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

[Raggamuffin]

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).

I get it now. You're a Loma fan hiding behind a "I have Crawford at #! pfp " disguise. The above response is a bunch of useless dribble that you have refined into your basic logicality. Especially the champions do rematches part that where you have taken the word "literally" literally. But you have to nitpick. That's what you've been doing since you've been defending Loma.

And you keep bringing up the 3 boxers that YOU named as if that's all Crawford has on his resume. Crawford hasn't lost. And don't ever put Loma Salido on the same pedestal as the great fighters and fights that you named.

Salido basically cheated Loma on the scales, won a close fight that Loma's fans think that he won, and he isn't doing the rematch because Arum doesn't think that he's worth what he's asking for? As unfair as it sounds history will judge Loma on the Salido debacle. They'll say that as good a boxer as Loma is if he pans out career wise is that if you rough him up, he's not strong enough to return the favor.

[chrisJS]

I get it now. You're a Loma fan hiding behind a "I have Crawford at #! pfp " disguise. The above response is a bunch of useless dribble that you have refined into your basic logicality. Especially the champions do rematches part that where you have taken the word "literally" literally. But you have to nitpick. That's what you've been doing since you've been defending Loma.

And you keep bringing up the 3 boxers that YOU named as if that's all Crawford has on his resume. Crawford hasn't lost. And don't ever put Loma Salido on the same pedestal as the great fighters and fights that you named.

Salido basically cheated Loma on the scales, won a close fight that Loma's fans think that he won, and he isn't doing the rematch because Arum doesn't think that he's worth what he's asking for? As unfair as it sounds history will judge Loma on the Salido debacle. They'll say that as good a boxer as Loma is if he pans out career wise is that if you rough him up, he's not strong enough to return the favor.

In his second pro fight? Again, Hopkins lost to Clint Mitchell. Arguello, Armstrong, Marquez also lost their debuts it didn't define them.

I bring up the three names because I've seen you previously big them up but bring down Loma's which are at least as good. Yes, Crawford has more than that but there's a double standard to nitpick ones wins and not the others.

Also a lie that I'm posing as a Crawford fan. Ive probably followed his career at least as long as you (maybe longer), there's plenty of threads that support the claim that I'm a Crawford fan and I've also felt fit to be a paying customer at his fights and travel to see him fight live. I've seen both live and was mighty impressed with both. They aren't worlds apart as fighters.

I pointed out a double standard based on the comment that Walters was a useless win (despite predictions to the contrary) because of inactivity when I merely pointed out the fact that Postol was only one month less rusty and Gamboa was one month more rusty. I did that because I've seen you use those wins as better than say GGG wins over Jacobs or Lemieux for example (maybe they are maybe they aren't) but you NEVER mentioned the rust factor with those fights only with Walters. You also NEVER mentioned the size factor with Gamboa but have already used it for Rigo. Like I said double standards no big deal. It just appears you've set the standard higher for certain fighters to satisfy you and lower for others. That's common (but also wrong).

[Raggamuffin]

In his second pro fight? Again, Hopkins lost to Clint Mitchell. Arguello, Armstrong, Marquez also lost their debuts it didn't define them.

I bring up the three names because I've seen you previously big them up but bring down Loma's which are at least as good. Yes, Crawford has more than that but there's a double standard to nitpick ones wins and not the others.

Also a lie that I'm posing as a Crawford fan. Ive probably followed his career at least as long as you (maybe longer), there's plenty of threads that support the claim that I'm a Crawford fan and I've also felt fit to be a paying customer at his fights and travel to see him fight live. I've seen both live and was mighty impressed with both. They aren't worlds apart as fighters.

I pointed out a double standard based on the comment that Walters was a useless win (despite predictions to the contrary) because of inactivity when I merely pointed out the fact that Postol was only one month less rusty and Gamboa was one month more rusty. I did that because I've seen you use those wins as better than say GGG wins over Jacobs or Lemieux for example (maybe they are maybe they aren't) but you NEVER mentioned the rust factor with those fights only with Walters. You also NEVER mentioned the size factor with Gamboa but have already used it for Rigo. Like I said double standards no big deal. It just appears you've set the standard higher for certain fighters to satisfy you and lower for others. That's common (but also wrong).

In his second pro fight? All you Loma fans do is **** on other guys resume talking about nobody ever started their career with such tough comp like Loma and when we talk about Loma losing, you fall back on the second fight thingy. The rest of what you're saying you're just repeating yourself. Your slip is showing.

[BrometheusBob.]

What a joke, it should be left vacant. Said it before, I'll say it again, no fighter has distanced themselves from the rest of the pack

Wtf is a vacant number 1 spot lol

P4P #1 doesn't have some special requirement on it saying you have to be an ATG, it's just the highest ranking available.

[Citizen Koba]

Wtf is a vacant number 1 spot lol

P4P #1 doesn't have some special requirement on it saying you have to be an ATG, it's just the highest ranking available.

I will never understand people who say that 'vacant' thing about P4P - like it's an actual championship or belt you can somehow 'win'. I personally think P4Ps a pile of wombat pellets but if you subscribe to that foolishness surely it's got to be obvious that someone (or even, I suppose several people) has to be top of the pile - even if it's just by a fraction.

