BoxRec

Terence Crawford's star continues to rise in 2015 as he moved up to 140 and won his second world title. His boxing style is dynamic and crowd pleasing. Orthodox or Southpaw, Boxing brass admit that they've never seen anyone toggle between stances more effectively. He can do it all. But as Lamps, Roy and Max suggest, TC's biggest asset is his chip on his shoulder inside the ring and his will to never lose an exchange. He's even been called "mean" inside the ring.

But IMO, it's the "chip on his shoulder" and "meanness" that is going to be TC's downfall and it's going to happen soon. If you've seen TC fight in the last couple years, you will mostly see a patient fighter working off the jab with consistent pressure. But every other round or so, he goes for broke on a shoeshine. His head pops straight up unprotected and he and his opponent throw defense aside at that moment and just throw bombs wildly. It's the same type of exchange that almost put TC down in the Gamboa fight. It also happened in the Dulorme fight in almost every round but Dulorme was too soft to land. TC doesn't need to win a fight this way but his anger and his mean streak will never back away from an exchange like this and I feel it's going to be his undoing....and soon.

It probably won't be Lundy that does it but his second fight in 2016 should be a step up in class and it's my feeling that TC will sustain a shocking loss because of this weakness. Thoughts?

Considering the level of opposition Arum is getting for him, he's not losing anytime soon.

Nice post. I largely agree.

That's why I call him Hitman Jr. He is very similar to Tommy in this regard.

Hearns could have defeated Leonard and Hagler if not for the similar chip he had on his shoulder.

Thank goodness for that chip on both of them. I can't remember a fight of either Hearns or Crawford that stunk up the joint.

Imagine if they played it safety first every minute of every round like certain active and recently (allegedly) retired who will go unnamed in order to keep the thread on track.

I agree (as I have stated over the last year) that Hitman Jr. will eventually fall victim to his aggressiveness. I disagree with it happening this year, but it is possible.

Hopefully, we will get to see him in a step up to super stardom fight this year.

He won't lose at light welter.

In my opinion he beats Postol every day of the week if that fight happens.

I only see him losing when he moves up to welter.

jujigatame wrote:Considering the level of opposition Arum is getting for him, he's not losing anytime soon.

Considering that level isn't because of Arum, it's because all of the fighters are ducking him, Manny, Provo, Herrera, Khan have all said NO to offers from Arum/Crawford to face him.

I wonder why??

Yes, TC does get reckless from time to time but I think he only gets that way because he feels confident that he can take the fighter's best punch that he's facing and still give it back. I'm sure that if he faces someone that he knows he can't just throw caution to the wind that he will make better decisions on how to go about pursuing them in the heat of battle.

I hope Crawford doesn't lose anytime soon, he's one of my favourite current fighters.

Undefeated49-0 wrote: Considering that level isn't because of Arum, it's because all of the fighters are ducking him, Manny, Provo, Herrera, Khan have all said NO to offers from Arum/Crawford to face him.

As I said on the other thread, this talk of "ducking" is naive, if not outright moronic. You have no clue what was offered. Boxers fight for money. If enough money is offered, they'll take the fight.

jujigatame wrote:

Undefeated49-0 wrote: Considering that level isn't because of Arum, it's because all of the fighters are ducking him, Manny, Provo, Herrera, Khan have all said NO to offers from Arum/Crawford to face him.

As I said on the other thread, this talk of "ducking" is naive, if not outright moronic. You have no clue what was offered. Boxers fight for money. If enough money is offered, they'll take the fight.

Moronic right??


http://www.boxingnewsresults.com/2016/0 ... ord-fight/

Yes, moronic.

What in that article do you think contradicts anything I've said?

so what if he doesn't want to lose an exchange ? that's the type of fighter I want to see, some of the best fighters in history had the same attitude.

Again lol.. it's embarassing to call Manny a duck,really showing a bias there. Pacquiao's resume shits on TC, he's probably gambled away more money on pool and darts than TC has made his entire career, and earned his spot at the top a decade ago. He wants more than what TC brings to the table at this point. I'm a huge TC fan and any comment I make about him shows that. Maybe we should wait and see what Crawford does against real top competition because he hasn't faced anyone that comes within a country mile of even an old Pacquiao.

jujigatame wrote:Yes, moronic.

What in that article do you think contradicts anything I've said?

The fact that there is proof that it has nothing to do with the money as to why he refuses to face Crawford, you stated the following:

Boxers fight for money. If enough money is offered, they'll take the fight.

Money was offered or were you under the illusion that they'd fight for free??

What proof? You did not offer any proof. What in that article did you delude yourself into thinking was proof?

Of course he was offered money. You have no clue how much. You have no clue how much money he usually makes for a fight, and what other offers he has on the table. You have no clue what other personal reasons he may have for turning a fight down at this time. You have ZERO specifics about the situation, and are basically calling an accomplished professional fighter a coward based on hearsay and conjecture.

jujigatame wrote:What proof? You did not offer any proof. What in that article did you delude yourself into thinking was proof?

Of course he was offered money. You have no clue how much. You have no clue how much money he usually makes for a fight, and what other offers he has on the table. You have no clue what other personal reasons he may have for turning a fight down at this time. You have ZERO specifics about the situation, and are basically calling an accomplished professional fighter a coward based on hearsay and conjecture.

Enough money was offered, it was your own logic I used but now you're backing away from your own words, how convenient.

For the record, if you read what I stated, I never said he was a coward, that's your own lack of understanding what you read.

