>>> Thurman's resume is better than Golovkin's and Kovalev's...

[Deletrious]

Thurman wins over Garcia and Porter are great wins, though neither was by a wide margin. Thurman's resume is pretty thin after that. Kovalev and Golovkin both have better resumes.

Looking at opponents ranked in division at the time of the fight, I like Kovalev's resume the best myself.

Kovalev has faced Ward #2, (close disputed decision) Pascal #3 (x2), Hopkins #1, Cleverly #5, Campillo #3.

Golovkin has faced Jacobs #2, Lemieux #4, Murray #4, Geale #5, Macklin #6, Proska #9.

[Loque-san]

3 top 5 guys? Top 5 what? Since when do you care about where guys are ranked according to governing bodies? Postol is Crawford's only credible win, he can add Diaz to that in May.

Burns, Beltran and Postol were all in the top 5 according to Ring Magazine, ESPN, etc. when Crawford beat them. Beltran and Postol were actually ranked second, respectively at 135 and 140, behind Crawford. I'm not saying Beltran was the second best lightweight in the world at the time, for me he wasn't, but at least officially, he was.

[b Murphington]

B-Hop baby! X-MAN!!! let it rain!

Broke my heart to see the old vet go out like that. That post fight interview with Max in the dressing room was almost cringe worthy too.

[boliodogs]

What makes you the resume authority? If his resume was so obviously the best everyone would already know it. You wouldn't need to explain it.

[John Locke]

Burns, Beltran and Postol were all in the top 5 according to Ring Magazine, ESPN, etc. when Crawford beat them. Beltran and Postol were actually ranked second, respectively at 135 and 140, behind Crawford. I'm not saying Beltran was the second best lightweight in the world at the time, for me he wasn't, but at least officially, he was.

There's nothing 'official' about The Ring Magazine. Burns and Beltran aren't even better wins than Guerrero, who's barely one of Thurman's top 5 wins. Postol is a legit win for Crawford and he gets full credit for that. Diaz is Crawford's toughest opponent to date imo, that would be a really solid win for his resume and I'm not even sure if he's ranked by any governing bodies or Ring Magazine.

All these websites and governing bodies are agenda-ridden, I don't take much notice of where they rank fighters.

[boliodogs]

I think the very close fight with Ward puts Kovalev ahead, Golovkins is garbage though.

Of course you say GGG's resume is garbage. You are a professional GGG hater. That's all you do. You call him 666. The symbol for the devil. If GGG KOed Ward in the 1st round you would still say his resume is garbage.

[daggum]

There's nothing 'official' about The Ring Magazine. Burns and Beltran aren't even better wins than Guerrero, who's barely one of Thurman's top 5 wins. Postol is a legit win for Crawford and he gets full credit for that. Diaz is Crawford's toughest opponent to date imo, that would be a really solid win for his resume and I'm not even sure if he's ranked by any governing bodies or Ring Magazine.

All these websites and governing bodies are agenda-ridden, I don't take much notice of where they rank fighters.

whats so good about beating guerrero at 147? he was terrible there. burns and beltran are quality guys at 135.

[satiev1]

Danny garcia and porter better than jacobs a guy who's faster, longer reach, taller p4p, with better skills? Lay off the crack.

[Loque-san]

There's nothing 'official' about The Ring Magazine. Burns and Beltran aren't even better wins than Guerrero, who's barely one of Thurman's top 5 wins. Postol is a legit win for Crawford and he gets full credit for that. Diaz is Crawford's toughest opponent to date imo, that would be a really solid win for his resume and I'm not even sure if he's ranked by any governing bodies or Ring Magazine.

All these websites and governing bodies are agenda-ridden, I don't take much notice of where they rank fighters.

Who's official then? It's not just Ring Magazine man, ESPN, TBRB and probably Boxing Scene as well had Burns in the top 5 and Beltran # 2.

I don't think Burns and Beltran are better wins than Guerrero either but that's not the point. You disputed the fact that Crawford had beaten three top 5 guys but his resume says otherwise.

[John Locke]

whats so good about beating guerrero at 147? he was terrible there. burns and beltran are quality guys at 135.

Guerrero isn't a signature victory for Thurman, it's just a decent win, nothing more. With that said, P4P he's definitely better than Burns and Beltran.

Who's official then? It's not just Ring Magazine man, ESPN, TBRB and probably Boxing Scene as well had Burns in the top 5 and Beltran # 2.

I don't think Burns and Beltran are better wins than Guerrero either but that's not the point. You disputed the fact that Crawford had beaten three top 5 guys but his resume says otherwise.

There are no 'official' bodies in this sport unfortunately, these people just make up rules as they go along, whenever it suits them. I think it's best to judge fighters based on how good they actually are and who they've beaten, rather than where they're ranked, because that's all politics.