Why is Crawford ranked ahead of GGG and Canelo?

He beat Jacobs convincingly and arguably beat Canelo. I want to say GGG lost both, but I could make an argument against myself for him winning both. That's why I said disputable. Nothing exciting or memorable about either fight. The best fighter in the world shouldn't be described in such lame words.

Don't tie Canelo to GGG. Canelo might have a better resume than Crawford, but GGG has below average resume. Wade, Geale, Rosado, et al? His resume is shit. Golovkin is strong but robotic, with no defense. His defense is especially a joke. What skills of Golovkin have wowed you? He scores average here. I used to like his punch technique and ring cutting skills (even these don't seem to work against B and B+ boxers like Jacobs and Canelo). The only two times he had stepped up, they were both disputable. He beat Jacobs convincingly and arguably beat Canelo.

Both are highly skilled and both have better resumes than Crawford Don't tie Canelo to GGG. Canelo might have a better resume than Crawford, but GGG has below average resume. Wade, Geale, Rosado, et al? His resume is shit. Golovkin is strong but robotic, with no defense. His defense is especially a joke. What skills of Golovkin have wowed you? He scores average here. I used to like his punch technique and ring cutting skills (even these don't seem to work against B and B+ boxers like Jacobs and Canelo). The only two times he had stepped up, they were both disputable.

The question should rather be, why are Golovkin and Canelo even on the P4P list? Crawford has managed to be the one unbeatable guy in multiple divisions that no one there could mess with, while Golovkin and Canelo are not even the definitive champs of one division and have plenty of opponents around that could possibly beat them. They simply don't have Crawford's aura of invincibility and he's not a primitive slugger like them. I agree with this. Good observation. I think it's because there aren't any REAL, true elites anymore. Just a bunch of pretenders and prospects! Green K sent.

Pound for pound actually means if all were the same size who is the best? We aren't asking who will go ahead of who in the record books as it stands. Crawford passes the eye test as much or more than any fighter alive. Loma, Spence, Charlos, and Rigo say hi.

The question should rather be, why are Golovkin and Canelo even on the P4P list? Crawford has managed to be the one unbeatable guy in multiple divisions that no one there could mess with, while Golovkin and Canelo are not even the definitive champs of one division and have plenty of opponents around that could possibly beat them. They simply don't have Crawford's aura of invincibility and he's not a primitive slugger like them. Both are highly skilled and both have better resumes than Crawford

TRBR is the only publication that matter that has him ranked #1. Ring and ESPN (the other 2 that matter) have Golovkin at #1 So overall Golovkin is #1 If Crawford wasn't American, many of the writers who rank him #1 wouldn't if he was from another country. ESPN doesn't matter. RING is incredibly biased given the owner. The TRBR is fair and unbiased, and doesn't do things like make a voter change his vote for TV purposes like ESPN did with Atlas.

PFP is just personal opinion and not fact. It's supposed to be how good you think a boxer is right now based on very recent fights. It's not the same as resume at at all. Resume is what a boxer has already done, PFP is how good you think a boxer is today for his weight class from what you have seen. He doesn't have to have beaten anybody special. You only have to think he is good for his pounds. Anybody can rank boxers anyway they want and nobody can tell others how to rank boxers pound for pound. If you don't think Crawford is number 1 then don't put him number 1. I have GGG number 1 and Crawford number 3 behind Loma but that's just me. I don't tell others where they should rank boxers PFP. That's their choice.

Pound for pound actually means if all were the same size who is the best? We aren't asking who will go ahead of who in the record books as it stands. Crawford passes the eye test as much or more than any fighter alive.

TRBR is the only publication that matter that has him ranked #1. Ring and ESPN (the other 2 that matter) have Golovkin at #1 So overall Golovkin is #1 If Crawford wasn't American, many of the writers who rank him #1 wouldn't if he was from another country.

Why doesn't Rigo count? Hasnt fought a top opponent since Donaire in 2013. No way of knowing if he is still the same fighter If he beats Loma he would go to no.1. Not just cos of that win, but because he would show that he is still the same guy who beat Donaire.

P4P isn't just about resume. That's why. He's not my #1 but things are so close that you can expect people to have different P4P lists, post-Ward. Tomorrow night will likely make it even more complicated.

Both ESPN (the one that matters) and Ring have GGG ranked #1 Pound for Pound. I dont know which weird ranking site you are talking about?

The question should rather be, why are Golovkin and Canelo even on the P4P list? Crawford has managed to be the one unbeatable guy in multiple divisions that no one there could mess with, while Golovkin and Canelo are not even the definitive champs of one division and have plenty of opponents around that could possibly beat them. They simply don't have Crawford's aura of invincibility and he's not a primitive slugger like them.

Skill. People are giving him credit for his skill level which is top class. GGG is my favorite fighter but I rank him behind Crawford. Crawford is the total package. Yes, but GGG has the better resume. That's like saying Mikey should be ranked higher than Thurman due to being more technical but it is clear that Keith has the superior resume

I have GG and Canelo 1 and 2 respectively (i thought GG won a close one) They both elevated themselves in that fight imo. Crawford in 3. Loma 4. Both those guys have good wins, and they look the goods, but need that defining opponent now (no Rigo does not count). Why doesn't Rigo count?

I have GG and Canelo 1 and 2 respectively (i thought GG won a close one) They both elevated themselves in that fight imo. Crawford in 3. Loma 4. Both those guys have good wins, and they look the goods, but need that defining opponent now (no Rigo does not count).