What in holy hell are you talking about? How much money was offered? By what standard can you say it was "enough"?

You are talking directly out of your ass.

jujigatame wrote:What in holy hell are you talking about? How much money was offered? By what standard can you say it was "enough"?

You are talking directly out of your ass.

Here is your comment as a reminder: Boxers fight for money.

I'm sure he was offered something bigger than he's been getting considering he'd be fighting Crawford in a headliner battle. Seems like you're the one talking outta his @$$.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:
I'm sure he was offered something bigger than he's been getting considering he'd be fighting Crawford in a headliner battle. Seems like you're the one talking outta his @$$.

That's not how this works. You are the one making the assertion, you have to support it with evidence, otherwise it is just hearsay and conjecture.

Face it, you know absolutely NOTHING about the situation, and are talking from betwixt your asscheeks.

jujigatame wrote:That's not how this works. You are the one making the assertion, you have to support it with evidence, otherwise it is just hearsay and conjecture.

Face it, you know absolutely NOTHING about the situation, and are talking from betwixt your asscheeks.

I know enough to know that he turned down the fight and that there was money offerd (the only thing you said is required). Bottom line is that you know even less because you didn't even know he had turned down the fight.

So now we know you only have one thing betwixt your buttcheeks and I don't think i need to say what that one thing is.

I've said about a few fighters, that if they have these self inflicted weaknesses, it depends how they choose to play it when they step up.

This isn't a weakness in his game that he can't do anything about, he can choose to be gung ho or not.
As yet, he hasn't fought the creme de la creme of the boxing world and has been comfortable enough to be able to be a bit more exciting to watch than he perhaps needs to be.

The big question is will he continue to take risks as he steps in with better, bigger and more dangerous opposition or will he ammend his style and take a more cautious approach and show his opponents the respect they deserve?

It is entirely in his own hands whether he takes a more measured and cautious approach or continues to have us on the edge of our seat.

As a fan I hope he doesn't spend too much time worrying that he might lose and takes risks and entertains.

If I were Crawfords people, I'd hope the exact opposite

I have not studied Crawford too closely but I still cant agree with the OP. He seems very patient and confident character, the exact opposite of chip on a shoulder. He takes chances on rare occasions but to call him reckless I think its a stretch. With Gamboa he took more chances then usual for two reasons. One he had trouble with Gamboas speed and was loosing rounds early, which force him into power exchanges. And second, he saw Gamboa was much smaller man and could not hurt him and was reckless himself.

I dont fully understand the secret of his effectiveness but I dont see major flaws either.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

jujigatame wrote:That's not how this works. You are the one making the assertion, you have to support it with evidence, otherwise it is just hearsay and conjecture.

Face it, you know absolutely NOTHING about the situation, and are talking from betwixt your asscheeks.

I know enough to know that he turned down the fight and that there was money offerd (the only thing you said is required). Bottom line is that you know even less because you didn't even know he had turned down the fight.

So now we know you only have one thing betwixt your buttcheeks and I don't think i need to say what that one thing is.

Do you really think that when I said "boxers fight for money" I meant "boxers will fight for any sum of money offered to them"? Surely you are being intentionally obtuse here and are not really that dumb?

And I am not the one making the claim that Herrera (or Postol or Provodnikov or whoever) is "ducking" Crawford.

jujigatame wrote:Do you really think that when I said "boxers fight for money" I meant "boxers will fight for any sum of money offered to them"? Surely you are being intentionally obtuse here and are not really that dumb?

And I am not the one making the claim that Herrera (or Postol or Provodnikov or whoever) is "ducking" Crawford.

I'm being obtuse, have a nice day.

I would this guy make a thread about Terence Crawford losing in 2016,when he haven't lost this year,regardless if he did loss in 2016,he's still a elite fighter.Where is all this criticism an negative bull crap coming from.

davie wrote:I've said about a few fighters, that if they have these self inflicted weaknesses, it depends how they choose to play it when they step up.

This isn't a weakness in his game that he can't do anything about, he can choose to be gung ho or not.
As yet, he hasn't fought the creme de la creme of the boxing world and has been comfortable enough to be able to be a bit more exciting to watch than he perhaps needs to be.

The big question is will he continue to take risks as he steps in with better, bigger and more dangerous opposition or will he ammend his style and take a more cautious approach and show his opponents the respect they deserve?

It is entirely in his own hands whether he takes a more measured and cautious approach or continues to have us on the edge of our seat.

As a fan I hope he doesn't spend too much time worrying that he might lose and takes risks and entertains.

If I were Crawfords people, I'd hope the exact opposite

Nice post and i'm with ya for the most part on this one. It almost felt wrong coming up with a negative take on TC's entertaining fights after dealing with Floyd's last couple of years. But as a TC fan, there's way too many "hold your breath" exchanges in his fights when his chins too high and both guys throw technique out the window and just throw. As a fan, I find it careless and scary to watch as I root for the guy. Gamboa is fantastic but he's small and light compared to the brass at 140 and above and if TC can get buzzed by Gamboa, imaging what Postal will do to him. The worst part is that these exchanges that i'm referring to rarely lead to knockdowns for TC so in essence, it's just been poorly calculated risks that will catch up with him.

I hope he does do as you say and take a more measured approach. Because we have all seen this movie before. A boxer is never the same once they've been knocked out cold. They lose something that they can never get back so i'd like to see him pick his spots a little better and not sit down and swing with his chin so high for so long. He can still be that same exciting boxer if eliminated or reduced some of this IMO