Top 10 active boxers in terms of resume

[Boxing_1013]

Khan lost a controversial fight to Patterson but Khan and Bradley was being positioned as "the fight" at 140 b4 DSG knocked him out. And Mattysee was a huge win at the time he was undefeated and just knocked out Petterson in 2/3 rounds. People at the time thought Danny would duck him. And the winner was being postioned to fight Floyd ( was on the undercard of Canelo/Floyd) one of the best cards in recent memory btw. Jacobs who already was knocked out is not a better win than either. Now Murray on the other hand stopped Sergio Martinez winning streak so ill give him points for that.

But you overrated GGGs win over David... Who was KOed by Rubio. It was a good win but wasn't great since David was basically a power puncher with avg. Box skills.

Look at what those guys rank was at 160 when GGG beat them...Compared to Porter and DSG rank at 147 when Thurman beat them.

GGG fought everyone "at the time" but none of those wins stand out.

Maybe just maybe u can argue his resume is better/as good as Thurman but no way in hell can you compare any win on GGG resume to DSG upsets over Mattysee and Khan

No way no how

Bro...Matthyse wasn't undefeated...he had lost twice before that fight with Danny...and yeah that win for Danny was probably similar imo to GGG's over Lemieux...they both were in great form going into those fights, but had some blemishes before those fights as well.

And again GGG has Lemieux (who for the record he beat way more impressively than Danny vs Matthyse), Jacobs, SD and Murray on his top win list...which I would think anyone would look at those top wins for GGG and DSG and say that GGG has 4 officially...and Danny 2.

And again GGG has imo pretty clearly a much higher number of quality wins than Danny...which makes sense since he is like 5+ years older than Danny so should have about 10+ more good fights really...I just don't see how one could say that Danny has close to the amount of quality wins that GGG does...and again I don't see how one could say that GGG doesn't have more official high quality wins too...the 4 vs 2 situation.

And yeah Keith's resume is a bit lighter than Danny's so imo he doesn't even come close to GGG's...and Khan at that time for Danny was a good win...I don't knock that one...but yeah I don't think it was otherwordly really and anything better than those 4 good official wins for GGG.

Also again GGG is number 3 right now pfp on boxrec..which in general is a pretty decent site for just ranking guys based on resumes...that's really all they are doing...ranking guys based on who has beaten who...yeah I just don't really get the slighting of running through like 10 guys like Monroe, Rosado, Geale, Ouma, Adama, Proksa etc...yet hyping up some wins on DSG's resume...again I just don't really see all that when I look at the two resumes...I agree that DSG's and GGG's resumes aren't even close for sure lol...yeah I just don't get that one my friend.

[KillaMane26]

Bro...Matthyse wasn't undefeated...he had lost twice before that fight with Danny...and yeah that win for Danny was probably similar imo to GGG's over Lemieux...they both were in great form going into those fights, but had some blemishes before those fights as well.

And again GGG has Lemieux (who for the record he beat way more impressively than Danny vs Matthyse), Jacobs, SD and Murray on his top win list...which I would think anyone would look at those top wins for GGG and DSG and say that GGG has 4 officially...and Danny 2.

And again GGG has imo pretty clearly a much higher number of quality wins than Danny...which makes sense since he is like 5+ years older than Danny so should have about 10+ more good fights really...I just don't see how one could say that Danny has close to the amount of quality wins that GGG does...and again I don't see how one could say that GGG doesn't have more official high quality wins too...the 4 vs 2 situation.

And yeah Keith's resume is a bit lighter than Danny's so imo he doesn't even come close to GGG's...and Khan at that time for Danny was a good win...I don't knock that one...but yeah I don't think it was otherwordly really and anything better than those 4 good official wins for GGG.

Also again GGG is number 3 right now pfp on boxrec..which in general is a pretty decent site for just ranking guys based on resumes...that's really all they are doing...ranking guys based on who has beaten who...yeah I just don't really get the slighting of running through like 10 guys like Monroe, Rosado, Geale, Ouma, Adama, Proksa etc...yet hyping up some wins on DSG's resume...again I just don't really see all that when I look at the two resumes...I agree that DSG's and GGG's resumes aren't even close for sure lol...yeah I just don't get that one my friend.

Shyt my bad... Mattysee lost to Judah.

[KillaMane26]

Bro...Matthyse wasn't undefeated...he had lost twice before that fight with Danny...and yeah that win for Danny was probably similar imo to GGG's over Lemieux...they both were in great form going into those fights, but had some blemishes before those fights as well.

