What weighs in more when determining the greatness of a fighter: Resume or skills?

[ghns1133]

Originally Posted by DempseyRollin

yea, hes the same damn troll. he just says **** to be outrageous, sometimes i dunno if he really believes it. but he really knows better even if he acts like he dont.

i heted his last alt

this one is funny

but if it is him

ii hope he gets banned

**** you fooly cooly!!

[BostonGuy]

I hear a lot that Riddick Bowe had good boxing skills and technique, power and size but rarely do you hear him being ranked that high in the list of ATG heavyweights because of his sub-par resume....

[DempseyRollin]

Originally Posted by BostonGuy

I hear a lot that Riddick Bowe had good boxing skills and technique, power and size but rarely do you hear him being ranked that high in the list of ATG heavyweights because of his sub-par resume....

bowe was a tremendous waste of talent.

[ghns1133]

Originally Posted by BostonGuy

I hear a lot that Riddick Bowe had good boxing skills and technique, power and size but rarely do you hear him being ranked that high in the list of ATG heavyweights because of his sub-par resume....

keep ur eye on ts

i think it might be jack/fooly cooly/majorkong

[Reloaded]

The thing with a resume is it is open to debate and open to question ,, to much value is put on a fighters name , what is infinitely more important is a fighters form at the time they fight and the question is why did the winner win and this is where REAL gets lost in hype and your own knowledge of the sport .

Where that name is at in terms of his career and his peak form at the time is whether you truly beat that NAME , so in reality determining greatness from a resume is just a debate over opinions , how REAL is that resume .

Now the other side is knowing enough about the sport to know greatness in fighting ability when you see it , Im sure that their are trainers and inside boxing people that knew Floyd was going to be special right from the first time he stepped in the ring , its like seeing a champion racehorse in his first barrier trial , those top liners usually blitz them right out the gate , so in the end it boils down to knowing what your looking at ,

Trainers of racehorses dont go on about what names they beat they are interested in the running , the time and how often their champion can repeat close to his best time on race day ,,,, so like with racehorses the resume is only a record of numbers it dont tell the true story on face value .

Great fighters and greatness is in the eye of the beholder , and people love to argue about opinion lol , I wonder how many can question their own opinion as hard as they will defend it .

[jrosales13]

Originally Posted by Reloaded

The thing with a resume is it is open to debate and open to question ,, to much value is put on a fighters name , what is infinitely more important is a fighters form at the time they fight and the question is why did the winner win and this is where REAL gets lost in hype and your own knowledge of the sport .

Where that name is at in terms of his career and his peak form at the time is whether you truly beat that NAME , so in reality determining greatness from a resume is just a debate over opinions , how REAL is that resume .

Now the other side is knowing enough about the sport to know greatness in fighting ability when you see it , Im sure that their are trainers and inside boxing people that knew Floyd was going to be special right from the first time he stepped in the ring , its like seeing a champion racehorse in his first barrier trial , those top liners usually blitz them right out the gate , so in the end it boils down to knowing what your looking at ,

Trainers of racehorses dont go on about what names they beat they are interested in the running , the time and how often their champion can repeat close to his best time on race day ,,,, so like with racehorses the resume is only a record of numbers it dont tell the true story on face value .

Great fighters and greatness is in the eye of the beholder , and people love to argue about opinion lol , I wonder how many can question their own opinion as hard as they will defend it .

What a perfect analogy.

[Dominicano Soy]

It's both, but resume more so than skills. I would say resume is like 70%, skill 30%.

[dosepulgada]

Resumes, but if both resumes are equal then that's when skills kick in.
Pac is awed in the boxing world because of his resume. He's small, his skills are being questioned, but because of his resume, his name is already being placed among ATGs even before retirement.

[edgarg]

Originally Posted by Heeb

Both, but I think resume is significantly more important than skills.

It obviously includes BOTH. Oscar has a very good resume, but he lost all his bigh fights. And he won a few that he really should have lost. But he has a good resume......... For him to be a "great" he needed to have won his big fights. Without that, he is just good or very good, but not great.

There are other individual criteria, such as the conditions surrounding the fights, the period in the career when they were fought, the longevity of the fighter, the "taking on all comers" and other attributes. But they all come together in a combination of skill and resume. Margarito has a great resume, but he lost several of his big fights, even though he won a couple. He will not be a "great".

[retnuocllup]

skills aint ***** if you don't have someone to fight to prove how great your skills are...