Who has the better resume: Lucian Bute or Andre Berto

[IronDanHamza]

Originally Posted by Bushbaby

I saw the 1st Andrade fight, did you? If that ain't struggling, what is?

Of course. Of course he struggled in that fight. He was damn near stopped.

But, he avenged the performance in pretty impressive fashion, No?

Has Berto done that with his poor performances?

The first Andrade fight is pretty much the only time Bute has stuggled, No?

As opposed to Berto, who has literally struggled to an extent every single time he has faced an above average fighter.

The only fighters Berto has fought who are above average are Collazo, Quintana, Ortiz and Zaveck. And each time he hasn't looked good at all.

As opposed to Bute who's wins are as poor as Berto's. But, Bute has either;; dominated them or the one time he struggled he rematched him and dominated.

That's the difference.

[WarMaidana]

Definately Berto, but Bertos resume is still weak. But atleast he fought and beat (even though it was controversial, he still got the W) Collazo, he fought a FOTY fight with Ortiz, Zaveck was a decent opponent, and Quintana.

[Dominicano Soy]

Easily Berto, easily.

[IronDanHamza]

Originally Posted by Dominicano Soy!

Easily Berto, easily.

How?

Berto's beaten Quintana an Zaveck whilst looking not good at all and most impressive win is probably Juan Urango.

And lost convincingly to Ortiz an also lost to Collazo in most peoples opinion.

Bute has beaten similarly poor competition except for he hasn't struggled whilst doing so.

I can't see logically how it's easily Berto.

[wazaa.]

Damn, this is a close one.

Great thread, TS.

Ima lay back and watch Dom and Hamza debate it out.

[Alx.]

bute for sure, he's fought ok fighters and beat them

[UglyPug]

don't confuse performance with resume! it doesn't matter how well berto performed. . . resume simply means "fighters you have FACED". and Berto has easily faced better competition than Bute. . .

well nevermind, i suppose performance could be a factor in resume. if that's the case, then I'd say even. Berto has struggled a bit more than bute, and has an L - because he has faced better opponents!

[IronDanHamza]

Originally Posted by uglypug

don't confuse performance with resume! it doesn't matter how well berto performed. . . resume simply means "fighters you have FACED". and Berto has easily faced better competition than Bute. . .

That's not true, though.

For start, most people, including myself, don't count loss's on a resume.

Because I find that illogical, personally. I wouldn't put a job I didn't get on my resume. Same applies for a fighter I didn't beat.

And performance in those fights surely must mean something toward that resume.

How many times do we assess wins followed by 'and he looked incredible in doing it' or 'he really didn't look too great in doing it'

For a off the top of my head example; George Foremans wins over Fraizer as opposed to Ali's wins over Fraizer. Both great wins for both fighters but Foreman's performance against him was better. Just an example.

Or, for example, Arguello's win over Ramirez, a fight in which Arguello did not look great in and argubally lost and probably did lose (Similar to the Berto-Collazo fight) is ALWAYS brought up when talking about Arguello's resume. And righftully so.

So I would have to argue that resume isn't just who you faced and win-loss's and performances are included when assesing a resume. But hey, that's just me.

For the record, if we're just talking solely who fought the better fighters then it's clearly Berto.

[UglyPug]

Originally Posted by IronDanHamza

That's not true, though.

For start, most people, including myself, don't count loss's on a resume.

Because I find that illogical, personally. I wouldn't put a job I didn't get on my resume. Same applies for a fighter I didn't beat.

And performance in those fights surely must mean something toward that resume.

How many times do we assess wins followed by 'and he looked incredible in doing it' or 'he really didn't look too great in doing it'

For a off the top of my head example; George Foremans wins over Fraizer as opposed to Ali's wins over Fraizer. Both great wins for both fighters but Foreman's performance against him was better. Just an example.

Or, for example, Arguello's win over Ramirez, a fight in which Arguello did not look great in and argubally lost and probably did lose (Similar to the Berto-Collazo fight) is ALWAYS brought up when talking about Arguello's resume. And righftully so.

So I would have to argue that resume isn't just who you faced and win-loss's and performances are included when assesing a resume. But hey, that's just me.

For the record, if we're just talking solely who fought the better fighters then it's clearly Berto.

upon further reflection i agree with you - the lennox lewis/vitali klitschko fight - sure lennox's RECORD says "TKO 6", but in reality vitali was winning the fight. . . same thing with berto vs. zavec - it says "TKO 5", but Zavec was fighting Berto close in every round. . .

i still say it's pretty close, because the best fighter Bute has fought is Librado Andrade, who is a club fighter - bless his heart lol, but he simply has NO SKILLS - a strictly straight forward brawler; granted, though, he is pretty good doing that. we will be able to gauge Bute A LOT better after his fight with Johnson.

[Dedication]

Poll has now been added.

Lezgo!