Dubois’s resume at age 27

The Joshua fight could’ve been a styles fight, but imo he has showed some improvement. I had counted him out until he got hit by Joshua cleaned, backed up and then countered Joshua smartly for the stoppage. His mind was working and he actually showed me something there the way he set Joshua up. Let’s see if he can carry this new found heart into his next fight. Yeah I thought Dubois showed improved boxing IQ. He picked up on AJ's mistakes and reacted quickly, picked his punches well when they exchanged. His jab was also working a lot better than AJ's which I didn't expect.

The first response to your thread was someone pointing out that it doesn't count if you don't win, and you saying: So you're defining resume as the above. I challenged you on that, and you're playing semantic games about how you could use a different word when you specifically said what resume means to you. I started the thread and in response to another poster, explained how I’m using the word resume. That doesn’t mean I’m using my definition as ‘THE definition’ that needs to be applied to all discussions. It’s simply the definition I used in this thread. If someone has a different definition of it, that’s fine by me. As long as it isn’t being forced without context(which you seem to be doing). The definitions themselves are not important. What’s important is that the 2 people discussing them understand eachother and know where they are coming from. and pretending that an example of how Canelo could be put on a resume for both Marquez and Mayweather, as he's a "quality opponent" for both is somehow irrelevant to your claim that quality of opposition matters and "he shared the ring... and that counts for something". Your words, not mine. Marquez is a textbook counter example that disproves your (false) assertion that you get to put people on your resume even if you lose.​ This example doesn’t disprove anything because you’re applying it without context. Let’s take Wilder’s example for a second. You can make 2 resumes for wilder. One based on his wins and one based on people he has fought(regardless of win/loss). One will have Fury on it and one won’t. Is one of them more valid than the other? No. Both are valid. What matters is that people understand the criteria for the resume. A more valid question would be, what’s the point of putting losses on a resume? The answer is the losses are still part of your legacy. When boxers go into hall of fame, who they fought is also taken into account. Wilder might never have beaten Fury but those fights are still part of his legacy and heavyweight boxing lore. Similarly, Fury lost to Usyk but the fact he was in an undisputed heavyweight fight is still impressive in of itself and will remain part of his legacy. Resumes in of itself aren’t just about wins. It’s about achievements. For a low level boxer, being in a championship fight with a champion is an achievement in of itself even if they lost. That can still go on their resume as that sets them apart from people who were never part of a championship fight. Your initial post doesn't make any reference to wins or losses either. A casual observer following normal convention would not know from your post that Dubois lost to two of the 5 names on your list.​ We’re posting on NSB. Majority of people that post here aren’t casuals. When I make a thread, I make it with that understanding. Nor are Dubious’s fights against Usyk/Joyce some obscure fights that NSB posters don’t know about. I don’t need to explicitly mention the wins/losses because most people that post here are already informed on these things. Here's another example. Doing exactly as you did, we could say that Sergiy Derevyanchenko's resume includes the likes of champions such as: Daniel Jacobs Jack Culcay Gennady Golovkin Jermall Charlo Carlos Adames Jaime Munguía and undefeated contender Christian Mbilli. To use your words again, "that's quite a resume". But it's deceptive, because he didn't win all of those fights. I suppose you think that's irrelevant too, even though it's exactly the same as your initial post? :rolleyes:​ That is in-fact quite a resume. Sharing the ring with a champion is an achievement in of itself and says a lot about your caliber. This resume would only be deceptive if someone was passing it off to an uninformed audience as list of wins. Context matters. And you're adding in ad hominem nonsense to boot,​ Bro, you called me a casual first. Regardless, I wasn’t being specific in my posts. But I take back my words. No specific disrespect intended.

