Thanks for coming on the show.

First, let me just tell you my impressions off Terence Crawford.

And then I'd like to hear you tell me if I'm existing in this kind of bubble where you know, incentive shape behavior, right?

I'm here at ESPN and Top Rank is here, or whether what you see is the same as what I see.

I think Terence Crawford is a complete package, is a fighter.

He is much less proven at 147 that another way than another weight classes.

But that's not his fault.

They keep his promoter, and it's difficult to get guys across the street to fight him.

And yet, against Kell Brook, what I saw was a guy who has evolved from a slick boxing lightweight champion once upon a time to a power punching welterweight, though it's hard to tell how much Kell Brook has left after those devastating losses to glove, skin and, obviously toe Errol Spence.

Chris, what do you see?

I see arguably the most skilled fighter in all of boxing, but not someone that, quite frankly, can even be considered the top pound for pound guy because of the lack of accomplishments.

Max, you want to put it in the context of a different sport.

The Lakers aren't the best team in the n B A because their roster is the best.

On paper, the Lakers are the best team in the N B A because they beat Portland and Houston and Denver and Miami.

And they accomplished something Terence Crawford I look at as potentially the best fighter in boxing.

But he's nowhere near is accomplished as some of the guys that are in this discussion, most notably Canelo Alvarez.

I don't think there should be any debates over who the top fighter is in boxing.

Canelo Alvarez, at 1 54 fought and beat the best at 1 60 fought and beat at least once, the best in Gennady Golovkin at 1 75.

We could argue that Sergei Kovalev is not the same fighter he was when he was fighting on HBO, but he still was a title holder and a big puncher, and Canela moved up and he knocked him out.

So to me, resume is all that matters when you make pound for pound Lis.

Okay, well, you and I have very different feeling about the resume.

I think when you're ranking fighters and you have to have in order to establish a title shot resume, is everything right?

It's got to be meritocratic.

But when it comes to pound for pound because it's subjective, it's our opinion.

To me.

It's about you.

Look at everybody, you look at the landscape, and I think that guy's the most effective operator in his weight class right now.

I think that's Crawford.

What you just said about Canelo.

Crawford did that.

At 35.

He did it at 40.

Now he's at 47 where he's been locked out of opportunity.

But along the way, he hasn't had any close calls, as Canelo did against Erislandy.

Lara could have gone either way.

Austin Trout Very close.

Golovkin a better fighter than obviously Terence Crawford, has fought, but they were close competitive fights, and so I like Crawford there, but But I understand there's a difference in philosophy.

What do you think about the way Crawford look looked against Kell Brook?

Well, Crawford's a puncher, and you can hit with both hands, but I do think that was Maura about what Kell Brook is than something turns.

Crawford continues to evolve to be.

One thing we know about fighters and wait is that when you struggle to make weight, your punch resistance goes down.

As you get older, your punch resistance goes down.

And Kell Brook It was three years ago, Max, that Kell Brook vowed to never fight at 1 47 again, he was done with £147 division.

Now I give him all the credit in the world for making the weight.

That is a discipline.

He did it, He made the way clean and the fight was on.

But I thought he really had to take himself to task to get down £247 of how that fight played out didn't surprise me.

One bit happened a little earlier than I thought it was gonna happen.

But I expected turns Crawford to knock out Kell Brook spectacularly, and that's exactly what he did because we have a good time.

You're not G eking out when we see each other on the road.

Different events about boxing, basketball, but I want to get your your hits, so we have to pace it right now.

on a couple of topics in the fight game.

First of all, Crawford's future because people are talking Pacquiao Spence is that wishful thinking.

His contract with top rank recently, Bob Arum made comments about that.

He's losing money on Crawford and also Canellos Future.

Let's start with Crawford quickly.

What do you see?

I think Crawford.

They're going to try as hard as they can to make this Spence fight in the first quarter of 2021.

And there really is no excuse for it not to happen.

There isn't a logical opponent for Spence on his side of the street.

Keith Thurman is not really somebody's interested in.

Nobody really cares right now about a Sean Porter rematch, so the time is now.

If that fight can't be made, I do see a productive 2021.

I mean, Crawford could move up to £154 and fight Patrick to share a if to share a wins his next fight.

That would be a feather in his cap, and if he did that, he would be able to fight the winner, perhaps, of Josh Taylor vs Jose Ramirez, which would be a really intriguing fight in the second half of 2021.

So even without Spence, I can see a productive year for Terence Crawford.

As Faras Canelo goes, Eddie Hearn kind of pulled a rabbit out of his hat here in the last couple of days.

I mean, getting Canelo to sign on to fight Callum Smith, who I think is the best 168 pounder and boxing right now.

That is a coup for Eddie Hearn and a coup for his own to get Canelo back in the mix and because any is linked to Gennady Golovkin, I think there is a very strong possibility, in fact, the likelihood that in May of 2021 we see Canelo vs Golovkin three.

Thanks for watching ESPN on YouTube for live streaming sports and premium content.