Classic Forum! Let us decide on the Best 10 Resumes in History!

look lads we have to find the 10 best where not going to get it plucking names up from nowhere heres the shortlist so far. i think we should work on narrowing down the shortlist

HARRY GREB
- SAM LANGFORD
- ARCHIE MOORE
- EZZARD CHARLES
SUGAR RAY ROBINSON
- MUHAMMAD ALI
- CHARLEY BURLEY
- JOE GANS
Duran
Fritzie Zivic
Homan Williams
Kid Gavilan
Emile Griffith
Srl
Jimmy McLarnin
Tony Canzoneri
Barney Ross
Sammy Angott
Lou Ambers
Fritzie Zivic
Benny Leonard
Holman Williams
Lloyd Marshall
Tony Canzoneri
Dick Tiger
Eder Jofre
Manny Pacquiao
BILLY CONN
Willie Pep
Carlos Monzon
Harold Johnson
Gene Tunney
Tommy Loughran
Michael Spinks
Carlos Ortiz
Ike Williams
Emile Griffith
Kid Gavilan
Fred Apostoli
Battling Battalino
Kid Berg
De la hoya
Roy jones
Julio cesar chavez
henry armstrong

 

A resume is a list of quality opponents (preferably wins). That's how I figure.

 

His resume takes a big dump all over Pacquiao's, that's for damn sure. And the fact that you don't have the faintest clue who half the fighters on his resume are due to your lack of knowledge concerning anything boxing related doesn't mean his resume isn't one of the very best. It is. He beat Laguna in both rematches BTW you dumb ****, a better fighter than the Morales that Pacquiao beat in two rematches after being tooled in the first.

 

Holman Williams and Lloyd Marshall should be right along side Burley. Griffith has one of the best resumes as does Barbados Demon Joe Walcott and Mickey Walker. Wills, Canzoneri, Ross, Benny Leonard and Argeullo have quality resume's as well.

 

Well, Duran has plenty of them I reckon. As for late career losses; greats as Charles, Robinson etc have plenty such as well. At weight classes closer to their natural one.

 

Baby Arizmendi and Chalky Wright could both warrant consideration, too.

 

Chavez has a lot of wins for a modern fighter, but most of them are against awful opposition.
His Resume isn't great by any stretch of the imagination.

 

i know he didnt fght alot of good fighters but it is some feat

 

Wrong. The meaning of 'resume', if used correctly, is basically a detailed account of someone's work history. We call them CV's (cirriculum vitae) here in the UK.

If a boxer's resume is to be described correctly, it goes wider than just opposition, regardless of defeats or wins. Titles in different weights would be on a boxers C.V as well. Trainers, countries fought in, experience, and other related skills and achievements. Certificates are always mentioned on peoples CV's, which would be a fair comparison with a boxer winning titles.

If someone wants to mention how good a certain boxer's resume is, they'd be well entitled to mention the length of title reign or amount of titles won.

 

resume = ATG

 

resume is basically the career of a boxer. it is highlighted by the titles held, significance of his fights..Pac is favored to be a six time division champ..and he is still 30 years old...

resume=ATG

 

Why are you bringing up Duran's late career losses? You act like I mentioned them as some kind of black eye. I don't even take them into account. Any way you slice it, Duran's list of opposition beaten is literally second tier in comparison to that of a Jimmy McLarnin (whose resume is absolutely stacked from top to bottom with great fighters). That's not to say that Duran was an inferior fighter though, not by a long shot.

 

A boxer's resume is more or less a list of his opposition. Paper titles and accomplishments can be taken into account as well if taken in the right context, which is where Pacquiao gets very overrated in particular.

 

Ok, I just inferred it, because the only weakness I can see in Duran's resume is his losing record against the best he met (Leonard, Hagler, Hearns). Otherwise, it's just about as solid as they come.

Know just about nothing about McLarnin. Could you give me a rundown of his career?

 

That, and more.