Resumes are given too much credit here.

[Pigeons]

Andre Ward: Kessler, Froch, Kovalev

[The Smash]

Eubank and Andy Lee would not be the best wins on Golovkin's resume.

Resumes matter greatly. Andre Berto looked like a world beater against crap competition, yet he couldn't even handle Victor Ortiz. That's true of a huge number of fighters. You don't know how good a fighter truly is until they fight other fighters worth a damn.

I think Andy Lee would be a better win than Geale, or Murray.

[Sweet Jones]

thanks man....is your name in honor of pimp c?

Partly. Has a double meaning. Long before Chad Butler blessed it, it originated as a hat tip to what my granny used to say to us when we've eat all her Brach's caramels, peppermints and butterscotch candies as kids: 'Y'all got da sweet jones!'

You know how old folks from Tennessee talk.

[FrankieClutch]

I understand what you're saying, but resume's are very important. No one would get a job without one and boxers could never be ranked with a bad one.

[joe strong]

If one justs reads boxingrec & tries to determine a fighter's worth then I agree. On the other hand people who watch the fights can get a better idea of how good a guy's resume really is. This site has a lot of boxingrec specialists. Just ask some of the guys who been here as long as me. If you don't watch a fight you should not comment on that fight. If you have not watched the fight & you only see a loss in boxingrec how can you comment on a fight you never seen? Sure boxingrec says the scores were 117-111, 118-110 & 117-111 but how do you know if that was not hometown cooking? Maybe those rounds were a lot closer, etc. Boxingrec doesn't tell you every little detail. There are too many boxingrec specialists commenting on fighters they seen fight a couple times. Too many casuals who know nothing about the business aspect. Reading about a fighter & watching them are not the same.

[Larry the boss]

Amazing how resume's stop mattering as soon as GGG gets a fan base

[sicko]

I would say a lot of the guys at Welterweight like Keith Thurman, Kell Brook and Porter whom all if you really look at it, have maybe 1 Good win on their resume! Thurman best win is probably Chaves, Kell Brook best win is Porter and Porter best win is Adrien Broner?

So I look forward to all of them fighting each other and finding out who is the best Post Mayweather/Pacquiao ERA

But I don't think 1 Win makes either of them the best Welterweight all of a sudden, I don't think Thurman vs Porter is for "The Best Welterweight In Boxing" after that fight the winner should fight the winner of Brook vs Vargas then fight Danny Garcia for his WBC Belt, whoever unifies will be the BEST!

[Dr Rumack]

Resumes are easy to talk about though. It's a lot easier to shit on a resume or drop names than properly analyse a fighter.

The three tiers of boxing fan commenters:

Tier 3 (Shitposters)

Can only talk about belts or P4P lists


Tier 2 - Pretend Hardcores

Can use boxrec well enough to summarize a resume.

Use cliche ridden stylistic descriptions to make their points - eg. a fighter being a dumb brawler or a runner.


Tier 1 - Actual Hardcores

Try to steer a discussion towards the technical aspects of a fight or fighter.

Make points that go beyond a fighter being 'shit' or 'elite'.

Recognize that resumes only tell half the story.

[Real King Kong]

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.

Manny is not a better fighter than marquez. They've proven to be on even terms...if anything marquez edges it with the KO.

[Real King Kong]

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.

Guerrero wasn't undefeated when he fought floyd. He's proven he's not a real ww too...that has to be taken into context. Guerrero was best at 126-135.