who has a better resume emile griffth or tommy hearns?

[AztecWanker]

Well, let me break it down for you in elementary terms: Boxer A has 50 wins and 2 losses with 25 KO's, Boxer B has 50 wins and 2 losses with 48 KO's. Because I place a high(er) premium on power, while both fighters share the same W/L record, I rank Boxer B's résumé above that of Boxer A, by virtue of the better KO record.

But what if Fighter A fought good fighters and Fighter B fought nothing but bums?

[Boxing Bob]

Resume wise, I'll take Griffith. H2H, I'll take Hearns as Griffith didn't have anything Hearns doesn't and Hearns had a HUGE advantage in power

[Prince_Pugilist]

This is a tough one. In terms of resume I might just edge it to Hearns, simply because Griffith, although great, lost to two of his best opponents, Monzon and Nino and also lost to Napoles. I'd have to check boxrec or wiki to look up his other fights but I seem to remember he had good wins punctuated by several losses in between.

Hearns had an extended run at 147 and a very good go at 160 and 168, arguably getting the nod over Ray the second time round. Lets not forget wins over Benitez and Duran.

H2H, I'd give Griffith an edge at 147 but Hearns always had the equalising ability of power. At 160, I think Hearns could stop Griffith.

[Panamaniac]

But what if Fighter A fought good fighters and Fighter B fought nothing but bums?

It doesn't matter, as a résumé by definition is superficial, it is merely a summary of one's work experience. Fighter A might be better upon closer examination, but Fighter B still has the better résumé.