If someone created a thread listing the resumes of boxers and it only had wins on it then as an adult that follows boxing and has a working brain I’d be able to put 2 and 2 together and infer that they are referring to only wins. So I’d have a conversation with them on that basis. If someone included wins+losses then I’d have conversation with them on that basis. Its irrelevant whether Marquez gets to have Canelo on his resume or not. The first response to your thread was someone pointing out that it doesn't count if you don't win, and you saying: To me, a resume is different from ‘quality of wins’. A resume to me reflects the overall quality of opposition regardless of win/loss. So you're defining resume as the above. I challenged you on that, and you're playing semantic games about how you could use a different word when you specifically said what resume means to you. And you're adding in ad hominem nonsense to boot, and pretending that an example of how Canelo could be put on a resume for both Marquez and Mayweather, as he's a "quality opponent" for both is somehow irrelevant to your claim that quality of opposition matters and "he shared the ring... and that counts for something". Your words, not mine. Marquez is a textbook counter example that disproves your (false) assertion that you get to put people on your resume even if you lose. Your initial post doesn't make any reference to wins or losses either. A casual observer following normal convention would not know from your post that Dubois lost to two of the 5 names on your list. Here's another example. Doing exactly as you did, we could say that Sergiy Derevyanchenko's resume includes the likes of champions such as: Daniel Jacobs Jack Culcay Gennady Golovkin Jermall Charlo Carlos Adames Jaime Munguía and undefeated contender Christian Mbilli. To use your words again, "that's quite a resume". But it's deceptive, because he didn't win all of those fights. I suppose you think that's irrelevant too, even though it's exactly the same as your initial post? :rolleyes:

Your definition puts guys who AREN'T quality opponents on the same level as ATG's simply because they fought the same guy. The fact that you don't understand that your nonsense actually makes it harder to tell quality of opposition says everything. There is no such thing as ‘my definition’. I’m not the one enforcing a specific definition. You are. To me it doesn’t matter if someone uses the word ‘resume’ to refer to wins or wins+losses. What matters is what the person is actually trying to say and the context of it. I could have just equally used a different word instead. If someone created a thread listing the resumes of boxers and it only had wins on it then as an adult that follows boxing and has a working brain I’d be able to put 2 and 2 together and infer that they are referring to only wins. So I’d have a conversation with them on that basis. If someone included wins+losses then I’d have conversation with them on that basis. Does the aforementioned Marquez get to have Canelo on his resume just like Mayweather does? They both got in the ring with him. According to you, that means something. And you want to talk quality of opposition? SMH.​​ Its irrelevant whether Marquez gets to have Canelo on his resume or not. What matters is who I am conversing with and what’s the context of the conversation. If I was having a conversation with a person that was using the word resume to refer to only wins then I’d converse with them with that understanding and therefore Marquez won’t have Canelo on their resume. I won’t try to argue semantics with them because that’s not normally how conversations are held by normal people. Not everything needs to be spelled out.

When you talk about resume, the standard is always wins. You won't find a single respected boxing writer or publication putting something like what you did, and that's for exactly the reasons I said. Your definition puts guys who AREN'T quality opponents on the same level as ATG's simply because they fought the same guy. The fact that you don't understand that your nonsense actually makes it harder to tell quality of opposition says everything. If you want to differentiate between losses, you watch the fights and how they went. If you aren't going to do that, you can look at their records and the independent rankings of the opponents at the time of fight and the type of win. Famicommander does that regularly, and it's far more credible when it comes to just talking things on paper than putting stoppage losses to Joyce and Usyk on the same level as wins over AJ and Hrgovic and PED cheat Miller. If you want to talk losses, you specify that they had losses and you discuss the manner of the loss. Was it competitive or not? You could point out that Dubois was up on the cards at the time of stoppage vs Joyce, for instance. He got absolutely dominated by Usyk. At the time of stoppage, he had won at most two rounds by the most generous judges and media observers, and he got stopped by a jab. He features on Usyk's resume, not the other way around. The way you talk, it looks like a casual who didn't even watch the relevant fights and is trying to hop on the hype train. Answer me this. Does the aforementioned Marquez get to have Canelo on his resume just like Mayweather does? They both got in the ring with him. According to you, that means something. And you want to talk quality of opposition? SMH.

