Thread: My Twitter beef: Crawford is better than Canelo

Fat Dan actually replied to me (I rarely post anything on Twitter) and a few other people tried to argue with me so I'm just going to vent my frustration here.

I say it's laughable that Canelo is above Crawford on the ESPN p4p list. Fat Dan says Canelo has better competition. This really isn't true. He may have a slight edge but not by much and he usually outweighs his opponents by a ton.

Let's look at this. Canelo has two really big names on his resume. Mosley is the first. We all know that was a joke. Mosley was way smaller and way past his best. Mosley actually did decent though. Cotto is the other name. Good win but again, Cotto was quite a bit smaller and definitely past his best. Both are good name recognition wins but neither are career defining wins IMO. Canelo has fought a few fighters his size. Two of about 5 of them gave him a lot of struggles. They are trout and Lara. Both fights were pickem type fights. Canelo in reality has made his name bearing smaller fighters as we all know.

Crawford doesn't have big named fighters on his resume, but that doesn't mean they aren't good fighters. Also, Crawford has easily dismantled his competition. Fighters like burns, dulorme, Prescott, Beltran, gamboa, etc are comparable to Canelo list of fighters skill wise. Crawford has just been more dominant.

Last but not least, just the eye test alone shows that Crawford is a superior fighter to Canelo. I do believe that Canelo has earned himself a spot in the top 10 (although it's still debatable if he deserves it over others), Crawford is 100% sure a top 10 fighter. That's not debatable. For anybody to think that Canelo is the better fighter is beyond me.

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Fat Dan actually replied to me (I rarely post anything on Twitter) and a few other people tried to argue with me so I'm just going to vent my frustration here.

I say it's laughable that Canelo is above Crawford on the ESPN p4p list. Fat Dan says Canelo has better competition. This really isn't true. He may have a slight edge but not by much and he usually outweighs his opponents by a ton.

Let's look at this. Canelo has two really big names on his resume. Mosley is the first. We all know that was a joke. Mosley was way smaller and way past his best. Mosley actually did decent though. Cotto is the other name. Good win but again, Cotto was quite a bit smaller and definitely past his best. Both are good name recognition wins but neither are career defining wins IMO. Canelo has fought a few fighters his size. Two of about 5 of them gave him a lot of struggles. They are trout and Lara. Both fights were pickem type fights. Canelo in reality has made his name bearing smaller fighters as we all know.

Crawford doesn't have big named fighters on his resume, but that doesn't mean they aren't good fighters. Also, Crawford has easily dismantled his competition. Fighters like burns, dulorme, Prescott, Beltran, gamboa, etc are comparable to Canelo list of fighters skill wise. Crawford has just been more dominant.

Last but not least, just the eye test alone shows that Crawford is a superior fighter to Canelo. I do believe that Canelo has earned himself a spot in the top 10 (although it's still debatable if he deserves it over others), Crawford is 100% sure a top 10 fighter. That's not debatable. For anybody to think that Canelo is the better fighter is beyond me.

I wouldn't read too much into it. I think its just a matter of Canelo being at the top of the game longer and the money he's bringing into boxing. Espn does really rate high on my list of opinions. They seem to take a lot of the poppy casual public opinion to heart and mold their opinions around it. (at least they used to with hockey-- which is why i stopped reading) maybe Canelo has benefactors that bought his place on the list. I'm joking, of course but does anyone else notice that freemason shape hidden in his logo...

You should laugh at him for being such a fat ass! That's what I would do.

I do think Canelo has a slightly better resume I guess, definitely don't think he's as good as Crawford as a pound for pound fighter, which it part of what makes the debate so silly in the first place. I personally think you always have to do the eye test and try and go by recent form, but how can you compare guys who fight at completely different weights if you can't even agree on the criteria for it within a given one?

Canelo can't beat the best guys in any division, he is forced to hide at Caneloweight. So I don't see how he rates P4P at all.

He refused to fight Andrade for good reason and the Charlo bros would beat him now too. So run and hide Canelo

THE PANEL: Dan Rafael, Brian Campbell, Teddy Atlas, Nigel Collins, Carlos Nava, Carlos Narvaez, Bernardo Pilatti, Eric Raskin and Salvador Rodriguez.


Other receiving votes: Naoya Inoue (9), Vasyl Lomachenko (, Wladimir Klitschko (6), Keith Thurman (4), Kell Brook (4), Deontay Wilder (3), Danny Garcia (3), Shinsuke Yamanaka (1), Viktor Postol (1)


SIX of those "experts" picked Wlad and THREE Wilder. Lets just ignore Fury beat Wlad then and Wilder P4P!?! Blimey.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, P4P is a load of meaningless Horseshit.
I can understand the concept of finding the best overall boxer on the planet, maybe 2nd & 3rd. But after that it becomes ridiculous. There are so many imponderables that its a joke.
This is a perfect example of that.

You're 100% correct in your argument. Look at the records and sure Canelo has a few names on there, but look at the results vs Cotto a close UD and similarly vs Lara a close decision (a split decision actually), vs Trout another close UD. When Canelo fought Floyd he wasn't effective at all.

Now look at Crawford, he's been in with good names and he's won CONVINCINGLY! When he first stepped up his level competition vs Prescott, he took the fight on 3 days notice, it was his first time at 140 and he damn near pitched a shutout! vs Ricky Burns he won a deserved UD, vs Gamboa he won via TKO, vs Dulorme he won via TKO, vs Lundy he won via TKO.


When Crawford gets on the big stage he shines, when Canelo gets on the big stage he tries not to fall off....there's the difference plain and simple

Originally Posted by Fenster

THE PANEL: Dan Rafael, Brian Campbell, Teddy Atlas, Nigel Collins, Carlos Nava, Carlos Narvaez, Bernardo Pilatti, Eric Raskin and Salvador Rodriguez.


Other receiving votes: Naoya Inoue (9), Vasyl Lomachenko (, Wladimir Klitschko (6), Keith Thurman (4), Kell Brook (4), Deontay Wilder (3), Danny Garcia (3), Shinsuke Yamanaka (1), Viktor Postol (1)


SIX of those "experts" picked Wlad and THREE Wilder. Lets just ignore Fury beat Wlad then and Wilder P4P!?! Blimey.

Wow! Wilder got votes? Wilder may not even be in my top 50

I agree.
Crawford.