Name ONE quality opponent Crawford has beaten CLEARLY. I'm calling you out.

[Marchegiano]

No, it's not. It's how you truly know a person's talent. It's why employers don't just watch people post tweets about their skills and offer them jobs.

Resume is what you measure.

No, it's how people who have the same skill set seperate themselves. I've never in my life had a resume.


I'm an inventor, I have several documentaries to prove it, I've never stepped foot into any higher education system, plenty have more in way of resume than I do. They lack patents, they lack documentaries, no one cares about their work. All I have to do to take their job is show up because my skill set is proven and higher quality.


I've worked for NASA and put parts in space. I've worked for the US Navy and put robots in the ocean. I've beaten not just resume but top class from top schools resumes that included real high caliber work experience. I'm talking guys who worked for boeing, honda's asimo, lockheedmartin, and so on.




At the end of the day there's no better evidence that a man can perform other than performance. The Suzie Q is not named because it hit Walcott. It has a named because it was incredible. The shuffle has a name because it is not easy.

Resume is nothing but even more convoluted triangle theory. When NASA asks can you, and you respond with evidence that you should be able to. Yes, that has weight. If your respond with yeah, justs did last week actually, here's a sample. Bam, that's your evidence that you could all torn a new ******* by a man with no resume.

To this day I make no mention of my past work when bidding for jobs. I don't care about impressing with evidence, facts are facts.

Marciano hitting for 925FT-LBS tells you how hard he hit. Marciano stacking KOs unstackably is just evidence to suggest he probably hits pretty hard. One of these things is a resume worthy bit of evidence. The other has nothing to do with who he beat at all but does answer much more reasonably how hard did Marciano hit.



Q: How hard it Marciano punch?

A: 925 FT-LBS, if you need to relate that look at guns and torque on automobiles.

Resume Answer: 43 KOs, one of the highest % the game ever saw, retired 13 men immediately, and KO'd some of the greatest names the sport ever saw.


I get the allure of the resume answer, but, Marciano hit for 925 IS the answer. It's real, it's a usable figure, it does not allude to anything.





Resume is semantical in boxing because who you say is a good win and why is not who i say is a good win and why. Once again, 925ft-lbs does not give a **** about our opinions. Real vs semantics, real wins every time.

[alexnation]

the thing with Bud is that he makes his opponents look easy. The guys is too skilled for anyone to dispute it. Errald knows that and he is shytting his pants saying he is not worried about Crawford for know. Instead, he is calling out 40-year old Pac

[champion4ever]

No, Crawford doesn't have a good resume at welterweight. Hell, he doesn't even have a good resume period.

So how does he rank so high on so many people's Pound 4 Pound list I will never understand. It is both mind boggling and baffling to say the least.

I know he has won titles in three different weight divisions; While unifying two of them and winning the undisputed crown in another at 140 but who were some the big names on that resume though?

[BrometheusBob.]

There are some decent fighters on that list. Not a murderer's row but it's not a bad resume. It's not p4p #1 though

[Combat Talk Radio]

No, it's how people who have the same skill set seperate themselves. I've never in my life had a resume.


I'm an inventor, I have several documentaries to prove it

From which a resume exists. You don't recognize it as such. I don't care if you call it a curriculum vitae or resume, it doesn't matter. Ultimately, you have tangible output of things you have done that validate what you allegedly know.

The other flaw in your analogy is that an inventor is only as good as what they invent. The guy that invented Oxi-Clean wouldn't have made any money getting pitched by Billy Mays if the product didn't work. It took a PRODUCT.

I've worked for NASA and put parts in space. I've worked for the US Navy and put robots in the ocean. I've beaten not just resume but top class from top schools resumes that included real high caliber work experience. I'm talking guys who worked for boeing, honda's asimo, lockheedmartin, and so on.

Once again, you're misunderstanding what a resume is. It's a list of what you've done. Joe Blow can't get up and say he's going to invent the cure for AIDS, walk into the UN claiming that and get any credibility simply because he's wearing a white coat. They would want to see his hypothesis (which can't be plagiarized from other scientists), see examples of his work, see what else he's cured and how. That's a resume, bro!

Marciano hitting for 925FT-LBS tells you how hard he hit.

...

I get the allure of the resume answer, but, Marciano hit for 925 IS the answer. It's real, it's a usable figure, it does not allude to anything.

And all the punching power in the world doesn't mean a damn thing if

A - you can't hit the target
B - the target has an iron chin
C - the target outweighs you by a good margin
D - the target is stronger than you
E - The target is faster than you
F - The target is sharper than you
G - The target has more experience overall than you
F - The target is more aggressive than you (judges favor aggressive fighters)

See, we call those threats. That's what Crawford has NOT faced yet. A threat.


Carnelo has. Multiple times. He failed ONCE - against The Best to Ever do it.

Spence did - twice. He beat both of them - both champions.

Porter did - three times. He lost two of them - both undefeated champions.

D. Garcia did - twice. He lost to both - one an undefeated champion.

Pacquiao has, more times than you can count, but recently, three times. He lost two of them - one to The Best to Ever do it, one to a guy he took lightly that was undefeated.

