Comments Thread For: Terence Crawford is The BWAA's Pound-For-Pound Number 1

[Raggamuffin]

I've heard you big up Crawford's win over Gamboa.

So answer the following questions -

Why is Walter's 11 months of inactivity a factor but Gamboa's 12 months of inactivity a non factor? I believe 12 months is more than 11 thus more rust collected.

Why is Rigo moving up in weight a factor when Gamboa moving up in weight a non-factor? Crawford was a huge lightweight fighting an average sized featherweight who's also not in Rigo's league as a fighter.

Who did Indongo beat all that special? Is he really a better fighter than Russell? If so, why did you (and don't act like you didn't) pick Russell to beat Loma?

Also, Postol was inactive 10 months coming into Crawford fight. Is 10 months that much different than 11 months? Walters also had a better win (Donaire) than Postol (Mattheyse).

Can you answer these questions or just admit that you have a major bias? I'm assuming there's a bias since obviously standards are different for different fighters.

Let's put this in a nutshell. Loma lost and Crawford is undefeated. You can't even name enough opponents for Loma to be considers pfp over Crawford. Crawfords resume is better than Lomas too and Loma hasn't even gained revenge against Salido.

[-PBP-]

Well deserved

[joseph5620]

Overrated. Besides the unification against ok guys in a weak division, he really hasn't done much compared to others on the list.

What others on the list are so much more accomplished?

[chrisJS]

Ok, so was Joe Calzaghe better than Hopkins and Jones? He was undefeated and they weren't. Is every unbeaten boxer better than every once (or more) defeated boxer?

That's your reasoning. I asked you to respond to those questions. I have Crawford on top and he's my favorite fighter in the game but I specifically mentioned the Postol, Indongo and Gamboa fights which you haven't addressed but you simply said Rigo is coming up, Walters was inactive BUT Postol was also 10 months inactive and Gamboa 12 mo this inactive burn Walters 11 months inactive. So why is the Walters win scrutinized (and you picked Walters) and those wins for Crawford are not? Why is Rigo's coming up an issue and Gamboa (who's much smaller than Bud) is not? Why is Indongo so much better than Russell?

I just want you feedback on those three particular fights mainly just to see the hypocrisy and bias (which is what your responses thus far have hinted at).

[chrisJS]

Let's put this in a nutshell. Loma lost and Crawford is undefeated. You can't even name enough opponents for Loma to be considers pfp over Crawford. Crawfords resume is better than Lomas too and Loma hasn't even gained revenge against Salido.

Ok, so was Joe Calzaghe better than Hopkins and Jones? He was undefeated and they weren't. Is every unbeaten boxer better than every once (or more) defeated boxer?

That's your reasoning. I asked you to respond to those questions. I have Crawford on top and he's my favorite fighter in the game but I specifically mentioned the Postol, Indongo and Gamboa fights which you haven't addressed but you simply said Rigo is coming up, Walters was inactive BUT Postol was also 10 months inactive and Gamboa 12 months inactive but Walters 11 months inactive. So why is the Walters win scrutinized (and you picked Walters) and those wins for Crawford are not? Why is Rigo's coming up an issue and Gamboa (who's much smaller than Bud) is not? Why is Indongo so much better than Russell?

I just want you feedback on those three particular fights mainly just to see the hypocrisy and bias (which is what your responses thus far have hinted at).

Again, not debating the mythical ranking as I have Bud at 1 I just would like your rationale on those points please. I think Rigo-Walters-Russell is a better 1-2-3 than Gamboa-Indongo-Postol but then I think Beltran-Diaz-Burns edges out Martinez-Sosa-Marriaga. The resume aren't that far apart which is amazing given one has 32 fights the other has 10. But you are acting like Lomachenko doesn't have even 1 win that would place on Crawford top 10 which is wrong and biased.

[Mr.Fantastic]

What others on the list are so much more accomplished?

Canelo, Chocolatito(lost), and Mikey. Rigo and Golovkin have better wins. Once Crawford starys beating some of these WWs, then I'll be in agreement. Right now it's just hype.

[Raggamuffin]

Ok, so was Joe Calzaghe better than Hopkins and Jones? He was undefeated and they weren't. Is every unbeaten boxer better than every once (or more) defeated boxer?

