What DEFINES Greatness... Skills Or Resume?

[jpunieves]

agree with baracuda...

------------------------------------------------------
oh why do i have to talk about KFC-PAC here...

the only contrary to this type of question is KFC.

he really has the skills, i must say (as a '*******')... but seeing him fight the smaller fighters. damn! go retire and suck kool-aid! why add something on your resume that will leave the audience yawn...

pac on the other hand... he has this entertaining-skill factor that makes him look good despite his past loses/draw.

to KFC.. please fight berto-shane-pwill for us...

[street bully]

Resume. However when two fighters have similar resumes and there little separating the two than skills come in to decide wo is better.

[Suckmedry]

Both. You need both to be considered a great fighter. And I know this thread is, like all threads on NSB, directed at Floyd in some way, so I will say Floyd's resume is actually respectable, and not a joke like the vermin that post on here seem to think.

[cleaner147]

heart<3 is my answer to this. Greatness is muuuch complexer then this

[Suckmedry]

Oh great..They are calling Floyd KFC now..

The wit of these people has no bounds.

[jpunieves]

sorry for the KFC... i'm just amazed of the KFC-icon

i'll just call her BALUT

[TBear]

I would think resume, because skills can be deceptive, one might look like the greatest ever, but against a group of second rate fighters with built up records.
To me there are many factors, One thing is I believe true greatness is best measured looking back at a fighters career rather at someone that isn't finished yet. Look at Don Curry, when he was fighting and cleaning out the welterweight division people were calling him great.

Another thing is looking at who a fighter beat! Look at what the guys he beat did after he beat them rather than before. Sure some guys beat great fighters but it was at the end of the line for those fighters.
A good examples are Gerry Cooney and Alexis Arguello, Cooney beat Norton, Lyle and Young convincingly. But it was at the end and those guys didn't do anything after losing to Cooney. Now take Arguello, he beat six guys that went on to win a title after he beat them! So my point is it's not who a fighter beat, but what those fighters he did after he beat them.
So resume is important but it involves more than just names on a record.

[Malius]

Resume,

I think sweet pea is one of the greatest, but people always say his resume sucks. The Klit brothers resume sucks cos their competition isn't that great, but I think they do have a decent skills.

There are lots of examples of this, so resume def for me.

[JAB5239]

Resume. However when two fighters have similar resumes and there little separating the two than skills come in to decide wo is better.

I disagree with this my friend. If a the more skilled fighter has the same resume as the less skilled fighter, isn't the less skilled the greater of the two for overcoming his natural shortcomings?

[arraamis]

I would say skills first .... because without the necessary skill-set, your resume won't be that great.

If you have great skills then your resume can't help but reflect that reality. And the converse of that is if your skills aren't that good then your resume will suffer.