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

[any craic lad?]

Resume.Skills are great and all but you have the right stuff upstairs to pull through the moments when things are going against you

[cornholioda3rd]

Skills are pretty important though. Would anyone rate Ricardo Lopez if you saw his resume? He was a hall of famer because of his amazing skills.
However, he will never be considered one of the greatest, because he doesn't have any big name wins in his career.

[Bombs]

Originally Posted by cornholioda3rd

Skills are pretty important though. Would anyone rate Ricardo Lopez if you saw his resume? He was a hall of famer because of his amazing skills.
However, he will never be considered one of the greatest, because he doesn't have any big name wins in his career.

If you don't put your skills to the test, how do you know you're great?

[retnuocllup]

Originally Posted by Reloaded

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 .

you make a good argument, but this isn't a good analogy for boxing.

it doesn't matter who racehorses beat, what matters is their time which is measurable.

boxing doesn't have a measuring stick like horse racing... therefore a boxer's resume is all we've got and if a boxer's resume isn't composed of good to great opposition, its hard to determine how skillful said boxer is.

take wlad and vitaly for example. it's clear that they are very good possibly great, but the opposition available to them makes it hard to categorize them as great.

[retnuocllup]

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....

yep... and larry holmes got it worse because he boxed during a very poor HW division

[The Surgeon]

Originally Posted by Bombs

Which do you consider more when determining the greatness of a fighter?

Huh what do you think punky boys?

Resume does. Its fact. Skill is basically the eye test and open to debate, its subjective...
Tyson for example suffers ATG wise due to resume, Eye test wise he is clearly ATG material

[projectpaki]

both, but people for some reason value resume more than skills. I think even if you have a lot of losses, you still can be a dangerous, competitive fighter if you have the skills.

[retnuocllup]

Originally Posted by projectpaki

both, but people for some reason value resume more than skills.

people don't value resume more than skills. the only way to measure skills is by fighting the best opponents thus having a great resume.

I think even if you have a lot of losses, you still can be a dangerous, competitive fighter if you have the skills.

it's ok to lose to other great boxers. for example there's no shame in cotto losing to pac. its ok to lose to mediocre boxers too (cause sometimes a boxer has off nights, like Lewis to Rahman), as long as you avenge your loss.

you can have all the skills in the world, but if you don't fight against the best, those skills don't mean sh*t. You have the potential to be great, but you are in fact not great.

[madsweeney]

Originally Posted by projectpaki

both, but people for some reason value resume more than skills. I think even if you have a lot of losses, you still can be a dangerous, competitive fighter if you have the skills.

Resume is proof of one's skills, that is why it is revered so much.