any ATGs when he's beating the best in his divisions in their prime, but then you give Floyd all respect for beating "ATGs" passed their prime. You'll push the notion that Burns shouldn't have been champion because he arguably lost to Beltran, well, Crawford gave him the opportunity because of it, and what was the result?.....Do we also ignore that Burns won a world title AFTER losing to Crawford as well. You'll push that Postol won a vacant title as if that makes that title less valuable. It's much better than being given a title via email like Haney or Boots....but those guys get all respect for being "the future of the sport" with some fans.

At the end of the day, I said what I said. Crawford's name deserves and will be in the discussion for ATG. The guy is different and there isn't a single individual who's ever shared the ring with him that can HONESTLY argue it.

 

No dummy I'm not crying you don't understand you posted so many characters theres a limit which means I can't quote your wall of text.

As for not wanting to read all of your post why would I ? You're not even talking or debating your just ranting and its frankly tiresome to having to read your long tirade of rants.

If I wanted to read a novel my guy I'd go read a book but you can think what you like about Crawford you do mate.

See ya.

 

Bud will be first male boxer to become undisputed in 3 weight classes if he beats the remaining comp at 154...and that's no guarantee. To do so he'd have to win all the fights/belts 36+.

Bud would be an arguable top 25 ATG. Bud is old and his true ranking wont be known for years because we would have to see what Madrimov, Ortiz Jr, Fundora, etc, go on to do.

 

First I'll start off by pointing out, I'm not suggest Crawford is greater or lesser than Floyd. Just wanted to address the logic behind your suggestion that it isn't a comparison.

Floyd fought 9 Hall of Famers.

Off the top of my head, those names would be Manny, Oscar, Cotto, Hatton, Marquez, Mosley, Gatti,.....I know I'm forgetting someone, just can't think of it at the moment.

You said what the opponents did after fighting Crawford hurts his argument. It's ironic because that same standard is what helps Floyd fans push him as the GOAT......

Postol, Beltran, & Burns all won a world title after fighting Crawford. Those 3 also fought Crawford before he stepped into his more dominant weight of 147lbs, in which we started to see opponents not really look the same post encounters with Crawford. Crawfords wins over undefeated world champions are quickly shot down because of how easily he made it look and the fact they never were quite the same after fighting him. Gamboa & Spence were both undefeated and top 5 p4p. Horn & Postol were both defeated and never had a chance vs Crawford. They are looked at as "bums" regardless of the success they had vs other world class opponents. It's still up in the air as to what will come of Madrimov moving forward.

We look at some of the world champs and/or HOF'ers on Floyd's resume......

-Gatti - end of his career. went 1-2 before hanging up his gloves
-Oscar - end of his career. went 1-1 before hanging up his gloves
-Hatton - again, end of his career. 2-2 after Floyd. dropped back to 140 to defend the titles he didn't lose to Floyd only to get stopped in 2nd by Manny and lose them 2 fights later.
-Marquez - had 8 more fights after losing to Floyd. went 6-2 with the loses being title bouts. Only accomplishment was finally getting the win over Manny.
-Mosely - in the last 8 fights after Floyd he went 3-4-1.

If I remember correctly off the HOF'ers Floyd fought Manny & Cotto were the only 2 to accomplish a world title after losing to Floyd. (Clearly we can throw Canelo in there, but then there's that "Canelo's greatness is due to the Floyd loss" vs "Floyd is only relevant today because he has a win over Canelo" discussion.....I choose not to go into that).

But my point is that looking at a great deal of Floyd's best names on his resume, those greats were NOT in their prime, but they are big names and HOF'ers today.

Floyd built his HOF career off fighting guys who had accomplishments/successes in their career and he fought them as they were clearly out of their prime. Yet, he gets a red carpet treatment amongst fans. Crawford in his career were fighting the best opponents in his division and making it look easy. They would have some successes/accomplishments, but Crawford doesn't get praised for being them. It's the notion that he's fought nobody. Who knows... few of those guys may end up HOF'ers themselves. Marquez wasn't highly decorated but he's in there because of his actions in the ring win/lose/draw. I wouldn't be surprise to see Gamboa get a nod eventually. Spence maybe. Porter already in. Maybe Brook or Khan gets a look. Burns, maybe. Too early on Madrimov but they do look at his amateur career highly for some odd reason.

Who else was Crawford supposed to mix it up with..........At 135.....who was he suppose to fight? At 140.......who is the opponent(s) he was supposed to face besides the title holders? Clearly, Danny, Manny, & Broner all showcased they weren't interested in sharing the ring with him. At 147.....again, who is it he was suppose to fight..... He called for all the champions coming in. That was Thurman, Manny, Porter, Danny, Ugas, Spence.....during his time in the division. None of them were interested in facing Crawford unless mandated (Porter), huge payday demanded (Thurman $10M * Manny$40M), or they simply was the last man standing (Spence).