That's your reasoning. I asked you to respond to those questions. I have Crawford on top and he's my favorite fighter in the game but I specifically mentioned the Postol, Indongo and Gamboa fights which you haven't addressed but you simply said Rigo is coming up, Walters was inactive BUT Postol was also 10 months inactive and Gamboa 12 months inactive but Walters 11 months inactive. So why is the Walters win scrutinized (and you picked Walters) and those wins for Crawford are not? Why is Rigo's coming up an issue and Gamboa (who's much smaller than Bud) is not? Why is Indongo so much better than Russell?

I just want you feedback on those three particular fights mainly just to see the hypocrisy and bias (which is what your responses thus far have hinted at).

Again, not debating the mythical ranking as I have Bud at 1 I just would like your rationale on those points please. I think Rigo-Walters-Russell is a better 1-2-3 than Gamboa-Indongo-Postol but then I think Beltran-Diaz-Burns edges out Martinez-Sosa-Marriaga. The resume aren't that far apart which is amazing given one has 32 fights the other has 10. But you are acting like Lomachenko doesn't have even 1 win that would place on Crawford top 10 which is wrong and biased.

No, that's not my reasoning. And I'm not showing any bias at all. That's just what you're hinting at. And if you have Bud at 1, then what's the problem? You want feedback on 3 particular fights that YOU brought up. That's not how I talk boxing. Walters fought like he was inactive, Gamboa and Postol didn't. Loma hasn't fought Rigo yet, so you can't use him, and isn't Rigo coming up 2 weight classes? And who has Russell beaten? An ancient Johnny Gonzalez? The resumes are that far apart. And I don't act so stop telling me what I'm acting like. The big question is why hasn't Loma rematched Salido? All of the greats do rematches.

[Mister Wolf]

No, that's not my reasoning. And I'm not showing any bias at all. That's just what you're hinting at. And if you have Bud at 1, then what's the problem? You want feedback on 3 particular fights that YOU brought up. That's not how I talk boxing. Walters fought like he was inactive, Gamboa and Postol didn't. Loma hasn't fought Rigo yet, so you can't use him, and isn't Rigo coming up 2 weight classes? And who has Russell beaten? An ancient Johnny Gonzalez? The resumes are that far apart. And I don't act so stop telling me what I'm acting like. The big question is why hasn't Loma rematched Salido? All of the greats do rematches.

Lomo could have fought an immediate rematch against Salido. Lomo was a big 126 pounder and could have easily made a rematch with Salido at 130. For his next fight he came into the ring weighing 138 vs Gary Russell.

[chrisJS]

No, that's not my reasoning. And I'm not showing any bias at all. That's just what you're hinting at. And if you have Bud at 1, then what's the problem? You want feedback on 3 particular fights that YOU brought up. That's not how I talk boxing. Walters fought like he was inactive, Gamboa and Postol didn't. Loma hasn't fought Rigo yet, so you can't use him, and isn't Rigo coming up 2 weight classes? And who has Russell beaten? An ancient Johnny Gonzalez? The resumes are that far apart. And I don't act so stop telling me what I'm acting like. The big question is why hasn't Loma rematched Salido? All of the greats do rematches.

He's offered it three times and been turned down three times what else can he do?

All the greats do re-matches? Why didn't Leonard-Hagler II happen? Why didn't Chavez-Whitaker II happen? Why didn't Ali-Foreman II happen? Why didn't Trinidad-De La Hoya II happen? Hard to write Loma off because he hasn't had a re-match in 10 pro fights despite trying to get it 3 times. Sometimes the other party doesn't want to play ball. It was his 2nd pro fight. Why didn't Hopkins re-match Clint Mitchell? Hopkins is great.

Ok so because Walters fought like he was inactive that makes him inactive but not the others who were more inactive? What if Loma made him look inactive? I'm just unsure what made wins against Postol, Indongo and Gamboa so impressive (given that the gamboa fight was a struggle) but what renders the Russell, Walters wins so unimpressive and useless? The rules are different it seems. Why would you already tear down the Rigo fight before it's happened but parade the Gamboa one as a great win when Gamboa isn't on Rigo's level and has a similar size disadvantage? Russell resume is lacking yes (so is Postol, Gamboa and indongo) but he does psd the eye test better than they do.

Loma has fought 90% of his pro fights in title fights and 50% vs. world champions has gotten to #1 in two divisions by clearly beating the second best guy in the division each time it's a high standard to downplay that and no Crawford resume isn't a million miles away. Nobody is saying Lomachenko is a "great" yet so not sure why he's held to an all-time great standard. Crawford isn't great himself yet. Neither have accomplished greatness but I guarantee both will even if they do lose at some point (because a loss is allowed).

[BrometheusBob.]

Well they got Keith Thurman at number 7, so they got that going for them