thurman hands down!! this aint even up for debate.
Better resume: Keith Thurman or Terence Crawford?
Collapse
-
-
Comment
-
I do agree that Crawford pretty much cleaned out the best 135 lbers when he was there. And obviously he did unify all the belts at 140 which is a major accomplishment.He won the lineal titles because he was #1 in those divisions fighting #2. He deserves credit for that.
Beltran and Postol weren't world-beaters but they're not slouches either.
Crawford's welterweight output has been extremely disappointing, no way around that, but I think his lightweight and super lightweight resumes are very good. Dulorme, Indongo, Ruiz, Gamboa, Beltran, Postol, Burns. Those are all quality Ws.
But how good were those names really? What have guys like Indongo or Ricky Burns or Felix Diaz gone on to accomplish since?Comment
-
Thurman, beat garcia and porter. Not great losing to pacquiao at his age but was pretty close. Crawfords beaten no-one, having an 0 doesn't mean much cause thurman would have an 0 too against the opposition Crawfords fought.Comment
-
-
Yet when your man crush (ggg) was in exactly the same situation, you had him p4p #1. I wonder what the difference between ggg and Crawford is? I'm certain I know what the difference in your mind is. Another black and white issue for you.Comment
-
Comment
-
Sure. Thurman is still top 5 welterweight. Crawford never fought somebody like that. That is very different than fighting guys like Benavidez, Horn, Kavaliauskas.Comment
-
Thurman. That shouldn't even be a question.
And I'll take him over Crawford any day.
Thurman's hooks doesn't work so much against lil guys. But put in someone the same size as DSG, he'll pretty much whip any body in there.Comment
Comment