Terence Crawford will be a 4 divisional champ by the time he retires

[Eff Pandas]

That sounds nice on paper, but in reality he has 1 credible win on his resume. Titles are handed out like candy these days, I don't take all these paper belts that seriously.

This more or less.

I do feel like he was the best guy in two divisions so thats impressive regardless of his competition I suppose cuz in my eyes being #1 in a division is more impressive than winning a title today, So I could for sure see Crawford winning 2 more belts (I think I'd still bet against a 4th title, but I'd want good odds cuz belts are cheap & being with TR I got no doubt Arum can make a title fight happen its only if Crawford can win it), but I definitely don't see him being the #1 guy at 147 & 154.

And I mean he's turning 30 this year & he still seems like he's reluctant to move up to 147. And how many years does he have at his peak 2 or 3? People have been spoiled by Floyd, Manny, Wlad & Bhop. Most guys don't keep operating on a high level past 33, 34, 35.

[daggum]

crawford never calls out broner because 4 division champ trumps 2 division champ

[sunny31]

Postol is his only credible win and he's 29. He gets full credit for that Postol win, I actually picked him to lose that fight, not because I thought Postol was some top fighter, but I felt Crawford was very overrated at the time. He's proven himself to be better than I thought, but I still don't consider him a top P4P fighter. He's not as good as advertised.

He needs to start fighting credible opposition, enough Hank Lundys and John Molinas.

Couldn't disagree more. Burns, Gamboa are quality wins. They are not the wins that are going to define his legacy, but quality nonetheless.

If you think this guy is anything but a top 7 p4p fighter, you are thoroughly mistaken (wouldn't be the first time).

Crawford is very complete as a fighter, the part I agree with you is that his record is a little immature at this stage of his career. Currently his talent supersedes what he has proven, although he is far from unproven.

If he can get the fights - he will surely make you eat some humble pie, I'm certain about that.

In terms of the thread - I think its entirely plausible - always depends on the champions at the time, but if he goes for THE CHAMP at 154 whenever that might be, that could be a tough ask for him. Nowadays beating just any champion in the grand scheme of things doesn't really mean all that much, media, critics, and knowledgeable boxing fans will judge the merit of the fighters beaten.

[John Locke]

Couldn't disagree more. Burns, Gamboa are quality wins. They are not the wins that are going to define his legacy, but quality nonetheless.

If you think this guy is anything but a top 7 p4p fighter, you are thoroughly mistaken (wouldn't be the first time).

Crawford is very complete as a fighter, the part I agree with you is that his record is a little immature at this stage of his career. Currently his talent supersedes what he has proven, although he is far from unproven.

If he can get the fights - he will surely make you eat some humble pie, I'm certain about that.

In terms of the thread - I think its entirely plausible - always depends on the champions at the time, but if he goes for THE CHAMP at 154 whenever that might be, that could be a tough ask for him. Nowadays beating just any champion in the grand scheme of things doesn't really mean all that much, media, critics, and knowledgeable boxing fans will judge the merit of the fighters beaten.

Gamboa would be a super win if the the difference in size between them wasn't so big. He's a great talent but Crawford is like twice his size man. Burns is nothing more than a decent fighter.

I don't think he's a top 10 P4P fighter, that's completely down to opinion. What are the other times I've been mistaken?

It's not Crawford's thin resume that makes me think he's overrated, I don't judge fighters based entirely on resume because there are just too many variables, fighters don't always decide who they fight, when they fight etc. He just doesn't seem that impressive to me on the eye, skillwise.

I've seen him lose rounds against guys like Dulorme, Burns, Lundy...and don't tell me those rounds were 'adjustment' rounds, top guys don't need time to adjust against C level opponents. He wasn't a standout amateur and to me he doesn't look a standout pro, just a good all-round fighter.

I would have no problem with him proving me wrong, like I said I picked Postol to beat him and gave him full credit for that win. I've got nothing against the guy, I just feel he's overrated.

[-Kev-]

Not much of a feat or much of a wild prediction tbh. Crawford is a 5'8" former 135 fighter, he has the size and frame to go to 154 eventually. He should already be looking for 147 challenges this year, maybe for the next 2-3 years, then go up to 154 if he's ready. A big prediction would be Crawford going up to 160, which would be the equivalent of Mayweather reaching 154 from 130, or Pac moving up from Fly to LW. With weight classes being so close now, and fighters rehydrating to stay away from moving up, a fighter moving up at least one weight class is the least that is expected.

[Kigali]

Agreed, the charlos and canelo are the 3 fights he should avoid like the plague due to the size/power differential.

As if Canelo is some big threat.

[davef]

need see more tougher fights for brook and spence at 147 before making a judgement imo i think both will beat crawford i dont see thurman as being a problem i feel he has hit the ceiling with his ability and will lose to DSG

[MatchMaker215]

As if Canelo is some big threat.

Canelo would always KO Crawford what are you talking about?

[daggum]

Gamboa would be a super win if the the difference in size between them wasn't so big. He's a great talent but Crawford is like twice his size man. Burns is nothing more than a decent fighter.

I don't think he's a top 10 P4P fighter, that's completely down to opinion. What are the other times I've been mistaken?

It's not Crawford's thin resume that makes me think he's overrated, I don't judge fighters based entirely on resume because there are just too many variables, fighters don't always decide who they fight, when they fight etc. He just doesn't seem that impressive to me on the eye, skillwise.

I've seen him lose rounds against guys like Dulorme, Burns, Lundy...and don't tell me those rounds were 'adjustment' rounds, top guys don't need time to adjust against C level opponents. He wasn't a standout amateur and to me he doesn't look a standout pro, just a good all-round fighter.

I would have no problem with him proving me wrong, like I said I picked Postol to beat him and gave him full credit for that win. I've got nothing against the guy, I just feel he's overrated.

floyd lost first 2 rounds to guerrero so why not?

[daggum]

Canelo would always KO Crawford what are you talking about?

he would? why? its possible but hes certainly struggled with smart boxers. floyd wasn't much bigger and was never troubled. cotto was destroyed twice but wasnt troubled very much. stop overrating a guy who can only ko facefirst guys and yes khan is a facefirst guy he has no defense