Tweet
Both of these factors are important but imperfect ways to judge a fighter.
Resumes can reflect a fighter's willingness to face top competition, but good resumes are also influenced by other things, like having a large fan base or national support. American fighters, especially Olympians and accomplished amateurs, certainly have an easier path to stardom than fighters from other countries. Canelo has a fine resume, but how much of his success stems being the darling of one of the largest boxing-loving fanbases in the country? Golovkin lacks big names on his resume, but it's harder to get big fights when you come from a country no one's heard of, then start your career in Germany with a shítty promoter and end up chasing Sturm for a title just to be ducked, then coming to America and basically starting all over at 30 years old. It's apples and fúcking oranges.
The eye test, like resumes, can also be misleading. There are probably hundreds of fighters that looked the goods against inferior competition, built some hype, and then got exposed when they stepped up in class. However, the way a boxer fights and the method and ease with which he dispatches his competition has to be taken into consideration. Whether it's completely dominating and outsmarting your opponent over 12 rounds, or obliterating your opponent in 12 minutes, one-sided fights against top ten opponents hold more weight than competitive fights against top ten opponents. Danny Garcia is undefeated and has a good resume, but it seems obvious to me that Gennady is the superior fighter and I have no reservations about putting Golovkin higher on my p4p list.
In summation, both of these methods have value, but they need to viewed in the context of the circumstances that produced them.
Resumes can reflect a fighter's willingness to face top competition, but good resumes are also influenced by other things, like having a large fan base or national support. American fighters, especially Olympians and accomplished amateurs, certainly have an easier path to stardom than fighters from other countries. Canelo has a fine resume, but how much of his success stems being the darling of one of the largest boxing-loving fanbases in the country? Golovkin lacks big names on his resume, but it's harder to get big fights when you come from a country no one's heard of, then start your career in Germany with a shítty promoter and end up chasing Sturm for a title just to be ducked, then coming to America and basically starting all over at 30 years old. It's apples and fúcking oranges.
The eye test, like resumes, can also be misleading. There are probably hundreds of fighters that looked the goods against inferior competition, built some hype, and then got exposed when they stepped up in class. However, the way a boxer fights and the method and ease with which he dispatches his competition has to be taken into consideration. Whether it's completely dominating and outsmarting your opponent over 12 rounds, or obliterating your opponent in 12 minutes, one-sided fights against top ten opponents hold more weight than competitive fights against top ten opponents. Danny Garcia is undefeated and has a good resume, but it seems obvious to me that Gennady is the superior fighter and I have no reservations about putting Golovkin higher on my p4p list.
In summation, both of these methods have value, but they need to viewed in the context of the circumstances that produced them.
Comment