That's true. There's no need to wait for anything. Terence Crawford's resume is also ass. Not as bad as Andrade's, but pretty poor itself. Not sure why you replied with that, i've been criticizing Crawford's resume for a couple of years now.
He probably wants to understand the below...
Originally posted by Madison boxing
is that resume really much worse than crawfords though? why is one p4p and the other not
That's the question I want NSB to answer with something other than 'eye test'.
I never understood how people get all these credit for fighting good guys but struggling. "Resume" doesn't mean having names on your resume you actually have to beat them convincingly lmao.
I mean for sure Andrade gots some skills. You don't become a legit top ten guy without skills in this sport. BUT when you are fighting the guys he's fighting if you are some future #1 guy, like some are hyping him as, you don't look as sloppy & beatable as he does. There are levels to this, as they say, & Andrade is on a higher level to have gotten where he's gotten, but he's clearly not operating on the highest level.
I disagree. I think most of the time when folks are critical of boxers they are being critical of the fans who are hyping a specific boxer. Thats definitely the case for me when I go in on a boxer.
I, like I suspect most here, respect anyone who gets in the ring, but when folks start hyping a guy more than most feel he should be getting hyped than I think there is an impulse to shut that down or quiet those hyping a guy. I think thats all OP is doing.
Andrade is clearly a top ten caliber guy, but he's also clearly not a heir apparent to the #1 spot like some fans of him act like.
I never understood how people get all these credit for fighting good guys but struggling. "Resume" doesn't mean having names on your resume you actually have to beat them convincingly lmao.
And fighters who fight way lesser competition and look good get overhyped.
While the best fighting the best are "struggling" with each other and criticized for it.
That's what f.cking happens when you fight the best. You want to see the best fight the best, well that's what usually happens. It's usually tough fights.
Why did Floyd struggle vs Castillo, DLH, Cotto, Maidana?
And fighters who fight way lesser competition and look good get overhyped.
While the best fighting the best are "struggling" with each other and criticized for it.
That's what f.cking happens when you fight the best. You want to see the best fight the best, well that's what usually happens. It's usually tough fights.
Why did Floyd struggle vs Castillo, DLH, Cotto, Maidana?
Lies. Floyd dominated Corrales and plenty f p4p greats.
is that resume really much worse than crawfords though? why is one p4p and the other not
Not entirely sure. I don't think highly of Crawford's resume. His resume is straight up trash too.
And yes, it's much worse than Crawford's.
Although I don't know how Crawford, with his trash resume, is above guys like Estrada and GGG, who have fought much tougher competition than Crawford.
The message journalists and panelists are giving boxers is to fight easy fights, look great against them, and then you will be rated highly. And they are also saying that if you step up in competition and don't steamroll them, you will be dropped in the P4P list in favor of some bum beaters.
Inoue, Crawford, and Usyk...no way in hell they belong in front of fighters like Pacquiao, GGG, and Estrada. No f.cking way. Did these journalist saw how Usyk struggled with Chisora, and Inoue struggled with Donaire? And do they realize how mediocre Crawford's resume is? Nope, they pass the eye test.
Comment