What rates as Crawford's best win?

[Sid-Knee]

or maybe Bud ruined Indongo?

You don't ruin a fighter by knocking them out with a body shot. Nothing damaging happened before that to make him damaged goods.

[Madison Boxing]

sorry ive tried to bite my tongue but must be joking if postol is considered a great win cause he beat matthysse? is that the same mattysse that garcia took to school? its funny how people use the argument of 'yeah but indongo/diaz/postol werent the same after crawford beat him' but dont consider that maybe matthysse wasnt the same after garcia beat him? i say wasnt the same, he was never that amazing in the first place really was he.

[Sid-Knee]

This is a terrible case of losing context with history. It is completely unfair to judge either fighter only on what they did against Crawford and afterwards. Instead, you should remember where they were when they fought Crawford,

Both were undefeated and coming off huge wins against top competition. They didn't lose to Crawford because they are not top tier fighters. They lost because Crawford is elite.

Indongo wasn't coming off huge wins, don't lie. He beat a shot Burns and caught Troy cold. We knew nothing about Indongo before he fought Crawford. We do now though. He's a bum with a glass jaw and has some of the worst foot-work you'll ever see.

[Madison Boxing]

Indongo wasn't coming off huge wins, don't lie. He beat a shot Burns and caught Troy cold. We knew nothing about Indongo before he fought Crawford. We do now though. He's a bum with a glass jaw and has some of the worst foot-work you'll ever see.

yeah, know i'll be accused of being a 'hater' but i was saying in the rbr that indongo looked like trash against burns. guy was tripping over his feet at times. fortunately for him burns was old and half his size. and even at his best burns was a B level fighter

[Sid-Knee]

I think you are forgetting Burns had just had a nice little winning streak after the loss to Figueroa, a loss which many felt was a bad decision because the ref took 2 points away.

Burns wasn't a great 140lber by any stretch. But he wasn't shot.



I think the Crawford loss took something out of Indongo. I think Indongo showed he had some skill in beating Burns so thoroughly.

A body shot loss doesn't all of a sudden make you into a finished force. Indongo just wasn't good.

Burns was shot and as slow as moleasses. Nothing good can be taken from that fight. Nothing.

[chrisJS]

Indongo was very awkward rather than very good, I think. His technique is sloppy as hell, but his unorthodox style and length meant that by the numbers fighters like Troyanovsky or Burns struggled. It's not so much that Indongo is good, rather that it takes a good fighter to be able to adapt well to his awkward gangly style... if that makes sense?

Either way, the point has been made before, it's not so much that Bud's opposition is that good, rather it's the manner in which he's dealt with them. I'm unashamedly an eye test guy more than a resume one and Crawford passes with honours.

Likewise. Resume is for when their careers are over or to rank a legacy. Eye test is more based on form, skill/talent level which is what p4p was coined originally: "If all men were equal size who's the best".

[killakali]

You don't ruin a fighter by knocking them out with a body shot. Nothing damaging happened before that to make him damaged goods.

So how about Indongo taking the fight on 3 weeks notice vs Prograis when Postol pulled out? U think Indongo was at his best?