What DEFINES Greatness... Skills Or Resume?

A perfect balance is the best. You cannot have only one of them, its like two sides of a coin, you need one side to have the other.

The only option is both. From an all-encompassing perspective.. but if you had to single out one, which one would you run with?

your resume will be a testament of your skills. You may look good or very skillful against shitty oppositions, but you can test/guage your skills really when facing the best..

Well there is a long and short answer to this. The short version is resume and skill go hand in hand, but skill doesn't necessily give a good resume So I pick resume but only under that assumption

Has to be both but if i had to pick one...it would be resume Any1 can look good until they come up against a legit opponent...you could have the best defense in the world and still lose to a big puncher for example... You could be the fastest and still lose to a slow skilled fighter.... Whatever it is...resume shows who you beat and who they beat.... You can figure out what im saying ^^

once again I think to define greatness si much complexer than this. my answer to this is HEART <3. GATTI-LIKE u know. or even CHICO.

i dont care what anyones else says, but to me, it's what great things a fighter does after a LOSS, that defines ones greatness. there have been many who were considered great, then they had ONE loss, never to be seen again at the A level....... it's if one can get back to the top and get better after a loss, that defines greatness. IMO undefeated fighters aren't great until they've dealt with that adversity and come back form it. IMO if you're undefeated your whole career, you've either been matched as the favorite or been lucky in the uncertain times. undefeated is a hoax................

Most would say a combination of the two but if you could only choose ONE, which would be more important to you in defining what makes a great fighter? The skills, abilities, style and technique that a boxer displays. The resume, record and opponents that a boxer has faced and defeated. Of course resume will define greatness, skills is nothing if you didn't beat elite boxers of your time. Skills is nothing if you don't challenge yourself to fight the best the sport of boxing has to offer, thus, how can you be consider an ATG if you didn't beat anybody?

a little bit of this and a little bit of that.

It's about who you beat and when you beat them. Skills are secondary.

the path to a great resume is skills Who's ever had great skills and a bad resume? they dont go hand in hand, unless youre floyd. j/k floyds boy toys

If what defines greatness is skills then Zab would be an ATG, forget how many losses he has and how he got beat by ****in Baldomir.. Resume>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Skills just the use of common sense would get u thru that..

Obviously your resume and record. There have been plenty of fighters out there with high potential and ability, but they lack other credentials, and thus they fail.

Greater than greatness is Skills + Resume.. That's the GOAT. I answered Resume though because just like what others said, no matter how skillful you are and you don't fight the best in your era then you'll never be great. On second thought, skill is also important since you can always win fantasy fights!!

i feel those who say skills got some agenda... honestly... how can opinion (skills) be on the same level with proof (resume)? Exactly its ludicrous. Its like saying i will take fighter B over fighter A because even though fighter A has proven!!!! he is capable of beating the best fighters out there i think fighter B could!! do the same, plus he has a better skillset. Retarded!

i feel those who say skills got some agenda... honestly... how can opinion (skills) be on the same level with proof (resume)?

Both are important. But if you just have skills but are never able to produce them against the best on the big stage (Hi Zab!), no one will care.

I respect your opinion. but would you still feel that way if a fighter has an impressive resume with huge names, future Hall of Famers, but won them at the end of thier career?? Example.... Felix Trinidad beat Hector Camacho Larry Holmes beat Ali Joe Calzaghe beat Roy Jones Jr. Floyd Mayweather beat De La Hoya All these guys got beat at the end of thier career. common sense dictates that skill wise they wouldn't have been easily beat in thier prime. Commonsense dictates that you value those wins accordingly but it still stands that resume is the ONLY criteria for judging a fighter. How you get the job done means jack, whether you get the job done against the best fighters is what matters.

Resume!!!!!!!!!

Saying that greatness should be based on skills instead of achievements is akin to saying that the Nobel Prize should be based on who has the highest IQ, not who has made the greatest contribution. Nice straw man. The thread asked which is more important, not which absolutely defines greatness. But, if you prefer, keep that mind closed and continue to believe what you want to believe.