Who had the better career at Welterweight: Pacquiao or Crawford?

[HisExcellency]

I'm talking about July 2019, you know, when they fought each other?

Spence was #1, Crawford was #2 and Thurman was #3.

Lol those rankings are BS...Thurman was only ranked #3 because he was INACTIVE between March 2017-July 2019 due to injury. He only fought ONCE in that time period (against Lopez) whereas both Crawford & Spence fought 3 & 4 times respectively.

It's actually HILARIOUS that you believe that Crawford beating certified bums like Horn, Jose Benavidez & Khan (post 4 losses & 3 KO's) means he's a 'better Welterweight' than Thurman at that particular point in time who'd already beaten champions like Garcia, Porter, Collazo, Guerrero etc. His Ring Welterweight ranking was obviously influenced by his previous work at Light Welterweight where he was the undisputed champion.

[Coverdale]

Lol those rankings are BS...Thurman was only ranked #3 because he was INACTIVE between March 2017-July 2019 due to injury. He only fought ONCE in that time period (against Lopez) whereas both Crawford & Spence fought 3 & 4 times respectively.

It's actually HILARIOUS that you believe that Crawford beating certified bums like Horn, Jose Benavidez & Khan (post 4 losses & 3 KO's) means he's a 'better Welterweight' than Thurman at that particular point in time who'd already beaten champions like Garcia, Porter, Collazo, Guerrero etc. His Ring Welterweight ranking was obviously influenced by his previous work at Light Welterweight where he was the undisputed champion.

This is another one of those irreconcilable differences I'm afraid. Some (including me) believe rankings should be compiled purely on merit, others think potential should also be factored in. You can argue for another 54 pages, you're never going to reach a point where one of you says "point conceded". Your personal egos are also obviously a factor here

[IronDanHamza]

Lol those rankings are BS...Thurman was only ranked #3 because he was INACTIVE between March 2017-July 2019 due to injury. He only fought ONCE in that time period (against Lopez) whereas both Crawford & Spence fought 3 & 4 times respectively.

It's actually HILARIOUS that you believe that Crawford beating certified bums like Horn, Jose Benavidez & Khan (post 4 losses & 3 KO's) means he's a 'better Welterweight' than Thurman at that particular point in time who'd already beaten champions like Garcia, Porter, Collazo, Guerrero etc. His Ring Welterweight ranking was obviously influenced by his previous work at Light Welterweight where he was the undisputed champion.

Facts don’t care about your feelings, I’m afraid.

He was ranked #3, that is a fact. Therefore he was not the best WW in the world at the time. He was the third best meaning two other people were considered better.

Nobody considered Thurman to the the best WW in the world at that time. Because, he wasn’t, he was third.

He’d had one fight in 2 years and hadn’t beaten a ranked fighter in 28 months, the one (unranked) fighter he did fight in Lopez had him out on his feet. He was lucky to be #3 at the time let alone #1 which is objectively wasn’t.

[IronDanHamza]

This is another one of those irreconcilable differences I'm afraid. Some (including me) believe rankings should be compiled purely on merit, others think potential should also be factored in. You can argue for another 54 pages, you're never going to reach a point where one of you says "point conceded". Your personal egos are also obviously a factor here

Well, not really because Keith Thurman was objectively not considered the best WW in the world in 2019.

Not even close either.

[djtmal]

Facts don't care about your feelings, dumbass.

That's not a feeling son

[HisExcellency]

Facts don’t care about your feelings, I’m afraid.

He was ranked #3, that is a fact. Therefore he was not the best WW in the world at the time. He was the third best meaning two other people were considered better.

Nobody considered Thurman to the the best WW in the world at that time. Because, he wasn’t, he was third.

He’d had one fight in 2 years and hadn’t beaten a ranked fighter in 28 months, the one (unranked) fighter he did fight in Lopez had him out on his feet. He was lucky to be #3 at the time let alone #1 which is objectively wasn’t.

Lol you can't just ignore the FACT that Crawford received an elevated ranking due to being undisputed Light Welterweight champion (similar to the boost he received amongst the 4 alphabet bodies PRIOR to making his debut at Welterweight) plus the FACT that Thurman's low ranking was largely due to inactivity.

