Here is a huge problem in boxing: do you respect the belt or the fighter?
Y'all arguing Plant vs Benavidez when they have the same accomplishments and the same quality of wins, so let me not use them let's use two fighters we can all recognize are great: Spence and Crawford.
Errol Spence is a unified champ in one weight division who has slowly but surely built up a nice resume of fighters he beat but overall has not accomplished a lot in the long run of things.
Terence Crawford is a 3 division champ, and was undisputed in one, but nobody even his fans don't think highly of his competition.
Who is the better fighter? Do we respect the accomplishments or do we respect the resume?
I aint doing it no more honestly, tearing down any fighters resume or accomplishments, fukk it boxers already have to deal with promoters preventing them from fighting, fans shouldn'tadd fuel to the fire by gassing up a fighter into thinking they are bigger than the sport. I want to see everybody fight everybody, like how it was in the 90s and 2000s. It was real wasy to figure out who the best was back then because everyone fought everybody, regardless if they were a champ or not. The top 10 in every weight class all need to square off against each other, point blank period.