Do you devalue Craw's accomplishment because of weak opposition?

[Mammoth]

Not at all. I don't know who else Crawford can beat to make him more of a better champion at 140. If the gap in talent is so wide between him and everybody else then you can't really blame Bud.

[The Big Dunn]

Compared to other fighters it is and any rational person would have Hagler rated higher. Hagler simply has the better resume.

well the poll was taken of historians/writers/journalists, all of whom are knowledgeable and love the sport. Perhaps its your "ranking" system that is flawed.

Take for example Crawford/Gamboa and Loma/Walters. Gamboa was undefeated but hadn't fought in a year-you criticize that win a bit. Walters was undefeated and hadn't fought in almost a year-you don't criticize the win at all.

Maybe you are not aware but that is extremely biased.

[The Big Dunn]

Other than fan boys who the fak would rate Floyed over Hagler? I wanna see said thread..........

who is Floyed?

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=653826

In the October issue of Ring magazine they asked 20 writers and historians to list their top 20 fighters since World War 2.
Points were awarded to each fighter = 20 points for 1st place placing, 19 points for 2nd place ect.
Here is how the total came out. The number of 1st place votes are in brackets.


1. Ray Robinson - 396pts - (17)
2. Henry Armstrong - 339 - (1)
3. Muhammad Ali - 324 - (1)
4. Roberto Duran - 296
5. Joe Luis - 293
6. Ray Leonard - 258
7. Willie Pep - 246 - (1)
8. Archie Moore - 189
9. Julio Cesar Chavez - 171
10. Ezzard Charles - 164
11. Perenell Whitaker - 132
12. Floyd Mayweather Jr - 118
13. Marvin Hagler - 117
14. Carlos Monzon - 98
15. Eder Jofre - 86
16. Sandy Saddler - 82
17. Roy Jones Jr - 80
18. Rocky Marciano - 77
19. Bernard Hopkins - 66
20. Ike Williams - 55

[Metho_4u]

I don't devalue it for the simple fact that this is at least his second division....and I go by skill. How much does he get hit? The fact he can fight equally well in either stance is also impressive. His timing of that body shot that hit indongo was excellent. However, he can be beaten which does make it interesting.

[Metho_4u]

well the poll was taken of historians/writers/journalists, all of whom are knowledgeable and love the sport. Perhaps its your "ranking" system that is flawed.

Take for example Crawford/Gamboa and Loma/Walters. Gamboa was undefeated but hadn't fought in a year-you criticize that win a bit. Walters was undefeated and hadn't fought in almost a year-you don't criticize the win at all.

Maybe you are not aware but that is extremely biased.

In fairness to lomachenco...walters turned down that fight and career high payday 6 months or so prior to the fight in November. People blame lomachenco for that somehow being his fault...i really don't get that.

[.!WAR MIKEY!.]

crawford career is meh at best.

[The Big Dunn]

In fairness to lomachenco...walters turned down that fight and career high payday 6 months or so prior to the fight in November. People blame lomachenco for that somehow being his fault...i really don't get that.

I don't blame Loma as much as i do Bob. Walters couldn't make 126 anymore. My point is Sheldon312 is only penalizing the Gamboa win and not Walters even though both guys were off about a year.

[Sheldon312]

I don't blame Loma as much as i do Bob. Walters couldn't make 126 anymore. My point is Sheldon312 is only penalizing the Gamboa win and not Walters even though both guys were off about a year.

I swear to God you guys just don't understand. Loma has beated better quality opponents compared to Crawford I just don't see how you can say otherwise.

[Mammoth]

crawford career is meh at best.

Broner would probably go twelve with Indongo and get a split decision win... Mikey is great

[.!WAR MIKEY!.]

Mikey is great

I agree, Mikey Is Great!