[chrisJS]

In his second pro fight? All you Loma fans do is **** on other guys resume talking about nobody ever started their career with such tough comp like Loma and when we talk about Loma losing, you fall back on the second fight thingy. The rest of what you're saying you're just repeating yourself. Your slip is showing.

Thanks for not really answering why certain wins don't count for one guy because but they do count for the other even with same/similar circumstances.

You've made your mind up of what profile of boxer is allowed to be considered elite and what isn't.

Ever heard of Alexis Arguello? Also lost his first title attempt - never got the guy in the ring again. Did that define his career? Ever heard of Salvador Sanchez? Also not defined by a loss to Becerra.

Juan Manuel Marquez another one that wasn't defined by Freddie Norwood or Chris John (controversial decision losses) despite no re-matches. There's a lot more examples throughout Boxing's stories history. If Loma was fighting and beating Salido in December you'd give him zero credit as like when you picked Walters and then have no credit to the win. So what's the point in that fight now? Salido has failed three title shots since.

Why would you try and deny it was Lomachenko second pro fight? There's no disadvantage of being inexperienced? Sure, a fighter will get credit for going strong so soon and forgiven for the odd loss (even second fight). It's like saying Wilder is a better heavyweight than Holyfield because he was 36-3 during his prime and Wilder is a dominant 38-0.

Yes I am a Loma fan, I'm a Crawford fan too. Marquez and Trinidad also. I can like (and appreciate) fighters of all different backgrounds (unlike some).

[Raggamuffin]

Thanks for not really answering why certain wins don't count for one guy because but they do count for the other even with same/similar circumstances.

You've made your mind up of what profile of boxer is allowed to be considered elite and what isn't.

Ever heard of Alexis Arguello? Also lost his first title attempt - never got the guy in the ring again. Did that define his career? Ever heard of Salvador Sanchez? Also not defined by a loss to Becerra.

Juan Manuel Marquez another one that wasn't defined by Freddie Norwood or Chris John (controversial decision losses) despite no re-matches. There's a lot more examples throughout Boxing's stories history. If Loma was fighting and beating Salido in December you'd give him zero credit as like when you picked Walters and then have no credit to the win. So what's the point in that fight now? Salido has failed three title shots since.

Why would you try and deny it was Lomachenko second pro fight? There's no disadvantage of being inexperienced? Sure, a fighter will get credit for going strong so soon and forgiven for the odd loss (even second fight). It's like saying Wilder is a better heavyweight than Holyfield because he was 36-3 during his prime and Wilder is a dominant 38-0.

Yes I am a Loma fan, I'm a Crawford fan too. Marquez and Trinidad also. I can like (and appreciate) fighters of all different backgrounds (unlike some).

Bruh, you're writing a lot of info that doesn't apply to what we are talking about. And all wins count, they just don't count the same as others.

[chrisJS]

Bruh, you're writing a lot of info that doesn't apply to what we are talking about. And all wins count, they just don't count the same as others.

Yes, but I am just curious why those particular ones (that I brought up based on previous comments) are so much inferior to the other ones when the circumstances and caliber of fighters in question was basically equal (actually probably stronger on Loma's side). Lot of hypocrisy that's all. You've clearly picked a side and you've got your rules. That's fine. I just wanted to see an attempt at justification but didn't really get it.

Peace.

[Raggamuffin]

Yes, but I am just curious why those particular ones (that I brought up based on previous comments) are so much inferior to the other ones when the circumstances and caliber of fighters in question was basically equal (actually probably stronger on Loma's side). Lot of hypocrisy that's all. You've clearly picked a side and you've got your rules. That's fine. I just wanted to see an attempt at justification but didn't really get it.

Peace.

I just don't look at boxing like that. There is no side to pick. We both have Bud at #1 pfp. We differ on how we look at comp. Bud has fought more top comp than Loma. Nuff said. I don't hate Loma. But I penalize fighters for not doing immediate rematches or rematches period.

[chrisJS]

I just don't look at boxing like that. There is no side to pick. We both have Bud at #1 pfp. We differ on how we look at comp. Bud has fought more top comp than Loma. Nuff said. I don't hate Loma. But I penalize fighters for not doing immediate rematches or rematches period.

Yes, a 12 month layoff for a smaller guy moving up doesn't matter to you if you have a horse in the race but a 11 month layoff does matter if it's not your horse.

Hard to penalize a guy for the lack of a re-match when it's been offered multiple times and the fighter even admitted it was a good offer that he was happy with.

Bud has fought 4 world champs, Loma 5. I'd say Loma's 2 best wins are better than Bud's and if (when) he adds Rigo his 3 best wins are better, but yeah I'll say the next set of wins (Burns, Beltran, the vastly underrated Diaz) are better than (Martinez, Sosa, Marriaga). That's a close resume though when you factor all in and the skill levels is hard to separate - I consider both complete fighters with extraordinary skill sets with perhaps Loma having a higher ceiling due to his lack of fights and more outrageous talent (but Bud being a harder hitter) but both seem to get better with each showing.