it's a ****** argument...it's a popularity and bias contest. Crawford is good, very good. I can say that and still say, I don't think all that much of his resume and that includes being "undisputed." Belts are nice, but who had the belts? What have any of those guys done since? Or what were their great accomplishments before Crawford? You see how quickly this can get biased if you're not being honest?
Crawford doesn't have the best resume at welterweight, let alone across all weight categories in the last few years.
Crawford doesn't have the best resume at welterweight, let alone across all weight categories in the last few years.
Comment