Comments Thread For: Crawford: I Won't Get Credit for Beating Pacquiao AND Lomachenko

[boxingitis]

He'd beat pacquiao.



The Garcia thing is personal, and the Pac thing is a no-brainer. Jesse Vargas made nearly 3 mil for goodness sakes.

Yeah and Pacman wants 20 million to face Crawford, that money doesn't exist anymore. PPV is dead.

[Dean_Razorback]

If he can beat Pacquiao and Lomachenko I can't see how he wouldn't get credit.

Wait a minute, I can actually see it. He's right, some of these fans would find a reason to discredit him.

beating a past prime guy with twice as fights as he has and a guy 2 weight classes below him? yeah, tons of credits he deserves.

[Drew Bundini Br]

Crawford told it exactly the way it is!!

[wrecksracer]

I respect Crawford for his wins...mainly Postol and Gamboa, but the fact is he's in a weak weight class. Add to that, his best win (Postol), he completely stunk the joint out in a fight he was winning easily. Didn't try to end the show. Didn't try to entertain on his first PPV. Will anybody buy another Crawford PPV? Not based on his last one. How about trying to fight a bigger name than Postol? How about going after Broner? He's at least got name recognition.....or start testing the waters at 147. The only way you can put this guy on a Pound for Pound list is based on the old "eyeball test"....which is flawed and subjective. Good luck to him, but he sounds like he's whining.

[MrRolltide91]

He's right....

[MrRolltide91]

Welcome to the world of boxing, Terence.

It doesn't matter who you are, no matter who you beat -- a bunch of armchair keyboard warrior boxing "experts" on their laptops, who aren't fans of yours, will spend countless hours typing away trying to discredit anything you do and anybody you beat.

Just the way it is.

Ask Floyd, ask Manny, ask Cotto, ask Canelo, ask Gennady, ask Wilder, ask Swift, ask SOG, ask Kovalev, ask Chocolatito, ask every other successful boxer of this era and any era that proceeded it.

True........

[chrisJS]

Yes it's absurd to anoint him victory over an all-time great who still happens to be ranked as the top welterweight in the world who can beat any welterweight not named Mayweather at the moment. Crawford has never even fought at 147 yet.
Roach said it's a tough fight but never said Crawford is too much for him. I agree it's a very tough fight for both guys but discrediting Pacquiao before they even step in the ring in my opinion is jumping the gun

Nobody is discrediting Pacquaio. They are just going with the logic that Crawford is an excellent fighter in his prime against a once great fighter a few years removed from his. Would you give Crawford full credit if he beat Pacquaio? Or would you cry that Pacquaio was too old and too small?

I'd view it as a very good win for Crawford, but a little more important to his marketability and mainstream appeal.

[PAC-BOY]

What does this have to do with welfare? Crawford said he won't get credit for beating two other boxers and you're saying he needs to get a job and get out of line for handouts! So from now on any time a boxer can says anything to promote himself its equivalent to his welfare mentality. Does that goes for Golovkin, Canelo, Rigondeaux, or just certain boxers?

Hes NOT self promoting. Hes crying about not getting respect or his credit. It is because he has not earned it. To say you wont get credit for beating to of the biggest names in the sport is simply ******ed.

[chrisJS]

Not only was Brook a blown-up WW, look at his 3 previous fights! Even his win over Porter was not impressive. Jacobs is talented but so was Ricky Burns and Gamboa. When Postol schooled Matthysse, he was "a beast!" When he gets schooled by TC, "he's nobody." For some reason Crawford and Mikey Garcia can't get the same love that GGG and Loma get, and it's ****ing ridiculous!

There is a bias. GGG fanboys are just as ridiculous as the haters. It's a dumb comparison and not sure why GGG is in the discussion but Burns and Jacobs aren't comparable (Jacobs is clearly a better fighter, esp at this stage), but then again the nature of wins wasn't (Crawford won easily nearly by shut out, GGG won a solid 7-5/8-4). Brook, I don't really rate that as a great win for GGG. Brook is a damn good fighter though and the Porter win was impressive. It's a weird way to discredit GGG by discrediting Brook's clear win over Porter.

I think Crawford is better than GGG overall, but the resumes and recent resumes I can see why one would put GGG ahead in a mythical pound for pound sense. I personally rate Crawford at the #2 spot (Lomachenko being my #1 pick).

[filup79]

The difference is that Crawford comes into the ring in the mid 150s, so yea they're gong to say your're too big for 135-140