Resumes are given too much credit here.

[IllegalDeath]

In reality, resume does not do justice to how talented a fighter is, which looks like the only means of judging a fighter here.
For example,
BJS has win over Eubank and Andy Lee (two guys who would be the best win in GGG's resume), yet BJS would lose to GGG in the eyes of 99/100 experts.
Same goes for Jacobs.

A resume can never show your real quality or flaw, provided you have so many controversial decisions now a days. Is Canelo p4p a better fighter than Lara? No.
Is Floyd's win over Manny any less historic despite Manny having 5 loses, two of them recently to Bradly and Marquez(By KO)? No. Because everyone knows Manny is a better fighter .

Rigo apart from Donaire has no great name, people avoid him, doesnt make him any lesser and is clearly the best of the division despite having an inferior resume. And people know it. Same goes for GGG. You can't force a fight.

In reality, you just need to see a fighter, how he performs, basically a critical eye test to see how good a fighter is/can be.

IMO Resumes defines a mere 30-40% of a fighter not the other way around like given credit here on NSB.

And that is the concept behind p4p list as well. If that wasnt the case, Danny Garcia would be in top 5 of every p4p list. But he isnt' because even after such a great resume people know he isnt of the highest calible p4p
wise
Same goes for Canelo, great resume, but all of them smaller lower division fighter, your internal instinct and brain knows he can't be top 5 p4p irrespective of his resume.

[Eff Pandas]

In reality, resume does not do justice to how talented a fighter is, which looks like the only means of judging a fighter here.
For example,
BJS has win over Eubank and Andy Lee (two guys who would be the best win in GGG's resume), yet BJS would lose to GGG in the eyes of 99/100 experts.

I suppose there is an argument to make for Andy Lee being the best guy on GGG's resume, but Eubank has more prospect caliber wins than contender caliber wins & I view him as more a prospect then legit top ten contender still. And GG has a ton of top ten contenders on his resume. And I say that as a Eubank fan.

[IllegalDeath]

I suppose there is an argument to make for Andy Lee being the best guy on GGG's resume, but Eubank has more prospect caliber wins than contender caliber wins & I view him as more a prospect then legit top ten contender still. And GG has a ton of top ten contenders on his resume. And I say that as a Eubank fan.

I agree. One of the problem with boxing world is that they fail to acknowledge the timings of the fight. When GGG faught Proska, Macklin, Murray etc they all were top5-10 MWs.
Just like when Floyd faught Ghost he was an undefeated top contender, if ghosts went on to become trash doesnt mean Floyd doesnt get full credit for it.
Boxers like Zab Judah etc all went on a downhill, but because of the timings Floyd gets full credit of beating them.

[therealpugilist]

In reality, resume does not do justice to how talented a fighter is, which looks like the only means of judging a fighter here.
For example,
BJS has win over Eubank and Andy Lee (two guys who would be the best win in GGG's resume), yet BJS would lose to GGG in the eyes of 99/100 experts.
Same goes for Jacobs.

A resume can never show your real quality or flaw, provided you have so many controversial decisions now a days. Is Canelo p4p a better fighter than Lara? No.
Is Floyd's win over Manny any less historic despite Manny having 5 loses, two of them recently to Bradly and Marquez(By KO)? No. Because everyone knows Manny is a better fighter .

Rigo apart from Donaire has no great name, people avoid him, doesnt make him any lesser and is clearly the best of the division despite having an inferior resume. And people know it. Same goes for GGG. You can't force a fight.

In reality, you just need to see a fighter, how he performs, basically a critical eye test to see how good a fighter is/can be.

IMO Resumes defines a mere 30-40% of a fighter not the other way around like given credit here on NSB.

And that is the concept behind p4p list as well. If that wasnt the case, Danny Garcia would be in top 5 of every p4p list. But he isnt' because even after such a great resume people know he isnt of the highest calibre p4p
wise

Same goes for Canelo, great resume, but all of them smaller lower division fighter, your internal instinct and brain knows he can't be top 5 p4p irrespective of his resume.

I disagree about garcia but I see where you are coming from. A fighter doesnt beat the people he beat and be the man in a deep division like 140 and not be elite . Is he always impressive? No...does he find a way to win, regardless of style? yes

its hard to trash Canelo for who he fought when Trout, Mayweather, Lara would have been GGG's best opponents or wins.

anybody can look like the second coming facing 2nd tier opposition.

I see what you mean bro....the eye test can only get you so far....the eye test watching a fighter vs elite or top notch opposition is how rankings and p4p rankings are supposed to be viewed.

some do it based on preference...GGG and Garcia are elite fighters....Garcia has looked more vulnerable because he has faced stiffer competition than GGG and Rigo...Rigo did at least fight an elite opponent in donaire so we know he is top notch....I feel GGG is top notch but he shouldnt be considered top 3 p4p without beating anyone thats a top 20-50 type fighter p4p.

it all goes hand and hand. Most people disregard resume when it comes to a fighter that they like...i.e. GGG

I dont like to assume someone is elite til I see them beat a few top shelf guys, and he hasnt. Garcia has. He is in my p4p but GGG isnt for that reason

the top 10 fighters in the world to me with a combination of the eye test ,resume is, how well they perform vs high level opposition, skills, and versatility.

They are in no particular order because some have fights coming up and this is a transitional period between eras.

Chocolatito
Ward
Kovalev
Rigondeaux
Terrance Crawford
Danny Garcia
Canelo Alvarez
Shinsuke Yamanaka
Timothy Bradley(only lost one of the greatest ever and beat everyone else he faced)
Juan Franciso Estrada


Guys like inoue and GGG are one big win away from bumping someone out of the top ten. They are beasts but havent fought enough good competition.

