Highest ranked fighters with least impressive wins on their resume?

I dont know how highly you lot rate Mayweather but he has a really weak resume

 

I agree very much with that last sentence. Two easy wins over undefeated versions of Toney and Hopkins aren't small accomplishements, regardless of the pletoria of excuses their fans will come up with.

Like you say, Jones probably is better than his resume suggests, but i disagree with anyone saying Jones' wins are lacking.

I thought McCallum won quite a few early rounds. He was pretty competitive, anyway. Still, a good win for Jones.

I disagree. Hernandez, Corley, Corrales, Castillo, N'dou, Hatton, De La Hoya and Judah is a quite a good list of names.

Foster is often ranked higher at LHW than Mayweather is at any weight, but do you think Foster can produce a list of names that compete with that one?

 

Don Curry

 

Willie Pep when taking into account he fought over 200 times.

 

Bernard Hopkins and Joe calzaghe.

Trinidad if you feel DLH was robbed as well.

 

George Dixon one of the greatest but not many big names in his resume although I've read a lot decisions should have gone his way.

 

Robinson belongs nowhere near this thread, no matter what spin you attempt to put on your post. I suppose Marcel Cerdan maybe, but some dont rate him too high actually. He had what, past prime Zale and was it a past prime Williams also (not sure), i think fairly highly of Cerdan though.

 

Shame on you!!

If you get into the detail of Dixons resume you will see one of the best records of all time.

It is probable that he had 33 title defences!

 

there wasnt enough greats for Pep to beat going around at his time there was only about 5 great fighters near his weight of course anyone who fought over 200 times would struggle to have as much ranked opponents on comparison to someone who fought 50 times

 

Thats what I mean. His resume overall impresses people on how many times he fought combined with excellent wins of course. But if Pep only fought 50 times, would you rate him much lower if he still had his 5 best wins only within 50 fights? I don't think Pep would have adjusted well to fighting only 2 or three times a year like todays fighters. Just like todays fighters wouldn't have done too well fighting 4 or 5 times a month in some cases. And taking into considering Pep's style, wizardry defense, superb boxing skills, etc, I think how often he fought was a huge benefit to how well he performed. Whitaker takes flak as an all-time great because he only had around 40 fights. Can you imagine him keeping his engine oiled with non-title bouts against relatively easy opponents mostly everytime he stepped into the ring.

 

good post Robbi agree completely but he beat alot of class guys as well as some patsys so i think you are being abit harsh saying here is no real substance to it

 

I never said he never beat any class guys. How would you rate a fighter who had lets say 25 fights, yet his wins are among the absolute best in history. Lets say he's a one off fighter in the history of boxing and 10 of those wins are against incredible opponents. We'll throw in a couple of defeats, so thats 23-2. Mind his top wins are up there with Leonard, Charles, Robinson, etc. Mind, I'm over-exaggerating this for obvious reasons. Can we really knock this fighter for only having 25 fights? Personally speaking, I'd have him in my top 5 of all-time. Mind thats 10 top wins, double Leonard's.

 

Prince Naseem Hamed

 

Aside from his very close losses to Harada, he holds wins over Vicente Saldivar, Jose Medel, Jose Legra, Octavio Gomez, Bernardo Caraballo, Godfrey Stevens, Frankie Crawford, etc.

 

I think tho Don's more rated high H2H possibilities than anything. Nobodies rating him in the top 10 Welters or possibly even top 15. Solid wins over the excellent Starling and decent McCrory and Jones take him to fine level while obviously not being absolute top shelf. He lost his fangs when he was supposed to strike and with it the chance of real greatness.