No, Gamboa was landing because Crawford wanted to fight toe to toe. He could've used the Postol game plan and not get hit...
Golovkin is very talented and skilled. You can't discredit him like that. And this list looks suspect, they're all black.
He's the tougher fighter, that's why he obliterates people. You're going to rate him higher because he's stronger?
Golovkins ranks higher than Crawford. No doubt about it. The latter is too green and might be overrated.
Winning however you see fit. It's ignorant to rate someone higher just because they're stronger overall. Both Crawford and Golovkin are highly skilled at what they do respectively. I get it, you like guys with power. But there's more to it than that.
It's not just because of Golovkin's power. His chin is exceptional. His power is incredible. His footwork and ring cutting is great. He knows what he's doing and he hits so damn hard. It's hard to believe how much damage he can cause.
You're wet, aren't you? Again, you're focusing on Golovkin's STRENGTH more than his SKILL. Golovkin is a great fighter, imo. But I got Crawford ahead, p4p, because of the Postol win. By YOUR criteria, it's impossible to rate Crawford above Golovkin. That's why your criteria is flawed.
WTF? What's wrong with focusing on Golovkin's chin and power? You do know that when he hits people it devastates them. What happens is that they cannot continue the fight because the power puts their lives at risk.
There's nothing wrong with focusing on his strength, but that's all your focusing on and basing your criteria off of that. What about guys with less power? Can they not be rated higher because they're not as strong?