I'll stick with Walters, Linares and Russell Jr. at the top..... with a huge gap between them and Rigo and Martinez. Matter of opinion, after all.

By doing so, I feel the "bias factor" is out. What's wrong with pointing out that Rigo was two divisions out of his comfort zone? Unless you're blinded by Loma fandom, it's easy to see. Also I have no problems picking apart my countryman Martinez as a weak champion and a poor gauge in trying to figure out who's p4p in the world. Martinez is/was/always will be a brave warrior and a joy to watch in the ring... no nonsense. Thoroughly enjoyed his two victories over the cheating Salido. But let's be real. Mikey had already taken Martinez apart in the worst way. That's why the gap. By calling Walters, Linares and Russell Jr. great wins, I'm showing my willingness to be objective.

Turning to Crawford, it's easy to throw Diaz, Benavidez and Dulorme into the trash heap on account of them never having won titles. We all know how accurate titles are at determining quality of opponent, don't we. Especially nowadays, when a belt found in a Cracker Jack box is probably more valuable than some of the belts being worn by some of today's "champions." Gamboa's being undersized I can understand and accept, though not at the ridiculous extent that Rigo was. Again... just a show of my remarkable objectiveness. Postol's best win was over Matthysse? Damn straight. So? All fighters have best wins. That was a dominant showing against a feared puncher.... totally unexpected. Everyone was singing Postol's praises after that one. Now of course the bandwagon is temporarily derailed until someone changes the flat tire and it's bandwagon time again.

I agree with @Alpha in that there are probably close to a handful of fighters out there today who are better than either Crawford or Loma. I'm not a Crawford p4p rah-rah guy. But I'll continue stating my opinion that Loma doesn't necessarily belong there either, just yet.