resumes

[baCCaT]

my first jab at posting here in BsceneB.H.

series of questions that i have, if there's already an article or a thread about it here in BScene, kindly point that to me.

what comprises a good boxing resume? is there even a bad one? has the essence of a resume changed over time?

a fighters resume in my opinion is..
whom he fought, when they fought, what happened during the fight(spectacular/controversial) and of course what happened to both fighters careers after that fight.

while those things i feel are the pillars of a fighters resume, should there be more?

the add ons to a resume that makes it good/better, i can only think of are clamor by the people for the fight and the money generated.

thanks.

[TBear]

my first jab at posting here in BsceneB.H.

series of questions that i have, if there's already an article or a thread about it here in BScene, kindly point that to me.

what comprises a good boxing resume? is there even a bad one? has the essence of a resume changed over time?

a fighters resume in my opinion is..
whom he fought, when they fought, what happened during the fight(spectacular/controversial) and of course what happened to both fighters careers after that fight.

while those things i feel are the pillars of a fighters resume, should there be more?

the add ons to a resume that makes it good/better, i can only think of are clamor by the people for the fight and the money generated.

thanks.

Agree about the importance of "After" rottentothecore.
One thing I always looked at when I looked at who they fought, is what a fighter did after they fought them rather than before.
For example, Gerry Cooney beat heavyweights Jimmy Young, Ron Lyle and Ken Norton. Great names to have on your resume but he fought them at the tail end of their careers and they did nothing after their respective fights.
Not the same as Ali, who fought the same fighters in their primes.
Look at Ray Leonard beating Duran, Hearns and Benitez. All three went on to win a ton of titles after he beat them.

Memo Ayon beat Sugar Ray Robinson and Darren Maciunski beat Meldrick Taylor and Buddy McGirt, all at the end of their careers. And yet you will hear little talk about the resume's of Ayon and Maciunski even amongst boxing historians.

[Panamaniac]

Answer to question in bold text:

my first jab at posting here in BsceneB.H.

series of questions that i have, if there's already an article or a thread about it here in BScene, kindly point that to me.

what comprises a good boxing resume? is there even a bad one? has the essence of a resume changed over time?

a fighters resume in my opinion is..
whom he fought, when they fought, what happened during the fight(spectacular/controversial) and of course what happened to both fighters careers after that fight.

while those things i feel are the pillars of a fighters resume, should there be more?

the add ons to a resume that makes it good/better, i can only think of are clamor by the people for the fight and the money generated.

thanks.

Yes. A resumé that contains more losses than wins.

[Ray Corso]

.................that depends on how deep you venture into boxings culture!!!
Wins and losses are for fans to count, their are respected fighter with lossing records within the sport but the fans are immune to that depth, thank god too!! Ray.

[AntonTheMeh]

when i think of resume i think of quality of opponent; when i decided who's is better then who's, the wins are the obvious factor.

take oscar de la hoya for instance,

camacho
chavez
whitaker
hopkins
trinidad
mayweather
quartey
vargas
mosley
hernandez


now, mind you he's lost to most of the great fighters he's fought, but you can't discount the quality of opposition. that is a sick resume imo.

[Cardinal Buck]

Agree about the importance of "After" rottentothecore.
One thing I always looked at when I looked at who they fought, is what a fighter did after they fought them rather than before.
For example, Gerry Cooney beat heavyweights Jimmy Young, Ron Lyle and Ken Norton. Great names to have on your resume but he fought them at the tail end of their careers and they did nothing after their respective fights.
Not the same as Ali, who fought the same fighters in their primes.
Look at Ray Leonard beating Duran, Hearns and Benitez. All three went on to win a ton of titles after he beat them.

Memo Ayon beat Sugar Ray Robinson and Darren Maciunski beat Meldrick Taylor and Buddy McGirt, all at the end of their careers. And yet you will hear little talk about the resume's of Ayon and Maciunski even amongst boxing historians.

I disagree with the "after" part to an extent. A lot of fighters get derailed after a loss. You named Cooney. He did virtually nothing after the Holmes fight, but he was definitely a legitimate contender going in. Trinidad's victims Reid and Vargas also come to mind.

Tyson's resume is loaded with these guys. Biggs, Pink, and Ruddock were better than Bruno. Bruno went on to win a title and the others accomplished nothing. The former three are better wins.

Certain guys like Hopkins post Jones prove their worth, but that's not always the case.

[TBear]

I disagree with the "after" part to an extent. A lot of fighters get derailed after a loss. You named Cooney. He did virtually nothing after the Holmes fight, but he was definitely a legitimate contender going in. Trinidad's victims Reid and Vargas also come to mind.

Tyson's resume is loaded with these guys. Biggs, Pink, and Ruddock were better than Bruno. Bruno went on to win a title and the others accomplished nothing. The former three are better wins.

Certain guys like Hopkins post Jones prove their worth, but that's not always the case.

So just supposing, if Marciano beat Louis in his prime, it would had the same value as beating Louis at the tail end of his career?

There is a strong logic behind this concept but I will concede the are always exceptions to any rule. But judging resumes is not an exact science.
However having great names on your resume is overrated if you face them at the end of their career as opposed to beating a fighter that goes on to win titles and/or big fights after that.

And on a side note, I must disagree about Tyrell Briggs being better than Bruno. But if that's your opinion, I can respect that.

[baCCaT]

Yes. A resumé that contains more losses than wins.

i was thinking that.. but if the losses i got were from great fighters with even greater resumes.. wouldnt it make up for the "L" quality wise? cause resumes arent based on W/L alone right?

i always thought we can rate resumes with good, better and best in terms of quality.