Legacy and Resumes?

[WitherGlove]

While on this site I constantly run across threads where people either praise or criticize a fighters legacy and the fighters he has faced. Some guys get praised and held as atg for simply fighting guys even though they come up short more than not, while others don't. I know many examples of this; so what makes someone atg?

[BUNGALOWS]

Let's put it this way. Having a close, and competitive fight with Hagler at a weight class you don't belong at is 1 million times better for your resume than dominating an Arturo Gatti.

That's the way I look at it, and I know you're not supposed to officially look at resumes that way, but I like to use common sense.

[jas]

i would say its the most important criteria is resume particularly wins over hall of famers that were in and around their prime.

but then again many think roy jones is top 20 atg because h2h he would have beaten a lot of fighters but his resume isn't the best . could be because of poor era, him or opposition ducking.

other less important criteria can include ability, excitement (pacquaio won fighter of decade over mayweather), longevity (bernard hopkins), pure domination of an era (wlad), exceptional contribution to raising profile of the sport (ali), exceptional contribution outside the ring (ali), etc.

Post I made in another thread.

Bottom line is ATg list is based on resume which is defined as wins over hall of famers in and around their primes . H2h holds little weight in my book. That's why bhop> rjj in my list.

[bojangles1987]

Let's put it this way. Having a close, and competitive fight with Hagler at a weight class you don't belong at is 1 million times better for your resume than dominating an Arturo Gatti.

That's the way I look at it, and I know you're not supposed to officially look at resumes that way, but I like to use common sense.

I tend to count close losses against great fighters as a positive in some way as well. You can't tell me that Marquez and Pacquiao's greatness isn't enhanced by their fights with each other, no matter who you think won their close fights. Sugar Ray Robinson almost winning the light heavyweight championship is a plus. Same with Duran against Hagler. Cotto far exceeding expectations against Mayweather was a good look for him that you would mention when discussing how good a fighter he is.

[BUNGALOWS]

I tend to count close losses against great fighters as a positive in some way as well. You can't tell me that Marquez and Pacquiao's greatness isn't enhanced by their fights with each other, no matter who you think won their close fights. Sugar Ray Robinson almost winning the light heavyweight championship is a plus. Same with Duran against Hagler. Cotto far exceeding expectations against Mayweather was a good look for him that you would mention when discussing how good a fighter he is.

Agree. You just gotta use common sense when it comes to resumes.

[soul_survivor]

Agree. You just gotta use common sense when it comes to resumes.

Pretty much sums it up.

A resume isn't just the names that you see on paper, you've got to put names in proper context.

Floyd has:
Oscar
Mosley
JMM
Cotto

All of whom are sure fire HOFers yet Mosley was shot, Oscar was almost shot and Cotto had taken some of the most horrendous beatings I've seen at the highest level in this sport and was no longer at his best weight.

JMM was a fat lightweight without the help of Mr Memo, so looking at that in proper context, those wins don't all account to greatness (I've always given Floyd a pass for Oscar and Hatton).

On the other hand you look at what Duran did against Hagler, Hearns and Leonard, they are all far greater than the entirety of Floyd's career even though he went 2-1 with SRL and got obliterated by Hearns and lost to Hagler. It's context *****!

[BUNGALOWS]

Pretty much sums it up.

A resume isn't just the names that you see on paper, you've got to put names in proper context.

Floyd has:
Oscar
Mosley
JMM
Cotto

All of whom are sure fire HOFers yet Mosley was shot, Oscar was almost shot and Cotto had taken some of the most horrendous beatings I've seen at the highest level in this sport and was no longer at his best weight.

JMM was a fat lightweight without the help of Mr Memo, so looking at that in proper context, those wins don't all account to greatness (I've always given Floyd a pass for Oscar and Hatton).

On the other hand you look at what Duran did against Hagler, Hearns and Leonard, they are all far greater than the entirety of Floyd's career even though he went 2-1 with SRL and got obliterated by Hearns and lost to Hagler. It's context *****!

Straight up truth.

[DiegoFuego]

Arturo Gatti is in the Hall of Fame. Winning fights doesn't matter at all in this sport.

[Larry the boss]

resume=who you beat...people love to spin that fact to make loses look good...a loss is a damn lose

[soul_survivor]

resume=who you beat...people love to spin that fact to make loses look good...a loss is a damn lose

If a fighter goes from being a lightweight for a decade and then wins titles at 147 and challenges one of the greatest mws ever at that guys best weight and loses albeit going the full 15...that's a loss but it's a special loss.

Robinson going up to LHW and almost winning a title or Armstrong almost winning a 4th world title in as many divisions but losing via controversial decision...they are losses but they are special losses.

If Floyd was to move up to MW and fight Martinez/GGG heck even Sturm/Geale/Barker, I'd give him mad props, win or lose. If Gamboa had moved up to 140 all those years ago and lost, he'd get mad props. If GGG moves up to 168 and fights the best, mad props. If Rigo moves up to SFW and whoops Mikey, mad props. This is what greatness if made of man.