Crawford, as a fight, has done everything that a fighter is suppose to do to build his legacy. See the best opponents and go after them. If you get them in the ring, do what you can to come out on top. In many fans eyes, there will never be a better era than the on occupied by Hearns, Hagler, Leonard, Duran. So, it would've been silly for him to base his greatness off of trying to prove he would be able to beat them. Currently he's in his 4th division looking to unify if he doesn't get the "golden goose" (Canelo). Crawford is definitely in the ATG discussion when he decides to hang up the gloves. Where he's at is based on the love you have for the fighter and their opponents. But suggesting that a fighter who we can't name 10 guys willing to jump in the ring with him in any of his divisions during his career, while accomplishing what he accomplished can't be in the discussion for a top 15 ATG spot.........C'mon.

P.S. You also said that Floyd won fighter of the decade where majority of Crawford's career took place.....Crawford & Floyd's career don't run parallel. Floyd was top of the game in the 2010s. Started his career in 1996.....Crawford came in the game in 2008 and didn't even get a title shot until 2014.....3 years later he was in the p4p list by The Ring Magazine after becoming undisputed. That's just has silly as comparing Crawford to Jaron Ennis. They are not the same generation.

 

1.Diego Corrales
2.Arturo Gatti
3.Ricky Hatton
4.Oscar De La Hoya
5.Juan Manuel Marquez
6.Shane Mosley
7.Miguel Cotto
8.Canelo Alvarez
9.Manny Pacquiao

Postol did not win a world title after losing to Crawford. Beltran won a vacant title and lost it in his next fight. Burns also won a vacant world title. If I were to compare that to Floyd, it isn't a comparison. Corrales became champion after losing to Floyd. Same with Marquez, Cotto, Canelo, Castillo, Judah, Pacquiao, Chavez and Hernandez. That's 9 fighters who became champion after losing to Floyd in comparison to 2 for Crawford. That's not even factoring in context such as who they beat to become champion again, how long they reigned, etc. This is what I mean when I say stuff like it isn't a comparison.

Gamboa was never top 5 P4P. Spence was which I acknowledged by saying he beat MAYBE one hall of famer. Postol and Horn aren't looked at as bums. They are just rated as they should be. They are solid fighters. Nothing more or less. Those two didn't have long title reigns. They weren't P4P level or hall of fame level fighters.

This is what I meant by even if we factor in context (when Floyd fought them) because people use this argument but they don't realize that it doesn't make Crawford's case any stronger. Floyd beating Pacquiao even at the stage he fought him is a better win than anything on Crawford's resume. Some would argue Spence but what sense would that make when Spence had multiple car crashes, detached retina, crazy inactivity and looked depleted walking to the ring? On top of that, Spence has done NOTHING since that loss. What wins would you rather have? De La Hoya or Madrimov? Porter or Cotto? Postol or Corrales? Hatton or Horn? Castillo or Beltran? Judah or Benavidez? Canelo or Gamboa? Genaro or Burns? I am asking this in context meaning when Floyd and Crawford beat them. It's not even a comparison. It's laughable tbh.

No one is penalizing Crawford. You can only fight who is presented to you. Crawford was just not in an era where those names were available. We can't over rate the names on his resume because of that. The bottom line is Crawford beat some solid fighters. No one really great outside of MAYBE Spence. That's it. His accomplishments warrant him being rated as a HOF and potential ATG. I don't see why there needs to be a comparison to fighters that he should not be compared to based on their resumes. Crawford's resume is far inferior to Mayweather's. It just is what it is.

Being an upper rank ATG is not about who is willing to fight them. It is about the accoldates and the names on the resume. Who did he beat and when did he beat them. When going through Crawford's resume, the lack of names holds his legacy back significantly. You will see that in time. When Crawford's career is over with and he's not rated as highly, that will be the reason why. It's always been about who you beat and when did you beat them. That's why Floyd isn't considered the GOAT. People bring that up (as you did) as criticism towards him. He's still an ATG.

Floyd had 10 fights in the 2010s. Crawford had 25 fights in the 2010s. 5 fights in the 2020s and 9 fights in the 2000s. Most of his career took place in the 2010s. He was undisputed in the 2010s. He was in the top 10 P4P for half the decade. He still lost fighter of the decade to a guy with only 10 fights. Why? Because of Floyd's names on his resume vs Crawford's. Crawford is great. I'm not disrespecting him. He just shouldn't be put in the same conversation as Floyd. You are talking about how it's silly to compare when Floyd was a top 2 fighter for 2 decades. A guy who was a P4P great for almost 20 years. It sounds silly because of who you are comparing Crawford to.

 

It's being said if he doesn't get a Canelo fight he may retire. That says to me he's looking to cash out.

There's plenty of good fights here for him at LMW even Ennis at WW. If he doesn't fight any of them he's not an ATG imo.

 

No, he wouldn't be. The first triple crown champ in the 4-belt era, but not the first 3 division undisputed champ. That accolade goes to Bob Fitzsimmons but can also be attributed to Barney Ross, Henry Armstrong, Tony Canzoneri, or Emile Griffith. There are easily 25 other fighters more qualified to be ranked above him even if he does clear 154.

 

Thats correct, in the 4 belt era. Thanks for clarification