Both their resumes are poor in relation to their lofty P4P ranking and both have fought very few legit punchers, especially ones their own size Every world class fighter Spence, who is a naturally very big guy, has fought other than Porter and Brook was a career 140 pounder coming up or a blown up 135 like Mikey and I don't think it's a coincidence he looks much better against all these career 140s and struggled badly against the only two natural career 147 pounders he's fought Crawford was absolutely massive for 135 and he was a lot bigger and heavier than all those guys he fought down there. He was even big for 140 and he weighed more against Gamboa at 135 than career 140 Postol did against him at 140 (he had 5lbs on Postol in their fight) and he weighed more against Postol than career 147 Horn weighed against him at 147. So when Crawford moves up in weight he's often still the bigger man or weighs roughly the same as his opponents and he's never been at a reach disadvantage in any of his world title fights. He looks as big and strong as the 148 pounders he's fought. And like I said, both have fought very few genuine punchers Both excellent fighters of course but size matters
Once Crawford beats Spence and the question is asked who has Crawford beat, they will say Spence was damaged from the car accident, so don't count him. LOL
Is this really a serious question? I think its pretty obvious who has the better resume. Errol Spence Jr
Crawford's wins over Khan and Brook look good on paper but to even put those in the "decent wins" tier is a gigantic stretch.
So you just gonna list names and that's all ? Bud stopped every single opponent at his current weight. Spence was not looking so dominant in one division, even against Porter.