[IllegalDeath]

the top 10 fighters in the world to me with a combination of the eye test ,resume is, how well they perform vs high level opposition, skills, and versatility.

Thats how I see is as well, but it all depends on the percentage of each factor you distribute.
You said you consider Garcia p4p and not Golovkin, yet when you imagine them of the same size in the same division fighting, whom would most of the experts pick to win? Whom would you pick to win? I for certain would pick Golovkin, for he is better skilled and more naturally talented.
That is the answer to why GGG is on most p4p lists but Garcia despite having a 5x better resume is not.

[stefl14]

The thing is, resume is the only way fighters should be judged when it comes to ranking careers. It doesn't matter if you're better by the eye test if you haven't proved it. Resume is the only fair way of doing things. I might know that fighter A has more talent than fighter B, but if he hasn't proved it in the ring and fighter B has a better resume, of course fighter B deserves more credit. Froch is a good example here. So many people, having watched Carl fight, would say he'd lose to a great number of fighters he actually beat. But as it turned out, Froch was the superior fighter.

[IllegalDeath]

The thing is, resume is the only way fighters should be judged when it comes to ranking careers. It doesn't matter if you're better by the eye test if you haven't proved it. Resume is the only fair way of doing things. I might know that fighter A has more talent than fighter B, but if he hasn't proved it in the ring and fighter B has a better resume, of course fighter B deserves more credit. Froch is a good example here. So many people, having watched Carl fight, would say he'd lose to a great number of fighters he actually beat. But as it turned out, Froch was the superior fighter.

Resume play a great part but should not be the sole factor on deciding rankings. Atleast not in the sport of today when many fights cannot be made due to networks, financial issues etc.
Like I gave the example of Rigo - Fampton, Santa cruz etc can fight and win all they can, should they be put above Rigo? provided they are also ducking him. No.
Same goes for other Fighters like GGG.
In an ideal world where boxing was properly mandated by a single bodyn with proper structure of tournaments, fights etc your theory would have been perfect for rankings.
But now, we need to critically analyze everything before making the rankings.
Roy jones and Hopkins fighting today should be above everyone based on their resumes, but would you put them p4p 1 n 2 ? Lol, ofcourse not. Resumes are a good criteria but situation and the eye test matters alot.

[therealpugilist]

Thats how I see is as well, but it all depends on the percentage of each factor you distribute.
You said you consider Garcia p4p and not Golovkin, yet when you imagine them of the same size in the same division fighting, whom would most of the experts pick to win? Whom would you pick to win? I for certain would pick Golovkin, for he is better skilled and more naturally talented.
That is the answer to why GGG is on most p4p lists but Garcia despite having a 5x better resume is not.

IMO its a matter of preference and Garcia has had some close fights

lets be real, Garcia has faced far better competition and when you do, you wont be as dominant as you are facing top guys.

If Garcia was fighting dominic wade types on the regular at 140-147 instead of champions/former champions like Guerrero, khan, peterson, matthyssee(elite 140ers) he'd look like a monster. Wade is the equivalent of beating demarcus corley, soto karass or gatekeeper level opponents.

GGG fights guys like Monroe regularly but lose their mind when Garcia fought a former champion in robert guerrero?

sometimes people expect more out of fighters they arent fans of and dont expect the most out of fighters they like

if they were the same size I'd favor Garcia and this is why.

He has a proven chin and Matthyssee's power is like a 140er GGG. He has shown he came come from behind and win like his win over Khan.

He has shown in fights that he can stand and fight, or counter and fight side to side and going back. As a young un, beat a past prime morales and in his biggest fight vs Matthyssee he boxed enough yet earned their respect

He knows how to win. GGG hasnt had to face all those styles at the top level like Garcia has so its not safe to assume. Thats why their are upsets in boxing. people dont analyze both fighters strengths and weaknesses. they look at aesthetic stuff but dont look at the fighters competition. anyone can look like the next coming vs 2nd tier opposition


A fighter like GGG has to be forced back and countered when he comes forward. Garcia has good power and is a natural counter puncher. Also he isnt a runner so he will gain your respect, which is why no on tries to bull doze him. Also he has movement just enough to wear he will force GGG to cut off the ring and counter when he gets in range.


If they were the same size this fight would be awesome.

[therealpugilist]

The thing is, resume is the only way fighters should be judged when it comes to ranking careers. It doesn't matter if you're better by the eye test if you haven't proved it. Resume is the only fair way of doing things. I might know that fighter A has more talent than fighter B, but if he hasn't proved it in the ring and fighter B has a better resume, of course fighter B deserves more credit. Froch is a good example here. So many people, having watched Carl fight, would say he'd lose to a great number of fighters he actually beat. But as it turned out, Froch was the superior fighter.

thats my point as well....we wont know how good a fighter is until they fight top opposition...they eye test is just that...an eye test to gauge, speed power, defense etc. but not the fighters worth and who he can beat

[stefl14]

Resume play a great part but should not be the sole factor on deciding rankings. Atleast not in the sport of today when many fights cannot be made due to networks, financial issues etc.
Like I gave the example of Rigo - Fampton, Santa cruz etc can fight and win all they can, should they be put above Rigo? provided they are also ducking him. No.
Same goes for other Fighters like GGG.
In an ideal world where boxing was properly mandated by a single bodyn with proper structure of tournaments, fights etc your theory would have been perfect for rankings.
But now, we need to critically analyze everything before making the rankings.
Roy jones and Hopkins fighting today should be above everyone based on their resumes, but would you put them p4p 1 n 2 ? Lol, ofcourse not. Resumes are a good criteria but situation and the eye test matters alot.

It gets difficult, but as I say it's the only fair way as otherwise it's just a guessing game. Especially if the fighter you want to rank above others has no standout wins.