crawford is 42-0 at 38. he is not, and nobody ever will be, better than a fighter who died at 32 with 300 fights. a fighter who had a 45-0 YEAR with TEN (10) hall of fame wins. his 1 year is better than whole careers of everybody below ~top20 all time.
so, no. crawford is not the best of all time. he's a veritable all time great for sure with a fun style to watch. it was a pleasure to watch him from 2014 to this day.
and to everybody in the future, compare a modern boxer to ray leonard who is #10. he's the only inactive one who basically nobody disputes is a top10 ever. when some boxer accomplish wins on the level of duran, benitez, hearns (insane welterweight era), kalule, hagler and lalonde, we can talk. i think if crawford beats bivol next year, it still wouldn't be better than leonard. there are simply not enough greats to beat and build your resume in this century because they are very inactive and matchmaking is trash. it's not because modern fighters are not talented.
so, no. crawford is not the best of all time. he's a veritable all time great for sure with a fun style to watch. it was a pleasure to watch him from 2014 to this day.
and to everybody in the future, compare a modern boxer to ray leonard who is #10. he's the only inactive one who basically nobody disputes is a top10 ever. when some boxer accomplish wins on the level of duran, benitez, hearns (insane welterweight era), kalule, hagler and lalonde, we can talk. i think if crawford beats bivol next year, it still wouldn't be better than leonard. there are simply not enough greats to beat and build your resume in this century because they are very inactive and matchmaking is trash. it's not because modern fighters are not talented.
Comment