Thurman did - three times. He lost to one - Pacquiao, who has arguably the best overall resume of the current crop.



That's what matters. Not that Fighter A "looks like" they coulda/woulda/shoulda do something.

[CauliflowerEars]

I'm still waiting.

Crawford is at 147. What A class opposition has he beaten at 147?

Here is a link to a thread, showing choices for Top 10 P4P Fighters, as of Fall 2019. - https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...d.php?t=825892

So, Basically, your question is directed to all the people who have Crawford listed as #1 or #2, right ? You want people to give an explanation for their opinions.
You.. generally provide a lot of data to back up your opinions, so you are asking for what data was used for someone to rate Crawford as #1 or #2 P4P.....

My top 10 is in that thread I posted. A couple guys have Tyson Fury listed in the top 2. Does that make sense ?
What's the highest you can accept for Crawford ? ….. #4 ? What's your Top 10 P4P look like ?

________________Here is a sample list. What do you think of that list ? Loma, Crawford, Canelo, and Fury all received votes for #1...
1. Usyk
2. Canelo
3. Loma
4. Crawford
5. Estrada
6. Pacquiao
7. Inoue
8. Spence
9. GGG

[Combat Talk Radio]

Here is a link to a thread, showing choices for Top 10 P4P Fighters, as of Fall 2019. - https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...d.php?t=825892

So, Basically, your question is directed to all the people who have Crawford listed as #1 or #2, right ? You want people to give an explanation for their opinions.
You.. generally provide a lot of data to back up your opinions, so you are asking for what data was used for someone to rate Crawford as #1 or #2 P4P.....

My top 10 is in that thread I posted. A couple guys have Tyson Fury listed in the top 2. Does that make sense ?
What's the highest you can accept for Crawford ? ….. #4 ? What's your Top 10 P4P look like ?

________________Here is a sample list. What do you think of that list ? Loma, Crawford, Canelo, and Fury all received votes for #1...
1. Usyk
2. Canelo
3. Loma
4. Crawford
5. Estrada
6. Pacquiao
7. Inoue
8. Spence
9. GGG

A bunch of 'eye test' smoke, that thread.

And I already answered Top 5, multiple times, including reasons I don't rate certain people:


I've seen enough. My UPDATED "P4P" Ranking...


6-10 is harder because frankly, you start to get into tossup conversations and there aren't a lot of quality fighters (BY RESUME) out there. But let's go through your list, for the ones I didn't call out in my post:


1. Usyk - 'eye test'. I'll accept him anywhere 7 and under.

2. Canelo - Easily # 1

3. Loma - Him I would put somewhere around 6, MAYBE 7. I consider Linares a threat that he beat, so I list him. Can't go higher because Salido should not have been a threat and he lost. He'd need to beat another threat, convincingly. Don't need a KO, but it needs to be clear and the person has to be a threat.

4. Crawford - I can accept him somewhere 8-10 for his past unification and clear performances. From the moment he went to 147 he's been surpassed by EVERY other 147 lb'er. You got to understand, if you're not going up you're going down - and you don't go up with low blow wins over Amir Khan.

5. Estrada - I can accept him somewhere 6 and under. If he clearly wins a rubber match against Rungvisai (if there is one) he'll easily shoot up to Top 5. If he ducks the rubber match he'll just go down unless he beats someone like Inoue.

7. Inoue - I can accept him anywhere 7 and under.

Look at the pattern. I rate based on you overcoming THREATS. Not 'eye test'.

[JakeTheBoxer]

Nobody, his resume is bad. And he will be B side when he fights Spence, because Spence will have much better wins.

[DumpkinsPlus5]

Just ONE. You ain't gotta go any farther than that. Name ONE fighter that qualifies this man as P4P anything. I'll even help you with a survey. Because I'm tired of seeing people rate this dude so high with no signature wins whatsoever. So name the signature win.


Let's see...

Hank Lundy
Ricky Burns
Victor Postol
Julius Indongo
Yuriorkis Gamobia
Jose Benavidez Jr.
Jeff Horn
Amir Khan


OTHER: Name them.

I respect this thread, and I understand what you're trying to do with it, but I would have worded things more clearly. All you gotta ask is what A/Elite level fighter has Crawford beat. Hell, what B level fighter has he beat. Shawn Porter is considered Just below A level at probably a B+ and he's undoubtedly better than anyone on that list. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, Crawford has the worst resume a so called #1 P4P fighter has ever had in the history of the sport.

[Combat Talk Radio]

I respect this thread, and I understand what you're trying to do with it, but I would have worded things more clearly. All you gotta ask is what A/Elite level fighter has Crawford beat. Hell, what B level fighter has he beat. Shawn Porter is considered Just below A level at probably a B+ and he's undoubtedly better than anyone on that list. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, Crawford has the worst resume a so called #1 P4P fighter has ever had in the history of the sport.

They'll just keep saying Postol.

He was never a threat, he was yet another 'eye test' fighter. It's really, who has Crawford fought AND beat that was a threat to him, basically on the criteria I put above? Nobody.

And blaming Haymon doesn't fly; Tim Bradley was proof enough what was going to happen. He's the one that originated the idea of 'other side of the street' when Broner called him out.