Comments Thread For: Sorry, Terence Crawford, but this is boxing?s Mt. Rushmore

[DeeMoney]

I'll try to contextualize this in a way that modern era would understand
Lets say in this scenario, Pacquiao = Duran. Imagine Pacquiao losing to Dela Hoya and Cotto (hall of famers) but ended up beating Floyd Mayweather in his prime. Would that put Pacquiao above Armstrong? HELL NO
"Duran went up in weight and he was older...etc." 135 to 147 is 12 pounds difference and he had EIGHT tune ups at welterweight before SRL. He fully acclimated at welterweight. Last I check 28-29 is not old. He was in the prime of his life against SRL 1. The way you talk about Duran you treat him like he's the smallest guy around. Armstrong and Pacquiao are smaller than him (5'5 vs 5'7). Half of Pacquiao's fights were below featherweight and he debut at MINIMUMWEIGHT. Armstrong beat Sarron for the featherweight title, beat Ross for the welterweight title, and beat Ambers for the lightweight title in LESS THAN A YEAR

Duran's jump of 135 to 147 is 12 pounds
Armstrong's jump of 126 to 147 is 21 pounds
Armstrong fought no welterweight tune ups against Barney Ross for the welterweight title.
Duran is my favorite lightweight and arguably the best lightweight of all time but buy no means a Top 5 ATG.
Most boxing historians will have Greb, Langford, Robinson, Armstrong, and Ali as their Rushmore and deservedly so.

I have both Duran and Armstrong as top 10 atgs, but I rate Duran very highly and base on what I see in the ring relative to era.
Most historians will rate a disproportionate number of pre ww2 fighter high on their list as things were so much different then. Heck, Armstrongs '38 is a deeper resume than even modern era greats could do in their entire career. But I dont think that makes him by default better than Duran.

As an aside, my mentions of age for Duran arent related to hus late 20s fights at welter, its his later fights when he was fighting at SWW. And even though he had time to acclimate, that doesnt mean his body was built for it. That being said, I dont put as much stock into moving up in weight as others do. I think dominating a single weight class is as great as moving up through them

[ijudge]

I have both Duran and Armstrong as top 10 atgs, but I rate Duran very highly and base on what I see in the ring relative to era.
Most historians will rate a disproportionate number of pre ww2 fighter high on their list as things were so much different then. Heck, Armstrongs '38 is a deeper resume than even modern era greats could do in their entire career. But I dont think that makes him by default better than Duran.

As an aside, my mentions of age for Duran arent related to hus late 20s fights at welter, its his later fights when he was fighting at SWW. And even though he had time to acclimate, that doesnt mean his body was built for it. That being said, I dont put as much stock into moving up in weight as others do. I think dominating a single weight class is as great as moving up through them

"Things were so much different back then"
Yes. Every era is different from one another. But you rate a fighter for the things they achieved in their era and the fighters they fought at that time.

"But I dont think that makes him by default better than Duran"
I see what you're trying to do. You are trying to put these two fighters inside the ring cognizant that Armstrong is from an earlier era with all the perception of a modern take.
In essence you are trying to make Duran better.
But what did Duran achieved in his era vs what Armstrong achieved in his era?

"I think dominating a single weight class is as great as moving up through them"
You can certainly dominate a single weight class if it wasn't that deep in his era.
He fought one hall of famer at lightweight (Buchanan). That's it.
Duran's record at welterweight is more impressive than his lightweight.
He beat three hall of famers at or around welterweight (Palomino, SRL, and Cuevas)

[landotter]

I am way more interested in the top 4 cereals of all time......

[peplz]

This ridiculously long article actually made Crawford’s argument even stronger

[Coverdale]

This ridiculously long article actually made Crawford’s argument even stronger

The whole premise is ridiculous and arbitrary. The idea the entirety of boxing history should be summarised with four faces carved into a mountain side.

[Oregonian]

What!?? Lmfao

Froid on the top 5 WW list for what? Robert the bum guerrero? Maidana? Being roided up against pac with help from USADA and 750ML of IV!?

——-
Well, PAC-I’m-afraid -of-needles was always getting them Ariza special shakes.

[Grandma Lover]

——-
Well, PAC-I’m-afraid -of-needles was always getting them Ariza special shakes.

He wasn't with Ariza for the fight with froid and by the way froid worked with ariza for his fight against maidana you idiot

I love how ****** you froid fans are lmfao

[SteveM]

Tyson just did like 30m views for a exhibition and he’s nearly 60. Inoue isn’t in the same stratosphere even now.

Get what you are saying - my son is a complete casual but he is entertained by Inoue. He would also know Tyson, Fury, Joshua and Canelo - that's it.

[Cyborg Fangerloo]

NOBODY should ever be considered again for any kind of all time whatever - Rushmore or GOAT list or anything close to that with such pitiful fighting frequencies.
- Greb fought weekly, sometimes multiple times per week. Close to 300 fights.
- Duran fought 199, with a win streak of 41 and another of 13
- Archie Moore knocked out 131 dudes.

Crawford has had 5 fights in the last 5 years. Sitting back and picking the specific guys that make you the most money that you can also surely beat should NEVER be considered for any prize other than King Turd on Poop Mountain!
I am not saying he is not a great fighter - just saying that we are embarrassing ourselves here.

[Left Hook Louie]

I am way more interested in the top 4 cereals of all time......

1. Sugar Ray (Robinson)
2. Sugar Ray (Leonard)
3. Sugar Shane
4. Cornflake