In a recent media scrum, Jaron Boots Ennis made headlines by declaring that he does not place Terence Crawford on his personal Mount Rushmore of boxing greats. This statement has sparked a debate among boxing fans and pundits alike, as Crawford is a three-division undisputed champion, a feat no other male fighter has accomplished.
During a community event, reporters pressed Ennis about Crawford and Canelo Alvarez, but it was clear that he was focused on his upcoming fight rather than engaging in discussions about other fighters. Ennis appeared grizzly and committed to his training, indicating he was in camp mode and not interested in sidetracking his focus.
When asked about placing Crawford on his Mount Rushmore, Ennis simply replied, “No, I don’t.” He emphasized that everyone is entitled to their own opinions regarding their personal lists of boxing greats. Ennis’s honesty resonates well, illustrating that personal preferences in the sport can vary greatly, even among fighters.
I share Ennis’s perspective. Despite Crawford’s accolades and skills, he does not make it onto my Mount Rushmore either. This is not a slight against his talent; rather, it reflects the limited number of spots available on such a prestigious list. Mount Rushmore features only four legends, and I believe those spots should be reserved for fighters whose careers have had profound impacts on the sport.
Ennis’s Mount Rushmore includes names that are often mentioned in discussions of boxing greatness: Floyd Mayweather, Pernell Whitaker, Sugar Ray Leonard, and James Toney. While I admire this list, I would also advocate for Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson to be included. The debate around who deserves a spot on such a list is subjective and reflects a deeper understanding of each fighter’s legacy.
Ennis’s refusal to place Crawford on his list is significant, particularly given that he has expressed a desire to fight Crawford in the future. This dynamic shows the respect he has for Crawford as a competitor, yet he remains steadfast in his personal criteria for greatness.
Further complicating the discussion is the fact that while Crawford has defeated several champions in his career, including notable names like Errol Spence and Canelo Alvarez, the sheer volume of champions Mayweather has faced—over 20 in his career—cannot be ignored. The disparity in the number of champions defeated is striking and contributes to the arguments favoring Mayweather’s claim to greatness.
Moreover, Crawford’s path to success has not been without its challenges. Early in his career, he faced significant obstacles in securing high-profile fights, which, as he has openly admitted, led him to contemplate quitting boxing at one point. These factors complicate the evaluation of his career and achievements, especially when considering the timing and quality of his opponents.
As boxing continues to evolve, discussions like these are vital for understanding the landscape of the sport and the criteria by which we judge greatness. While Crawford has clearly proven himself in the ring, the debate about his legacy is far from settled.
Ultimately, whether or not Crawford makes it onto someone’s Mount Rushmore is a personal decision. I appreciate his skill and contributions to boxing, but for now, I stand alongside Ennis in choosing other fighters who have defined what it means to be great in this sport. I encourage fans to share their own Mount Rushmore lists and engage in this ongoing conversation. Who makes your list, and why?