Tweet
Crawford gets too much sh.it for his resume...Postol was supposed to be a 50/50 fight, and Indongo was supposed to be a strong challenge...but because he dusted them, they suck I guess...he has some other good wins on his resume and no Ls.
Which brings us to the main point...how does one view a resume? For me it should be like a real life resume...you don't just list the fighters, but you would give a little rundown of what happened in the fight...a domination over a good fighter should be a better resume point than a close controversial win over a good fighter.
Also, with that, your opinion of a resume will come down to how you saw those guys perform in some of those fights...if you're revelated, well you probably think Crawford should have been DQd vs Horn and Khan and probably every other fight.
If you saw Crawford win all of his fights cleanly, like most, and have seen Thurman in close fights with DSG, Porter and Pac, like he was, then I don't really see this 'Thurman has a much better resume' angle....besides Guerrero, who else is even on there to get excited about.
Crawford has clear wins over Postol, Gamboa and Beltran...and then his other top 10 wins or so are better than Keef's other wins apart from his big 3 fights..I think that is pretty clear..pfp wise anyway.
Thurman in a way has faced better guys because he has fought bigger guys so wins or close fights with those guys will look better head-to-head with Crawford.
But people going overboard on Crawford's resume are dumb...they fall into 3 categories - 1) Canelo fans who want to slight a potential top pfp threat in Crawford; 2) PBC fans who see TC as being on the other side of the street; and 3) big time Jeff Horn fans who have some type of serious issue...no names needed there.
Which brings us to the main point...how does one view a resume? For me it should be like a real life resume...you don't just list the fighters, but you would give a little rundown of what happened in the fight...a domination over a good fighter should be a better resume point than a close controversial win over a good fighter.
Also, with that, your opinion of a resume will come down to how you saw those guys perform in some of those fights...if you're revelated, well you probably think Crawford should have been DQd vs Horn and Khan and probably every other fight.
If you saw Crawford win all of his fights cleanly, like most, and have seen Thurman in close fights with DSG, Porter and Pac, like he was, then I don't really see this 'Thurman has a much better resume' angle....besides Guerrero, who else is even on there to get excited about.
Crawford has clear wins over Postol, Gamboa and Beltran...and then his other top 10 wins or so are better than Keef's other wins apart from his big 3 fights..I think that is pretty clear..pfp wise anyway.
Thurman in a way has faced better guys because he has fought bigger guys so wins or close fights with those guys will look better head-to-head with Crawford.
But people going overboard on Crawford's resume are dumb...they fall into 3 categories - 1) Canelo fans who want to slight a potential top pfp threat in Crawford; 2) PBC fans who see TC as being on the other side of the street; and 3) big time Jeff Horn fans who have some type of serious issue...no names needed there.
lol
Comment