And again GGG has Lemieux (who for the record he beat way more impressively than Danny vs Matthyse), Jacobs, SD and Murray on his top win list...which I would think anyone would look at those top wins for GGG and DSG and say that GGG has 4 officially...and Danny 2.

And again GGG has imo pretty clearly a much higher number of quality wins than Danny...which makes sense since he is like 5+ years older than Danny so should have about 10+ more good fights really...I just don't see how one could say that Danny has close to the amount of quality wins that GGG does...and again I don't see how one could say that GGG doesn't have more official high quality wins too...the 4 vs 2 situation.

And yeah Keith's resume is a bit lighter than Danny's so imo he doesn't even come close to GGG's...and Khan at that time for Danny was a good win...I don't knock that one...but yeah I don't think it was otherwordly really and anything better than those 4 good official wins for GGG.

Also again GGG is number 3 right now pfp on boxrec..which in general is a pretty decent site for just ranking guys based on resumes...that's really all they are doing...ranking guys based on who has beaten who...yeah I just don't really get the slighting of running through like 10 guys like Monroe, Rosado, Geale, Ouma, Adama, Proksa etc...yet hyping up some wins on DSG's resume...again I just don't really see all that when I look at the two resumes...I agree that DSG's and GGG's resumes aren't even close for sure lol...yeah I just don't get that one my friend.

Shyt my bad... Mattysee lost to Judah.

But nahhh Mattysee lost controversial fights he didn't he KOed like David. And he scored KOs over two good guys going into that fight. Dallas, and Petterson.

You cant compare David to Prime Mattysee.

I feel like you like GGG to much and trying to stretch the quality of his wins. When some that you keep mentioning aint worth mentioning at all. You noticed how i dont even bring up alot of DSG decent wins which is the equivalent of some of the names u keep bringing up.

U tripping. DSG resume shyts on GGG. Withought Canelo his resume looks like a gumbo pot of mandatories which it basically is.

Then you brought up GGGs rank which has zero to do with the topic at hand! Which lets me know you being biased.

Most of the boxing communtity can agree GGGs resume Withought Canelo is underwhelming.

[Boxing_1013]

There's a lot of semantics in boxing and the redefining of very well known terms is one of those things you'll just have to get with or be prepared to argue like all the damn time.

We all know what lineage means. Outside of boxing we all use that term properly. In boxing context it takes on a new meaning that has enough room for us to argue about.

Same with like puncher and boxer. If you're gonna use those terms properly then you're going to run into a ****load of argument and misunderstanding. In boxing boxer and puncher take on new meanings

Resume is a list of best names. Period and end of. Not trying to be a ****, but, that is what we mean. resume isn't limited to best wins, though that's often the case, a good loss is a resume worthy loss.

For example, loads put Lennox on Big V's resume. Lennox won that fight but Vitali had a good showing so it's fair to mention his loss.

More contemporary; Wilder is all over Fury resumes atm.

A good showing against a no name is not a resume fight.

So do you slight a great fighter when he loses to those no names? Or how does that work for you? Because if you don't give credit for beating guys like that, then by that logic you should kill those guys for having losses to guys like that.

Also...if we are now saying that performances in losses/fights counts in a resume, well that's exactly what I was meaning by posting that definition of resume...so not sure why you are apologizing to me...maybe you got me mixed up with someone else.

But yeah in any event, a resume should take into account how you perform in fights...and not just what the official W/L says...and you seem to agree with that.

So a resume by that logic will be somewhat subjective based on how you feel a fighter or fighters did in certain fights...and even just going on official wins, well yeah I think most resumes end up being pretty close to accurate, as far as bringing in the subjective 'how you did in certain fights' angle.

For example...Vitali has a good resume anyway even without that fight vs Lennox...when you have the opportunity to prove yourself another 30 times, we usually end up with a clear picture of who are the best fighters etc.

[Boxing_1013]

Shyt my bad... Mattysee lost to Judah.

And Devon Alexander

[Boxing_1013]

Shyt my bad... Mattysee lost to Judah.

But nahhh Mattysee lost controversial fights he didn't he KOed like David. And he scored KOs over two good guys going into that fight. Dallas, and Petterson.

You cant compare David to Prime Mattysee.

I feel like you like GGG to much and trying to stretch the quality of his wins. When some that you keep mentioning aint worth mentioning at all. You noticed how i dont even bring up alot of DSG decent wins which is the equivalent of some of the names u keep bringing up.

U tripping. DSG resume shyts on GGG. Withought Canelo his resume looks like a gumbo pot of mandatories which it basically is.

