Why they have Crawford P4P?

It's called boxing skills. Canelo has some, Crawford is a wizard, not the Floyd level. I can't see anyone who would beat Bud, maybe Spence last year, but that window is closed now. He has great skills. But for me, to be P4P no.1 you need the skills AND the resume. Like it was said before we dont have a clear P4P guy right now. When Floyd was there it was obvious who was number 1. When Floyd retired and Manny was going up in division it was clear who was. When Roy Jones was destroying everybody, it was clear. Now the no.1 spot is pretty much to grab. I just think there is some fighters who got great skills and better resume than Crawford and they should take the spot but hey, to each our own.

I think he's generally ranked #2 after Loma. So you're all stirred up because most people rank Crawford a whole two or three spots ahead of where you do in a beauty contest? You were trying to be funny or something? Stirred up? Crawford is a very good fighter but his resume is pretty weak to be named #1 P4P. It is a forum where we post our thoughts and we discuss it. If you dont agree you give your opinion than we can discuss. Your childish answers prove that you a bit slow and a bit too emotional.

I just dont get it. I mean f#ck the eye test. Resume speaks for themselves. I am no fan of Canelo, but how is he not considered P4P #1 right now? Wether you had him losing the GGG fight or not he has 2 wins over him and he has the best resume beside Pacquiao. Crawford is for sure top 5 but why is he #1? I think he's generally ranked #2 after Loma. So you're all stirred up because most people rank Crawford a whole two or three spots ahead of where you do in a beauty contest?

When I see something that makes me think he's not the best active fighter in boxing. Could be tomorrow. Planning to update the list either way after this fight. Been a few months. Exactly. Innovation is important. I like your answer. Crawford is my number 1 best fighter in the world, too, not P4P. I don't deal in fantasies. I have Usyk 2, Canelo at 3, Spence 4.

I just dont get it. I mean f#ck the eye test. Resume speaks for themselves. I am no fan of Canelo, but how is he not considered P4P #1 right now? Wether you had him losing the GGG fight or not he has 2 wins over him and he has the best resume beside Pacquiao. Crawford is for sure top 5 but why is he #1? It's called boxing skills. Canelo has some, Crawford is a wizard, not the Floyd level. I can't see anyone who would beat Bud, maybe Spence last year, but that window is closed now.

Every publication has Lomachenko #1. RING, TBRB, BWAA, ESPN, Boxing News. The only place I can find with Crawford #1 is Boxing Scene, but that list is just one man's opinion. crold1, when are you moving Lomachenko to #1 on your list? When I see something that makes me think he's not the best active fighter in boxing. Could be tomorrow. Planning to update the list either way after this fight. Been a few months.

No hostility here. He is a great fighter but I just dont rate him no.1 like Ward and Kellerman were rating him. Fair enough. Loma is the obvious #1 but Crawford is a clear #2.

Its all good thats why I opened that thread. I dont agree that a fighter with a resume like Crawford has can be no.1 P4P. Like someone said right now there is no clear no.1 like we had when Floyd was there or when Manny was dominating. Its pretty hard to have a clear no.1 . I agree with that. I have Loma edging it but I don't have any compelling argument for anyone being a clear #1. I guess that's good for boxing though, if there's enough great fighters that no one can say one guy is head and shoulders above the rest.

Well, most boxing fans and media professionals disagree with your opinion then. That's ok though. Its all good thats why I opened that thread. I dont agree that a fighter with a resume like Crawford has can be no.1 P4P. Like someone said right now there is no clear no.1 like we had when Floyd was there or when Manny was dominating. Its pretty hard to have a clear no.1 .

I have both GGG and Canelo higher than Crawford on my list but don't argue with those who have Crawford number 1. I thought GGG beat Canelo twice in close great fights. Where in the hell do you get the wrong idea that Canelo has two wins over GGG???? The first Canelo-GGG fight was officially a DRAW not a Canelo win. Get your facts right. My mistake. Thats still a better win than anything Crawford has done.

I rate Canelo higher P4P than Crawford base on resume and eye test. Eye test alone isnt enough to be considered the best P4P fighter in the world. You cant have a weak resume and be the no.1 fighter... no way. Well, most boxing fans and media professionals disagree with your opinion then. That's ok though.

Crawford is a great fighter. Not sure what the hostility is? He’s #2 p4p but he’s in Loma’s class. No hostility here. He is a great fighter but I just dont rate him no.1 like Ward and Kellerman were rating him.

That's your problem. You don't understand what P4P rankings are. They aren't based on resume alone. That's why a lot of people entirely disregard them. They can't be qualified. Much of it is eye test. I rate Canelo higher P4P than Crawford base on resume and eye test. Eye test alone isnt enough to be considered the best P4P fighter in the world. You cant have a weak resume and be the no.1 fighter... no way.

Here is the thing. When making a P4P list, I don't feel any obligation to accept decisions that were incompetent or corrupt. Canelo had two incredibly close fights with GGG, and most had him losing the first. So unless you think GGG was P4P #1, then it is hard to see how going 1-1 against GGG is enough to make Canelo the top dog. Canelo has also benefited from other decisions which probably should have gone against him. That's why a lot of people don't have him on top of their P4P lists. P4P comes down to who you think would win in the hypothetical scenario that weight become irrelevant. There is nothing within that which suggests that anyone has to accept corrupt or incompetent decisions. Canelo had two close fights with GGG, who was considered a monster, even if he barely lost both fights on the books, it would have been close losses. A close loss vs GGG is probably better then Crawford's best win vs Postol. Crawford hasn't fought anyone in GGGs level, so because Crawford hasn't had a career defining fight, we reward him with #1 p4p while fighters that test themselves against the best best best, get punished for fighting and losing close fights. Not saying Canelo should be higher than Crawford, but it's hard it's a standard I don't like.

I just dont get it. I mean f#ck the eye test. That's your problem. You don't understand what P4P rankings are. They aren't based on resume alone. That's why a lot of people entirely disregard them. They can't be qualified. Much of it is eye test.

I really like Crawford. That said. I dont think he belongs in the welterweight division. Still damn good though.

I just dont get it. I mean f#ck the eye test. Resume speaks for themselves. I am no fan of Canelo, but how is he not considered P4P #1 right now? Wether you had him losing the GGG fight or not he has 2 wins over him and he has the best resume beside Pacquiao. Crawford is for sure top 5 but why is he #1? Guys goes 12 rds with benavidez a guy with one leg lmao. That's not a p4p number 1 showing.

if this was 90s, 2000s crawford will still considered a prospect

I just dont get it. I mean f#ck the eye test. Resume speaks for themselves. I am no fan of Canelo, but how is he not considered P4P #1 right now? Wether you had him losing the GGG fight or not he has 2 wins over him and he has the best resume beside Pacquiao. Crawford is for sure top 5 but why is he #1?I have both GGG and Canelo higher than Crawford on my list but don't argue with those who have Crawford number 1. I thought GGG beat Canelo twice in close great fights. Where in the hell do you get the wrong idea that Canelo has two wins over GGG???? The first Canelo-GGG fight was officially a DRAW not a Canelo win. Get your facts right.

So far, none of them are standout to be a recognized p4p# 1. Crawford is not unanimously recognized in that place, so is Loma nor Canelo.