What is Your Criteria For Judging Resumes?

[daggum]

depends how much i like them.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

One of the ways I like judging resumes is looking at how many Ring magazine ranked boxers one has beat. It's not perfect, but it takes a little bit of the "oh, he lost so now he's a bum and was never good" bias away. The Ring's rankings aren't perfect, but I think they're a lot better than the ones the sanctioning bodies put out.

A while ago out of curiosity, I decided to make lists of these to compare resumes of rival boxers. Guys like Lennox Lewis (14/18 title fights were against The Ring-ranked fighters) and Floyd Mayweather (21/27) had really stacked resumes. On the other hand, there are guys like Dariusz Michaelczewski (8/27 and lost 2 of those fights) who faced really poor opposition.

Having one of the alphabet belts is a nice indicator too, but there are so many belts out there now that they've lost a little bit of their value imo.

I think that's a good method. Usually if a guy is in the Ring's ratings, he's beaten a few good fighters and has earned it which is better than the alphabets generally do. And yes, the value has gone down, no doubt.

[Adam Kirchstein]

Wins against established fighters in their weightclass or above it = good

Wins against blown up WWs and bums = bad

[soul_survivor]

There's a lot of talk on here about weak resumes. I hardly ever see any threads about strong resumes. My own criteria is number one, did the fighter rise up through the ranks and become a champion? No matter which of the many titles that are there, did they win a title? Especially in this day and age, if you don't, you don't count for much. There are tons of them to win now.

Secondly, how many title fights did they compete in? Again, any fighter with a great resume has plenty of title fights on there.

Third, obviously is the quality of their opposition. Now, this is pretty subjective for most people. Some would say a fighter like Guerrero is a solid opponent whereas others wouldn't. I think for this, you have to look at the competition's resumes as well to even be able to determine this.

If they did become champions, have several title fights(preferably winning 75 percent or more of them) and their quality of opposition has been solid based on their opponents' own resumes, then I think you have a strong resume.

What is your own criteria?

My criteria is based on actually watching boxing and having common sense.

[TOBYLEE1]

Level of opposition.

Also after a fighter gets beat what is his success afterwards

[Real King Kong]

Let's take Kostya Tszyu.

Criteria 1- Won a World Title? Yes. He won the IBF Junior Welterweight Title and won four defenses, had a no contest in another and lost the title to Vincent Phillips. Then he won the WBC Super Lightweight Title and made seven successful defenses while annexing the WBA and IBF belts.

Criteria 2- As stated above, he made plenty of successful defenses.

Criteria 3- Juan LaPorte- Held a win over Rocky Lockridge, fought many good fighters but usually lost.
Livingstone Bramble- Two wins over Ray Mancini, lots of names but generally losses
Jake Rodriguez- Wins over Charles Murray and Ray Olievera and a belt holder
Roger Mayweather- Former world champion
Rafael Ruelas- Former 135 pound champion
Miguel Angel Gonzalez- Former 135 pound champion
Julio Cesar Chavez, Sr.- Former 3-weight division, multiple wins over quality opposition
Sharmba Mitchell- Then WBA 140 pound champion
Zab Judah- Wins over veterans Micky Ward and Reggie Green as well as holding the IBF 140 pound title
Jesse james Leija- Former world champion with win over Azumah Nelson.

So in the end, I'd give his resume an A. Lots of titles, defenses and quality of opposition.

He also faced plenty of different styles and skillsets and found ways to win...that's a plus imo.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

He also faced plenty of different styles and skillsets and found ways to win...that's a plus imo.

Yes, he definitely fought several different styles. I recall someone making a point about this with Ali and sure enough, Ali did fight so many fighters with different styles. Definitely makes a difference.

[Chrismart]

Same as what others have said really. Look at the fighters they have beaten, which good ones, how those fighters where performing at the time, as well as after.

Not a fan of people listing shot fighters as good wins on a guys resume, just because they were once good fighters. Mother time catches up with us all.
Also not too keen when people call a win a good win, just because the guy they beat was a former (or even current) title holder. There's so many titles flying around now that being a former or current champ doesn't hold the same stock that it used to.

[Real King Kong]

Yes, he definitely fought several different styles. I recall someone making a point about this with Ali and sure enough, Ali did fight so many fighters with different styles. Definitely makes a difference.

It's almost inevitable at the championship caliber...but seeing an elite fighter deal with other elite fighters with different styles is always interesting.