You don't get credit for losing. You could get in the ring with Tyson Fury and get wrecked, and that doesn't mean you get to put him on your resume. You are saying that the low tier guys are on the same level resume wise as the top tier guys. By your metric, Victor Emilio Marquez (9-41) gets to have Canelo on his resume just the same as Floyd Mayweather because they both fought him. Resume is guys you've beaten, period. There is no standard definition of what a boxing resume is, period. If you have an official one, plz share. As adults, we can understand the context of the discussion and understand what the other person is intending to say. Anything else is semantics. The context of this thread was clearly quality of opposition rather than quality of wins. No one in this thread credited Duboius for beating Usyk/Joyce. On the other hand, as per your strict definition resume, if 2 boxers had exact same quality of wins but one had losses to way worse opposition, would they have the resume?​ If yes, how would you differentiate between the losses?

To me, a resume is different from ‘quality of wins’. A resume to me reflects the overall quality of opposition regardless of win/loss. Otherwise there would be no difference between a guy who lost to 5 C tier guys vs a guy who lost to 5 A tier guys. Chisora is a good example of this. He’s been in the ring with a lot of top fighters over the years and he’s lost to a lot of them. But he still shared the ring with them and that counts for something. Ofcourse I’m not suggesting that DDD beat Joyce or Usyk. You don't get credit for losing. You could get in the ring with Tyson Fury and get wrecked, and that doesn't mean you get to put him on your resume. You are saying that the low tier guys are on the same level resume wise as the top tier guys. By your metric, Victor Emilio Marquez (9-41) gets to have Canelo on his resume just the same as Floyd Mayweather because they both fought him. Resume is guys you've beaten, period.

You know you have to actually beat the opponent to count it right? You can fight every top fighter in the world but if you lose it ain't worth much. He has great experience though and some strong wins but I hate how some people count losses to top fighters now. The Usyk "loss" is very controversial though. Many would argue that Dubois was robbed and deserved to win. Either way, a close "loss" against Usyk is far more impressive than wins against a bunch of bums.

The Joyce fight took probably two years off his life. He took a savage beating there. He's very exciting to watch, but hard to imagine he lasts past 30 fighting like this.

You know you have to actually beat the opponent to count it right? You can fight every top fighter in the world but if you lose it ain't worth much. He has great experience though and some strong wins but I hate how some people count losses to top fighters now. Fighting many top opponent win or lose means something. He’s either hanging around the top 10, winning and losing or winning the title. Most fighters drop after a loss. He gets the call for a fight and takes it. So his resume win or lose matters. And he’s only 27. Nobody’s counting his losses as anything but losses. He gets major credit for taking the top fights win or lose. Isn’t that what you want all fighters/champions to do!!!???

Joyce Usyk Miller Hrgovic AJ Thats quite the resume at age 27. He really does take on all comers and has an exciting fighting style. Probably the most exciting fighter in the division right now after his win against AJ. The Joshua fight could’ve been a styles fight, but imo he has showed some improvement. I had counted him out until he got hit by Joshua cleaned, backed up and then countered Joshua smartly for the stoppage. His mind was working and he actually showed me something there the way he set Joshua up. Let’s see if he can carry this new found heart into his next fight.

He's definitely in the right position to lead the new generation of HWs. Let's hope he takes it more seriously than Hearn's recently vanquished stooge.

You know you have to actually beat the opponent to count it right? You can fight every top fighter in the world but if you lose it ain't worth much. He has great experience though and some strong wins but I hate how some people count losses to top fighters now. To me, a resume is different from ‘quality of wins’. A resume to me reflects the overall quality of opposition regardless of win/loss. Otherwise there would be no difference between a guy who lost to 5 C tier guys vs a guy who lost to 5 A tier guys. Chisora is a good example of this. He’s been in the ring with a lot of top fighters over the years and he’s lost to a lot of them. But he still shared the ring with them and that counts for something. Ofcourse I’m not suggesting that DDD beat Joyce or Usyk.

You know you have to actually beat the opponent to count it right? You can fight every top fighter in the world but if you lose it ain't worth much. He has great experience though and some strong wins but I hate how some people count losses to top fighters now.