I enjoy seeing greatness. I like seeing dynasties. Pick a sport, when someone is doing what hasn’t been done, I’m interested. Motocross, I watched Ricky Carmichael, don’t even really care about Motocross. F1 I watched Michael Schumacher, don’t even really care about F1. But at those times I cared. Sport to sport to sport greatness is interesting. But boxing, it’s my sport. I always care about it all. The most exhilarating is upsets of course but top guys can’t get upsets because top guys are favorites. And this is why I am hard on Loma...

I think he is great, the question is how great. Aggressive fighters are always overrated compared to defensive fighters. Pac-Man was going to destroy Mayweather because offensive fighters look better against inferior competition. But that isn’t how it really is. Tyson was unbeatable, except no.

In the end greatness is judged on what you do. Not fake accomplishments like fastest to, but real accomplishment like SRL beating Hearns. Not people saying you are... but proving you are... And my issue is this...




And so on.

Greatest ever should not be a debate, yet. Top now? If he beats the Commey/Lopez winner to unify he will still be behind Crawford since Crawford already did everything he is trying to do and without losing to a journeyman. But I don’t even say he can’t be the best ever, or say he can’t pass Crawford. My thing is only that there is more to do to do it. I want to see him unify, I want to see him fight Tank, fight Garcia, fight Berchelt. Depending on the order I may root for him in all these fights because my desire to see greatness will take over.

My thing is that I don’t like seeing it said BEFORE HE HAS PROVEN IT.

Fair or foul?

(FTR I don’t ask to grandstand. I ask because I’m willing to accept I get things wrong. Lord knows I never imagined a scumbag like Trump could be POTUS. And the board is slow so...)