Crawford is a problem, funny how perception can change over time with fighters excitement.
It was a decent fight, not as bad as some people make out but I weren't expecting it to be a classic with Postol's style and Crawford being unpredictable.
I won't be surprised if Roach advises Pacquiao not to fight Crawford, he knew how dangerous Crawford was before the Postol fight.
I wasn't keeping up with social media and reactions during the fight, so I was surprised at what I read following it.
I'm a fan of TC, and was pulling for him in this fight. Personally I thought it was a pretty exciting event overall. Getting a little drama courtesy of no-hoper Karpency in the 1st round set the stage. Then Benevidez/Santana engaged in an intriguing fight in which it became a question if underdog Santana could win on mostly heart alone (and nearly did IMO). Following that, got to see a true beast in Valdez do his thing in short order.
The main event had a lot of tension in the first few rounds. But what makes Crawford so great (and has in his past fights) is his ability to scout and adjust. Knockdowns in the 5th, then some good sticking and moving for the rest. This progression of events, combined with well timed beers in between, made it an enjoyable night.
I guess if you were expecting a slugfest (or were pulling for Postol) I could see the fight as a disappointment. But I personally was glad I bought the PPV after going back and forth that night on whether I should.
Comment