Terence Crawford is unbeatable!

[Sheldon312]

Besides Gamboa, that isn't anything special. Especially for being over 30 fights. Trust me I want him to succeed and go far but I'm not going to hype something up that I don't think is all that compared to others.

Do you feel the same way about GGG, Spence, and Loma

[Eff Pandas]

He hasn't faced anyone really good yet. Just decent ok dudes outside of Gamboa who was too small for Crawford. Hope to see him actually challenged soon.

Postol gets 20/20 hindsighted off of Crawford's best win list (or top 2 or 3 at least), but that was a very respectable & high level win that I don't believe should get discounted as much as it does just cuz Postol didn't put up the fight or give the level of competitiveness many expected. I remember a nice % of fans were saying Postol would beat Crawford.

[Eff Pandas]

Spence is the only one I see being competitive with him up to to 147.

I think Thurman is competitive with him. And I don't even think a guy like Porter, who I bet most would say Crawford stops or damn near 12-0's, would be an easy win for Crawford although thats a fight I'd favor Crawford in.

[Sheldon312]

Spence is the only one I see being competitive with him up to to 147.

Porter and Thurman would push him to the edge. Why is it so hard for you guys to realize that size, power, and strength matter?

[Sheldon312]

I think Thurman is competitive with him. And I don't even think a guy like Porter, who I bet most would say Crawford stops or damn near 12-0's, would be an easy win for Crawford although thats a fight I'd favor Crawford in.

You're looking at it, I assume, from the stand point that Thurman and Brook handled him well that means Porter would probably lost. But there is a huge disparity between Crawford and Porter when it comes to Strength. And I believe that would be the difference maker

[Eff Pandas]

You're looking at it, I assume, from the stand point that Thurman and Brook handled him well that means Porter would probably lost. But there is a huge disparity between Crawford and Porter when it comes to Strength. And I believe that would be the difference maker

Wait so you're saying Crawford loses to Porter? Or that Crawford is physically stronger than Porter? Or just punches harder?

Cuz 1)I think Crawford's boxing IQ dances around Porter's & would be the main factor in him winning (I hadn't even considered the fights with Thurman & Brook in regards to who wins really & I'd disagree either guy "handled" Porter cuz both fights were competitive).

2)I don't think Crawford is stronger than Porter, but 3)I do think that Crawford punches harder, if not just more effectively which results in more power, or equally although primarily I don't think strength would even be a primary deciding factor in this theorized fight.

[Sheldon312]

Wait so you're saying Crawford loses to Porter? Or that Crawford is physically stronger than Porter? Or just punches harder?

Cuz 1)I think Crawford's boxing IQ dances around Porter's & would be the main factor in him winning (I hadn't even considered the fights with Thurman & Brook in regards to who wins really & I'd disagree either guy "handled" Porter cuz both fights were competitive).

2)I don't think Crawford is stronger than Porter, but 3)I do think that Crawford punches harder, if not just more effectively which results in more power, or equally although primarily I don't think strength would even be a primary deciding factor in this theorized fight.

Shawn Porter is Marcos Madianna on steroids plus he is a better boxer. Crawford may be more skilled but Porter is bigger and stronger. Picture the Floyd vs Madianna but a super sayned version of Madianna against a smaller version of Floyd without the defense. I favor Porter 55/45. In order to dominate higher weights, you have to either have exceptional defense, speed, or power. Crawford has neither. People forget that size and strength matter.

[Eff Pandas]

Shawn Porter is Marcos Madianna on steroids plus he is a better boxer. Crawford may be more skilled but Porter is bigger and stronger. Picture the Floyd vs Madianna but a super sayned version of Madianna against a smaller version of Floyd without the defense. I favor Porter 55/45. In order to dominate higher weights, you have to either have exceptional defense, speed, or power. Crawford has neither. People forget that size and strength matter.

Interesting comparison with Maidana & Porter. Idk if I'd fully agree or disagree with that. I can see why you are saying it doe. Outwardly Porter gots all the attributes to make one the better boxer of the two, BUT I think Maidana puts the attributes he has into a better more effective package.

Regardless about that interesting comparison I think a fight between Porter & Crawford isn't gonna be decided on size. I don't think Crawford is small enough or weaker enough nor Porter big enough or stronger enough that the outcome gets decided on it.

I think Porter, while a better athlete + the stronger of the two is higher ineffective with his over aggression far too often to not get outmaneuvered & outlanded by the smarter Crawford. I'd probably consider Crawford a 65/35, 70/30 favorite if I were to break it down in percentages.

[McNulty]

i really don't see anyone that can beat him.

i agree. Crawford is a beast!

[Sheldon312]

Interesting comparison with Maidana & Porter. Idk if I'd fully agree or disagree with that. I can see why you are saying it doe. Outwardly Porter gots all the attributes to make one the better boxer of the two, BUT I think Maidana puts the attributes he has into a better more effective package.

Regardless about that interesting comparison I think a fight between Porter & Crawford isn't gonna be decided on size. I don't think Crawford is small enough or weaker enough nor Porter big enough or stronger enough that the outcome gets decided on it.

I think Porter, while a better athlete + the stronger of the two is higher ineffective with his over aggression far too often to not get outmaneuvered & outlanded by the smarter Crawford. I'd probably consider Crawford a 65/35, 70/30 favorite if I were to break it down in percentages.

Go back and look at Thurman vs Porter and Brook vs Porter. Thurman is bigger than Crawford plus he is better at fighting off the backfoot and he has the better defense. But yet Porter still was able to cut off the ring and make it a dog fight. Hell, even vs Brook he did a pretty good job at getting in on the inside. I'm sorry but when you look at who Crawford has faced and compared them to Porter, you will see that Porter(who is considered just a contender) is better than anyone Crawford has faced. I know we love to **** on GGG's resume but you can't sit just sit there and make it seem as if Crawford is going to beat all these guys when he has a pretty weak resume.