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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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 . you are talking about the potential to be great, not greatness itself. mayweather, at that time had the potential to be great, but was he great yet? yes greatness is merely just an individual opinion and like all other opinions, it can neither be right or wrong, but there is a difference between setting a certain personal criteria yourself to judge greatness when judging boxers and setting a specific criteria centered on just the strong points of someone's favorite fighter just to make him look great.

Resume. Skills and H2H match ups being a very very distant second. IMO.

resume alone because resume already covers skills. a great resume means you had the skills to go w/ it, however awkward or fundamental it is, it is still YOUR skill. Brief yet straight to the point post. You summed it up perfectly boy.

resume alone because resume already covers skills. a great resume means you had the skills to go w/ it, however awkward or fundamental it is, it is still YOUR skill.

resume, without a doubt i couldn't careless if you can barely throw a jab, block with your face, if you're beating top fighters, you're obviously doing somethin right, whether you're winning on will or skill

Good posts so far, read every single one of them. Very good input by some of you. For me the resume is a represenation of your skills and how good you are. A victorious resume full of good names talks about that fighter's quality and greatness in my opinion. It also talks about the kind of fighter he was. Someone who is skillful but doesn't fight the best and has a mediocre resume is not great. For me a great boxer is someone who fights the best and beats the best. Something represented by his resume.

I forgot to mention... Skills pay bills.

names under your resume is the result of your skills pitted against different fighters with whether good or bad skills. now if youve won those fights, your resume will look good and it is(resume) the real reflection of what kind of a fighter you are/were. therefore skills is just one of the integral factor that shows who you are as a fighter and resume is the overall "review" of your body of work. my opinion.

A guy who fights 6 big fights against top competition wins 2 close decisions and gets dominated in the other 4 and losses to a couple of lesser opponents isn't as good as the guy who dominates everybody but for what ever reason never gets the big fight against the top level competition. and?... here's the bottomeline: in order for a fighter to prove his skills , he needs to have beaten good figfhters, he needs to have a good resume.....resume is the only proof one has good skills....without having beaten a good fighter , there is no way of teliing a fighter's skill is good...

upset is a sum of good skills....resume is the only creible measuring stick of skills, nothing else! A guy who fights 6 big fights against top competition wins 2 close decisions and gets dominated in the other 4 and losses to a couple of lesser opponents isn't as good as the guy who dominates everybody but for what ever reason never gets the big fight against the top level competition.

A good resume could also be a product of a few upsets. lol a few? you need probably at least 10 upsets to create a good resume in boxing if you are not that skilled. never happened in boxing as far as i know.

Resume shows one's ability to use his skills. Its like the whole Bruce Lee argument, people seriously doubt his skills because he wasn't a tournament fighter hand he doesn't really have any fights on tape. You can have all the skills in the world, but what are they worth if as soon as you get hit, you fall apart?

resume skills mean jack shit if you don't fight anybody a slugger can be great as long as he KO's top guys the style isn't important, it's winning against good comp

well people don't really consider RJJ or Mayweather the GOATs do they? only teh retards:smashfrea