Who ranks higher P4P - Crawford or Golovkin?

I just said that Golovkin is good at cutting off the ring. His footwork is great too.

 

He's not better than Crawford, and Crawford is not better than Golovkin. They fight to their strengths, and they're able to impose their fight in different ways. Golovkin uses his strength, Crawford uses his speed. You can't rate someone higher based on preference. With that said, Crawford's win over Postol just put him ahead of Golovkin, in my book.

I'm being fair with my criteria.

 

Golovkin easily steamrolls every opponent he faces. Crawford is good and he is in my short list of boxer I follow and make sure I watch, with Ward, GGG, Loma, and Kovalev. But let's face it, Crawford didn't beat elite guys yet either : Gamboa had lost before and Postol was nothing special, even with his good wins.

Both are good but GGG is special, with Loma and Kovalev.

 

WTF you be takin' 'bout, boy ???


Where do you see anything SUBTLE in Rummy's thread ?

 

To answer the thread question, I could accept either answer.

Personally, I would have GGG ahead on sheer dominance.

Forget his power and footwork.

The man has the best chin in the game at this point.

And there's no one in his division that comes remotely close.

(Crawford has a better resume)

 

Look at the pool. It's not even close. I mean that you should have compared Golovkins with someone else.:yep

 

Crawford is a legitimate 2 division champion tested at the highest level so far.

Golovkin is a legitimate 0 weight champ untested at the highest level.

Right now Crawford ranks higher. I do expect history to show Golovkin as the greater fighter though.

 

I rate GGG higher than Crawford.
Crawford is young and has a decent speed and many of his skills depend on speed GGG on the other side is much older and relies heavily on his IQ and skills rather than speed. The thing is that speed from what I've seen doesn't really work against GGG as he finds his ways to land a shot, while if we take speed from Crawford would he be able to show the same is really questionable.
But at the same time Crawford is really good fighter.

 

Crawford edges ahead with a superior resume. Both are stellar examples of P4P fighters but very different styles of fighting.

 

Golovkin.

 

:deal

 

Okay i'll play

Golovkin - Arguably the P4P#1 boxer on the planet

Crawford - P4P top 10 - behind GGG, Lomo, Gonzalez, Rigo, Kovalev, Ward(?) and probably some other guys i havent heard of

Must try harder :bart

 

:huh
Gamboa was undefeated until he fought Crawford. Crawford's resume is much better than GGG's that's not even up for debate. Both are skilled but based on level of comp, you have to rate Crawford higher if you don't you have no credibility and can't be taken seriously. Crawford is younger with fewer fights and already has a better resume than GGG, let that sink in.

 

:rofl:nut
Stupid point. If we take power from GGG then how good is he really?

 

Based on what? Who has he beat of note? He has yet to demonstrate his ability against anyone worth a damn. Anyone can look like the second coming when their best win is Martin Murray. It would be like Crawford staying at 135 not moving up and killing everyone there with his best win being Burns.:deal How good is he really?