You can scrutinise anyone’s resume this way.
Lewis beat the Ghost of Tyson. Never fought Bowe in the pros. Won an inconclusive bout against Klitschko which he never played back. Beat a Holyfield that already been stopped and beaten in a trilogy by Bowe. On top of that he also lost twice to lesser guys.
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 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?
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.
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.
GGG won the first fight but it wasn’t a very satisfying victory. Canelo landed the better shots but gassed and got outworked by GGG.
Canelo won the 2nd one imo.
This argument would have more weight if Bam was near the end of his career and in his thirties.
He’s a 24 yr old who is taking out the old guard. Whilst making his way to the top. This is something the previous greats have done so as well.
It's ESPN. They have to push the sports and athletes that can make them the most money and have the correct/DEI optics.
Why would they include Canelo? He failed a drug test.
Jon Jones is on the list. And he failed more tests than Canelo.
You could do it based on nationalities or continents as well.
I’d like to see for example:
US vs UK
US vs Mexico
Asia vs America
Europe vs America
America vs Europe
As long as all fights are 50:50 or 60:40 at worst, it’ll always be a great night. Yesterday’s card was built on the animosity between the 2 promoters but imagine similar card between 2 countries.
It’s a double edged sword. Because it’s also why Hearn has the best cards and most competitive fights. I mean If you think about it, he was pretty much involved in a lot of the iconic fights/moments of the last few years even if he was on the loosing side.
Besides, all these fighters got paid well for their effort. Which is ultimately the point. As a fan I’d rather see these fighters get tested and paid for their effort rather than watch them protect their 0s for years on end.
Joshua vs Wilder would’ve been much bigger.
But at this point it is what it is. Fury has proved he’s better than Wilder and Usyk has proved he’s better than AJ. So on paper this is technically a better fight but it doesn’t feel as exciting as AJ vs Wilder.. I’m still hyped regardless.
Not quite, the Klitschkos are Super Heavyweights who weighed 250+ lbs and they dominated the Heavyweight division for over a decade.
All we learned from this fight is that Usyk is a fantastic fighter and Fury is a disgrace to boxing, despite his height and weight advantage.
Yes I mentioned the Klitschkos in the OP. I wasn’t arguing against the SuperHeavies. Rather I was simply saying that smaller heavyweights have room to sit on the table as dominant champions as well.
Although it remains to be seen if we could see this happen more often or if Usyk truly is just a huge exception.
The thing is Usyk is the exception
In the last 25 years it's been dominated by big guys, Usyk and to a much lesser extent David Haye being the only exceptions.
Lewis was the guy from 1999 to the early 2000s, Wlad reigned for 10 years at the top, then you had fury/aj/Wilder for what 5 years or so and we have had a couple of years of Usyk.
So it's like 23 years of super heavyweights 2 years of usyk
So no, it's not a myth but there is exceptions
You definitely have a point there. Super heavyweights for sure have dominated most of the 2000s. No denying that. So far the data supports that.
But what’s impressive about Usyk’s run to me is that he didn’t just beat AJ/Fury in one off fights. He thoroughly beat them across 3 fights. That kind of lays down a blueprint and I think that could go a long way to change the mindset. Although it could also be that he’s just the exception as you said.
Also strictly if we’re going be weight only, Wilder would also fall in into the 225>= category. Although frame wise yes he’s got a lot in common with super heavies.
This has more to do with the Saudis intervening rather than any difference in mentality between Usyk and Joshua.
One thing you need to give credit to AJ is that he took all fights regardless of difficulty. Yes it’s a shame that the fights with Wilder and Fury weren’t made but we saw in Usyk vs Fury as well how hard it was to bring them to the table.
If the Saudis had intervened earlier we almost certainly would’ve got AJ vs Wilder as well.
Fury was landing lead uppercuts in there, can you IMAGINE Usyk against a 1999 Lennox Lewis
Lennox was KO’ed twice by 2 mid tier guys. By similar analogy you could say imagine what Wilder would do to
him? But we both know that’s not how it works.
I’m all about giving legends their due respect but I wouldn’t put them on unreachable pedestal either. They lost to lesser competition as well. Not all of their fights were against ‘high quality’ opponents either. There’s never been a perfect heavyweight or a perfect era.
Does the same go for every heavyweight that ranks at or below Holyfield level?
And if someone says Holyfield isn’t comparable then you’re basically admitting that no two unified cruiserweights are comparable?
Other way around. Fighters Wilder can go 12 with. His glass chin has been exposed.
Not saying these fighters can’t in turn KO Wilder.
Just that which ones can avoid getting KOed, either due to skill or due to a good Chin.
Logan Paul and Ksi are two popular youtubers who have 20mil subscribers each on YouTube.
They had a boxing match in August last year which was streamed live on YouTube. Several million people watched it live and the official full fight vid is still on YT with about 20 mil views.
They are having a rematch and this time Eddie Hearn and DAZN are involved as well.
Theres no guarantee that Jake paul is a better boxer than Logan.
Logan’s only opponent was KSI who’s been boxing longer than the pauls and is closer to them in size.
All of Jake’s opponents were much smaller and having their first fights.