Then you brought up GGGs rank which has zero to do with the topic at hand! Which lets me know you being biased.

Most of the boxing communtity can agree GGGs resume Withought Canelo is underwhelming.

Yeah Matthyse lost twice going into that fight...and his losses were within 2 and 3 years...and now we are hyping up a win over Mike Dallas...really.

Yeah Lemieux got KOed by Rubio because he punched himself out after dominating the early part but not being able to KO Rubio...4 years before GGG...then lost to Alcine...then he ran off 9 straight wins before GGG...with 7 coming by KO...and two over Ndam where he KD him like 10 times I think...and then over Gabe Rosado as well...and if we are hyping up Mike Dallas we REALLY need to hype up Gabe.

So yeah overhyping Matthyse over Lemieux...I mena I don't get that one...and not that it matter since we are just giving credit here for official Ws and Ls...but GGG wrecked Lemieux and dominated him adn didn't lose a round...while Danny had a 7-5 type fight with Matthyse...who again had already lost 2 such type fights in recent years.

Lol dude you insisting that DSG has a better resume than GGG...I mean the facts just don't back that up at all...but if you want to swear by it, go ahead my man...and yeah GGG's rank on boxrec, again it reflects resume...that is a rating of all a guy's wins...so if you want to ignore critical info like that, go ahead...I mean you've been basically doing it the whole convo so nothing is new lol.

And yeah Danny has like max 10 guys on his resume win list who you could really hype up AT ALL...in no way does Danny's top quality wins really match up with GGG's nor does his overall total win list number match up with GGG's...it's just the way it is man, I don't really give two sh.its about any fighter tbh.

I like GGG's style in the ring and he seems like a pretty good dude...but honestly a lot of the responses I have like this are because a lot of the criticism of him, like yours here, is so in left field (no offense), that when I read it my head turns sideways and I say, wut...lol.

There is valid stuff to critique any fighter for...but again you swearing that DSG has a better resume right now than GGG...I mean it just makes 0 sense man...but if you want to believe that go ahead, fine by me.

[Marchegiano]

So do you slight a great fighter when he loses to those no names? Or how does that work for you? Because if you don't give credit for beating guys like that, then by that logic you should kill those guys for having losses to guys like that.

Also...if we are now saying that performances in losses/fights counts in a resume, well that's exactly what I was meaning by posting that definition of resume...so not sure why you are apologizing to me...maybe you got me mixed up with someone else.

But yeah in any event, a resume should take into account how you perform in fights...and not just what the official W/L says...and you seem to agree with that.

So a resume by that logic will be somewhat subjective based on how you feel a fighter or fighters did in certain fights...and even just going on official wins, well yeah I think most resumes end up being pretty close to accurate, as far as bringing in the subjective 'how you did in certain fights' angle.

For example...Vitali has a good resume anyway even without that fight vs Lennox...when you have the opportunity to prove yourself another 30 times, we usually end up with a clear picture of who are the best fighters etc.

Resume is meant to be a bit of propaganda really. A one sided tail of positive showings.

Normally a list of defeats, or perhaps we could call it a counter-resume, is produced by one balking at a resume.

A full list of wins-losses-draws is a record.

I hold men to their defeats, yes. I'm not actually quite big on resume arguments. It's really a lot of triangle theory only more convoluted because it compares more characters. So, I hardly ever talk about wins or losses so much as performances. I'd speak to good wins as a vehicles to speak to a good performances but not hardly ever simply list names as if it's proof of anything but names.

When I do, do the list thing I prefer titles actually. For example instead of simply listing Harry Kid Matthews under Rocky's resume I'd list him as the western prospect with a 55+ wins streak until the night the met Rock.


To the bold, I wholeheartedly agree. A a long and strong winning record against top competition regardless of name recognition ought to be the measuring device across the board for fans. See the problem fellas like us have with that philosophy is it's almost unshared by anyone under 50. The kids are used to star fighters and star vs star being more meaningful than star vs top class.

Bud went undisputed, but no one really followed or knew Julius so they don't really care. They want Bud vs Spence or some other star. That fight alone, even if for less than undisputed, would be seen as more meaningful and resume worthy than the undisputed accolade or any of the fights with champions who did not have star power.

[Boxing_1013]

Resume is meant to be a bit of propaganda really. A one sided tail of positive showings.

Normally a list of defeats, or perhaps we could call it a counter-resume, is produced by one balking at a resume.

A full list of wins-losses-draws is a record.

