When It Comes To Resumes...

[Tony Trick-Pony]

When you really get down to it, most fighters' resumes can be picked apart. Weak opposition litters every fighter's resume. It seems like it all comes down to a choice few fights for each guy really.

Name any great fighter's resume and then point out the few fights that really makes their CV special.

Given the recent IBHOF inductees, I'll go with Vitali Klitschko.

Now I'd say his best wins were Samuel Peter, Chris Arreola and Corrie Sanders. Now these aren't mind-blowing wins but they were pretty solid at the time.

Arreola definitely looked like a legitimate threat when Vitali fought him and the fight wasn't even close.

Samuel Peter had lost to Wlad but with his power, always posed a threat to any heavyweight. Yet, Vitali gave him a righteous beating.

Corrie Sanders didn't have a great career but he had just blown Wlad away who was highly regarded at the time and went on to become a great champion.

Now the other wins on Vitali's CV weren't all bums either IMO. However, these are the three that helped to put him where he's at. HOF worthy? That's always up for debate but it just seems like it's that way with every single fighter. There are always excuses even in a career like Morales' or Pac's where people claim their careers were so-so, but compared to other CVs? I think a lack of perspective is at play here.

[daggum]

great fighters usually have a couple great wins over great fighters who were in their prime(no floyd not great fighters who were old) vitali doesnt have any of those. all of this is opinion of course but sanders doesnt qualify as great to me. hes got one good win but lets also remember wlad got flattened 3 times in short order during that time before he developed his holding strategy so that doesnt make it all that great. its more of a rustico torremcampo over pac win than a morales over pac win. vitalis other best wins prob are sam peter hmm decent but not great, adamek...horrible hw, and arreola horrible hw. vitalis got the b level wins but just doesnt have the a level wins which are the hardest thing to get.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

great fighters usually have a couple great wins over great fighters who were in their prime(no floyd not great fighters who were old) vitali doesnt have any of those. all of this is opinion of course but sanders doesnt qualify as great to me. hes got one good win but lets also remember wlad got flattened 3 times in short order during that time before he developed his holding strategy so that doesnt make it all that great. its more of a rustico torremcampo over pac win than a morales over pac win. vitalis other best wins prob are sam peter hmm decent but not great, adamek...horrible hw, and arreola horrible hw. vitalis got the b level wins but just doesnt have the a level wins which are the hardest thing to get.

Yeah, I just wonder who people expect him to have fought? He didn't have trouble with hardly anybody in his career and fought the contenders out there. He beat some unbeaten guys which doesn't make them great, but unbeaten guys always carry an air of mystery since we've never seen them lose. I don't know. I mean, I think Mayweather ducked the prime greats and waited them out but he's still HOF without question. I don't know. It's a sordid subject.

[Redd Foxx]

I agree to a great extent. Loma hasn't beat anyone really stellar but it's the WAY he won. Mikey Garcia too.
Vitali's best run was when he was absolutely destroying those guys like Areola, Peter, etc. They weren't legendary comp, but they were capable fighters and got fking wrecked.
Kovalev hasn't beaten anyone really noteworthy, but he seriously punished most of the guys he did beat. Frightening beat-downs.

The problem is, it's really hard to argue this stuff because of how easy it is to dismiss it on paper. Some will claim Golovkin is a bum and looked average as soon as he fought decent comp. But, that's really ignoring how dominant he was against a lot of guys he did beat. That counts for something.
Again though, it's so easily dismissed when you see Rosado loose for the 12th time in a row.
I guess that's why forums like this exist. To argue about the stuff that lies between the lines.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I agree to a great extent. Loma hasn't beat anyone really stellar but it's the WAY he won. Mikey Garcia too.
Vitali's best run was when he was absolutely destroying those guys like Areola, Peter, etc. They weren't legendary comp, but they were capable fighters and got fking wrecked.
Kovalev hasn't beaten anyone really noteworthy, but he seriously punished most of the guys he did beat. Frightening beat-downs.

The problem is, it's really hard to argue this stuff because of how easy it is to dismiss it on paper. Some will claim Golovkin is a bum and looked average as soon as he fought decent comp. But, that's really ignoring how dominant he was against a lot of guys he did beat. That counts for something.
Again though, it's so easily dismissed when you see Rosado loose for the 12th time in a row.
I guess that's why forums like this exist. To argue about the stuff that lies between the lines.

Excellent post.

Yeah, I mean GGG crushed just about every fighter he faced before Jacobs. I still felt he beat Jacobs and well, when the comp rises, these things happen. I haven't seen one fighter in history not be tested when the comp level rose.

I think if we give Rigo a ton of credit for breaking ****ens' jaw, Vitali gets credit for his beat downs of lesser fighters as well. And of course, Loma gets credit for beating Sosa with ease. And so on and so forth.