However, any logical minded person would realise that at that particular point in time (July 20 2019), Crawford had only had 3 fights at Welterweight against 3 bums. Firstly, he beat Horn who should've NEVER been champion in the first place having been outlanded 182 vs. 92 punches overall (and 11 rounds to 1) by Pacquiao according to CompuBox. Secondly, he beat Jose Benavidez Jr who did absolutely NOTHING at the weight and glass-chinned Khan who'd already been splattered by Prescott, Garcia & Canelo and started his career at Lightweight.

In comparison, Thurman was a CAREER Welterweight and a UNIFIED champion at the weight class having beaten no less than 6 champions e.g. Garcia, Porter, Collazo, Guerrero, Zaveck & Quintana.

Honestly, if you truly believe that Bud stepping up to Welterweight and beating 3 absolute BUMS makes him a 'better Welterweight' than Thurman who'd already beaten 6 CHAMPIONS at the weight than the jokes on you. As for Spence, he'd only beaten 2 legit Welterweight champions at the time Thurman fought Pacquiao (Brook & PEDerson) so shouldn't have been ranked above Thurman either if not for greater activity (ditto for Bud).

But yeah, keep holding onto your beloved Ring magazine rankings without any context lmao!

[djtmal]

Lol those rankings are BS...Thurman was only ranked #3 because he was INACTIVE between March 2017-July 2019 due to injury. He only fought ONCE in that time period (against Lopez) whereas both Crawford & Spence fought 3 & 4 times respectively.

It's actually HILARIOUS that you believe that Crawford beating certified bums like Horn, Jose Benavidez & Khan (post 4 losses & 3 KO's) means he's a 'better Welterweight' than Thurman at that particular point in time who'd already beaten champions like Garcia, Porter, Collazo, Guerrero etc. His Ring Welterweight ranking was obviously influenced by his previous work at Light Welterweight where he was the undisputed champion.

Fuuk Iron Dan he's not the be all and end all around here.

Thurman was the guy and someone had to beat him for him not to be the guy. That guy was Manny.

Crawford is a good fighter but if you talking about ww careers his was fought in obscurity compared to Manny. Faded Oscar was better than Crawford's ww resume.

[HisExcellency]

This is another one of those irreconcilable differences I'm afraid. Some (including me) believe rankings should be compiled purely on merit, others think potential should also be factored in. You can argue for another 54 pages, you're never going to reach a point where one of you says "point conceded". Your personal egos are also obviously a factor here

Lol there's no 'irreconcilable differences' at all...this guy religiously sticks to his Ring magazine rankings like a religious fundamentalist and their holy book. Absolutely NOTHING you say can change his opinion. For example, he refuses to acknowledge that Thurman was a puncher during his prime despite Keith's 75% career KO ratio and having dropped/stopped 25/32 opponents he ever shared the ring with. However, fortunately 99.9% of other fighter's, pundits & fans think the opposite

Re this particular debate, Thurman had already beaten 6 Welterweight champions and been a unified champion by the time he fought Pacquiao. In comparison, Crawford & Spence had only won one title each and Bud's resume at that particular point in time was completely laughable. Spence's was only slightly better but still nothing compared to Thurman's and he only gained some credibility in the division AFTER beating Keith's leftover's (Garcia & Porter) lmao!

[Coverdale]

Not even close either.

About your ego? I don't think so, what other motivation do people have for arguing repetitively online like this? That desire to have the last word and not be seen to lose face in front of a (mostly imagined) audience is a significant proportion of internet interaction. Particularly between men.

I find it fascinating to observe.

[Coverdale]

Lol there's no 'irreconcilable differences' at all...this guy religiously sticks to his Ring magazine rankings like a religious fundamentalist and their holy book. Absolutely NOTHING you say can change his opinion. For example, he refuses to acknowledge that Thurman was a puncher during his prime despite Keith's 75% career KO ratio and having dropped/stopped 25/32 opponents he ever shared the ring with. However, fortunately 99.9% of other fighter's, pundits & fans think the opposite

Re this particular debate, Thurman had already beaten 6 Welterweight champions and been a unified champion by the time he fought Pacquiao. In comparison, Crawford & Spence had only won one title each and Bud's resume at that particular point in time was completely laughable. Spence's was only slightly better but still nothing compared to Thurman's and he only gained some credibility in the division AFTER beating Keith's leftover's (Garcia & Porter) lmao!

It's self-evident that Pacquiao's welterweight career is superior to Crawford's, the main holdouts seem to be Mayweather obsessives continuing their stale crusade 16 years on. It's a waste of energy trying to reach the unreachable.