I hold men to their defeats, yes. I'm not actually quite big on resume arguments. It's really a lot of triangle theory only more convoluted because it compares more characters. So, I hardly ever talk about wins or losses so much as performances. I'd speak to good wins as a vehicles to speak to a good performances but not hardly ever simply list names as if it's proof of anything but names.

When I do, do the list thing I prefer titles actually. For example instead of simply listing Harry Kid Matthews under Rocky's resume I'd list him as the western prospect with a 55+ wins streak until the night the met Rock.


To the bold, I wholeheartedly agree. A a long and strong winning record against top competition regardless of name recognition ought to be the measuring device across the board for fans. See the problem fellas like us have with that philosophy is it's almost unshared by anyone under 50. The kids are used to star fighters and star vs star being more meaningful than star vs top class.

Bud went undisputed, but no one really followed or knew Julius so they don't really care. They want Bud vs Spence or some other star. That fight alone, even if for less than undisputed, would be seen as more meaningful and resume worthy than the undisputed accolade or any of the fights with champions who did not have star power.

Thanks good post man...I guess in my research, it seems like even the best of the best, all-time, generally only have a few fights, maybe 5 max, against other star quality opponents.

Almost all resumes are built on how well you do vs the quality fighters you face as well...yeah I just don't get the overhyping of some resumes on here, and the slighting of others...like I like to take an unbiased look into all of that stuff...and yeah a lot of it just makes no sense lol...but you can point stuff like that out and people will still double and triple down...I guess online it is easier to do that.

[Boxing_1013]

there was a thread exposing Boxing1013 for his lack of understanding about levels

he thinks that Lemieux/Murray... are the same level as Canelo/Jacobs...



and he thinks that that Andre Ward is no better than Bika Barrera and Miranda...



in that thread, the dumb kid had Vanes listed as a 'good' win for Golovkin... and Mosley listed as 'ok' for Canelo

everyone knows you only count genuine world-class opponents when discussing greatness... why would you need to mention anyone who is not world-class when discussing genuine greatness lol

e.g. I would not even mention Lemieux, as he is distinctly B-grade... but unlike others, I would include Murray... he may not be a genuine world-class fighter, but he was VERY good imo and there were world-class aspects to his game

Golovkin has (in order of appearance)...
Murray (W)
Jacobs (W*)
Canelo x2 (D/L)
Derevyanchenko (W*)

for a record of 3-1-1

the best guy Golovkin beat with a clean win... is not even a genuine world-class fighter

Canelo has (in order of appearance)...
Mosley (W)
Trout (W)
Mayweather (L)
Lara (W)
Cotto (W)
Golovkin x2 (W)
Jacobs (W)
Kovalev (W)

for a record of 7-1-1

here is the bottom line...

Golovkin's best win is scraping past Jacobs, who was a HUGE underdog... lets not forget, Golovkin was like a 10/1 favorite

Canelo has better wins over much better opponents... Kovalev, Cotto, Lara, Mosley, Trout, Golovkin

Canelo's resume is FAR better... it is not even close, let alone debatable

this is a typical silly debate, with a silly casual-fan..

the threads that he creates are typical casual-fan nonsense

but he exposes himself in most of them lol

You're just a blatant racist man...I care not for your opinion on anything...you are incapable of keeping it real on fighters, for example, since you are so consumed by race hatred...have a great day buddy!

[sicko]

Pacquiao #1 of course

Followed closely by Canelo of course

then after that it is some guys with good and even underrated Resumes (Win Or Lose) who I think fans kinda brush off a bit too much

A very UNDERRATE Resume and somebody still being left out of P4P Talk is Juan Francisco Estrada (Roman Gonzalez, Sor Rungvisai twice, Carlos Cuadras, Brian Viloria) that is a very solid resume and Estrada still only 29. Why no talks of potentially Estrada vs Inoue? That would be a damn good fight IMO! That could be a Mini Version of Pacquiao vs JMM all over again I'm SHOCKED this is not being throw around honestly. Their Division is only separated by 3 lbs

Speaking of Inoue...last 4 Fights vs Donaire, Manny Rodriguez, Juan Paynos and Jamie McDonnell is very strong...VERY STRONG!

Thurman, Garcia and Porter are constantly disrespected by these SH#T Boxing Fans but all have very STRONG Resumes regardless if they lose some. All have better Resumes than Spence Jr and Crawford lets be honest

Jessie Vargas been in with Pacquiao and Bradley, also fought Broner and a few other NAMES

Austin Trout is another who been in with them ALL at 154 including Prime Canelo and Lara