Takam vs Chisora resume, who's is better

I've not noticed Chisora being made out to be a bum, that's pretty stupid if that does happen. Takam is still better, but there is something wrong with this world where people saying "This REALLY good fighter is better than xxx" is interpreted as calling someone a bum.

There can only be ONE best fighter, and one second best, and so on. The joy of boxing is when you have a second best fighter and they have five fights with the best fighter - they MAY win 2 of them. You just don't know which of those 5 fights is the one which ACTUALLY happens on any given day.

 

It's so transparent...... atsch These Brit****s are so insecure.

 

To answer the OP.... Chisora has the better resume on paper, but Takam has more ability.

 

I say Takam would beat Chisora. Takam's only significant loss (not counting his loss from 2009) is Alexander Povetkin, the legit #3 current heavyweight.

 

:deal

Takam is a more educated version of Chisora....I think right now he beats any version of Delboy.

 

Chisora is not beating Pulev, but if he did, then yeah, of course, he'd have a better resume than Takam. I agree with what one poster said. On paper, Chisora has a better resume, but H2H, I think it's Takam all the way.

 

And this isn't propaganda on your behalf?

Fact is the OP is correct. G-Sora does have a better resume than Takam.

 

Takam is a better win than Chisora, though. Holds more status as Takam is still arguably in the top 10, but Chisora isn't.

 

Quite possibly. But that's not the question the OP asked.

And also as things stand Pulev has a better resume than Parker who G-Sora is fighting